that Oregon, ("The Bozo State"), wants to put a GPS chip in every car to track your mileage, so you can pay a mileage tax. He links to
, with much, much more, e.g.: "The state of Oregon is finding ways to anally penetrate its motorists for more cash..."
If there was ever a measure capable of causing a rebellion all across the political spectrum, this is it.
(It's already the law in New Zealand, according to a friend of mine who owns a farm there. He has to write down his mileage and pay an extra tax because he owns a gas-guzzling, forest-leveling V-6 Toyota truck. No chips for them, just a mileage log.)
This is stupid on at least two enormous levels, and probably some smaller ones I haven't considered yet. But to start, see the extended entry:
I. A mileage tax is a perverse incentive against buying a fuel-efficient car. The LA Times article I mentioned above described how, when there were tax breaks for hybrids and the price of gas went through the roof, all us wacky Californians (but me) went out and got new Priuses (Prii?) and low-mileage cars. The environment is happier, I guess, but the state's not because they suddenly take a huge wallop in state gasoline tax revenues. So this is a retaliation against hybrid drivers. SUCKERS! Partisan pundit (linked above) says they might work out an enormous byzantine codification of which cars pay how much extra tax, based on their efficiency, to offset this effect. But it seems there are distortions inherent there as well.
II. The other elephant in the room is PRIVACY. I'm no libertarian but I certainly do not want a chip in my car. It is none of Big Brother's damned business where I drive my car in this free country of ours. If I have a tracking device on my car, someone had damn well better have a search warrant for it.
If Oregon and California think they're going to pass this satellite-monitored mileage tax without a fight, they're out of their collective gourds.
1
It certainly is an unnecessary intrusion into an individual's privacy. An easy way to maintain the privacy while instituting the tax would simply have an individual record the mileage between registration/annual inspections (depending on the state, period of taxation), and simply pay tax based on the mileage used.
However, as you note, the purpose of the new tax would be to tax those individuals who have already chosen to seek out more efficient cars for their driving. There shouldn't be a need to offset the taxes lost because the state benefits in other intangible ways. Oh wait, intangibles aren't revenues that can add to a state's bloated budgeting.
We already see a distortion in taxes because of federal and state tax incentives for high efficiency cars. This move would put the brakes on new cars that meet efficiency goals for those programs.
In other words, a new mess.
Posted by: lawhawk at May 22, 2005 05:55 PM (gySx5)
2
loserweek descrates American flag take picture of flag in trash can says Amerika is dead
http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/05/newsweek-america-is-dead.html
Posted by: Zebrab5 at May 22, 2005 06:03 PM (DoxEP)
3
Lahawk--one of the reasons the mileage log works in NZ but not in the USA is that you can't tax somoene for driving in another state. If I leave California and head over into Nevada for a thousand miles of tooling around, I shouldn't have to pay California for that. I'm not using their roads.
Hence, goes the specious argument, the need for the GPS to determine where people are racking up the miles.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 22, 2005 06:04 PM (JLuap)
4
Please put a GPS chip in my car so you can charge me a mileage tax. You know how easy it is to scramble a GPS signal?
Posted by: Chris Short at May 22, 2005 08:44 PM (nVdWB)
5
I was thinking free health care would be the trigger for the American Revolution, part II, but yes, this makes more sense. Without mass personal transportation our economy would die and I think that's just what the leftards want. Only think is, we needn't really worry, since the leftards have been wrong about everything so far, and they screw up everything they do. They are like Bond Villains, bent on world domination and employing every dirty trick in the book, until Bond, James Bond, 007, licensed to kill, kicks their butt and shags the babe, and has a shaken Martini while he's at it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2005 12:09 AM (0yYS2)
6
And besides screwing the hybrid owners who are not paying "their fair share" of the gas tax by getting better milege, it hurts the poor working schlubs that have to live 1-2 hours commute time away from their work because the CA real estate market is completely insane.
Posted by: Darleen at May 23, 2005 12:33 AM (FgfaV)
7
By allowing the government to track our every movement we are losing our right to live a life free of over zealous government intrusion.
Couple this to a National ID to be used in a cashless economy and the government not only knows where we are every second of the day, but everyting we purchase too.
Too much big brother.
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 09:42 AM (/+dAV)
8
Darlene! You don't understand! You're not supposed to live two hours from your job. You fail to understand that you are wrong, wrong, wrong for wanting a HOUSE, with a YARD, that your KIDS might actually want to play in without being accosted by drug dealers and vagrants. The Leftoids have decreed that you will live in a 700 square foot cracker box next to a train station, in a "transit village". Don't you just love California?
Posted by: Scott in CA at May 23, 2005 09:59 AM (weiWF)
9
All that's will be left is to start the Oregon chapter of the Junior Anit Sex League. Anyone up for a new GPS video phone/television with new IP phone 911 technology bolted to your floor at no extra charge?? Bonus implantable cell phone with the same cool features Free after rebate if you act now.
Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2005 10:01 AM (D3+20)
10
Damn greg, stop it. That's twice I've had to agree with you.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2005 10:17 AM (0yYS2)
11
Actually, I am in Oregon. I guess that makes me a bozo, but at least I'm not
3 months behind blogging this.
I think it's a great idea in concept, but the application leaves something to be desired. The converstaion I had in the comments on my blog did give me reason to be less supportive of this than I was initially.
With regards to privacy issues with the GPS, I see the point, and wish there was a way around it. If there was, I'd be behind thisd 100%. Until then, it should remain just a theory.
With regards to the effect on the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles, you can't cry "Big Brother" about the mileage tracking and then come across as advocating the use of taxes to encourage people to buy fuel efficient cars. The fact is, you with the current gas tax, people who drive more efficient cars are receiving the same amount of service (the roads) as those with less efficient cars, but not paying as much. From my standpoint, that seems more intrusive than charging people for exactly what they get, no more, no less. Let market forces dictate how efficient the car you buy is, not tax rates.
Posted by: Brian B at May 23, 2005 10:24 AM (CouWh)
12
Forget the BS arguement as to the touchy-feely of the GPS issue! This is not different than a way for the government to track its citizen's and make sure they are being good comrades! I wish the big one would hit and just get that segment of the nation off our backs. If they are so mentally retarded as to not being able to weigh the the value of spending state money on the illegal immigrant population so that they get whats due to them from the state "because they have rights!", and state infrastructure for the legal population; I dont feel a bit sorry for them. As for the entertainment Cali causes us Texans, well I leave it at that. I would love to see (and pay money to get front line seets to watch) the first cop/city employee to pull over a 350 duely on a farm road and say "I am going to check your milage to see if you have driven too far".
Posted by: Salamander at May 23, 2005 10:44 AM (D4mP3)
13
Shiiiiiit. Good thing I walk/bike everywhere. Then again, if you do some research on how many video cams are on 24/7 in NYC, you'll see you can't go out without being monitored. Pretty soon this country will have as many bikes as China and only Hallibacon buddies will have cars to drive.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 23, 2005 10:51 AM (E2ydb)
14
Oyster,
I can understand your concerns, and honestly, that's the only reason I'm not 100% behind the idea.
But I also have a problem with people who will in one breath argue against htis idea because it's Big Brother being too intrusive, and then turn around and argue against it because it "doesn't provide enough incentive to buy fuel efficient cars". That's arguing against it because it's too intrusive but not intrusive enough. Pick one reason or the other, but if anyone tries to pick both, they're being intellectually inconsistent.
Let's set aside for a moment any discussion of the use of the GPS chips and privacy issues, and think for just a moment about roads and how to fund their construction and maintenance. While I prefer small government, there are some essential services that must be provided -- at local and state levels as well as federally. How should we do that? Don't tell me that gasoline taxes are the best answer. Let's take Salamander's Dually-driving farmer. You may be shocked to learn we have plenty of those here in Oregon. So how about you try this: Go up to him and tell him that because you drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle, you pay the government less for the same amount of driving distance on those public roads than he does. Think that'll make him happy?
The other problem here in Oregon is that we have one of the highest average MPG's per capita of any state in the Union, and it's rising. That means that the state is forecasting DECREASES in the amount of gas tax revenues expected in the next decade.
So if the Gas tax doesn't work, and this mileage tax doesn't (for whatever reason), I'm willing to entertain suggestions as to alternatives.
Posted by: Brian B at May 23, 2005 12:51 PM (CouWh)
15
Every state needs to follows Texas example and let the Government
meet as little as possible. Force them to have so much work built up
that when sessions opens, all they have time for is the necessary items, and no time for "ahh that is a great idea" times. I just wish
we could cut the Texas sessions from 1 every 2 years to 1 every 4.
Posted by: Butch at May 23, 2005 12:55 PM (Gqhi9)
16
I suggest checkpoints every 20 miles or so. Ding everyone for 20 miles even if they are only going 5. Then you could also ask about what business they are attending too. Where they have been and where they are going. Also fine people for avoiding said checkpoints. Just think of the revenue. Too bad it will be all used up hiring relatives of politicians to man the checkpoints. Prison guards will line up by the dozen.
Sarcasm off:
Seriously how is the gas tax flawed?? Fuel efficient cars normally weigh less. Wear on the roads is a function of weight as well as miles traveled. It would be interesting to see how trucking companies are resonding to said idea as they pay most of the taxes as they stand now. 44,000 lbs vs 2000lbs. Not that I think they should pay more than they do now but is this some kind of hidden break to them at the expense of oridanry drivers.
Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2005 02:00 PM (D3+20)
17
It might also be more interesting if I learned to type.
Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2005 02:03 PM (D3+20)
18
Seriously how is the gas tax flawed??
Gas Tax revenues are going down in Oregon as MPG ratings on the average car in the state go up. They're predicting that within a short period of time, the state will spend more on roads than it takes in in gas taxes. I am aware that this may be incorrect, but assuming for a moment that this prediction comes true, that will mean a new source of revenue will be necessary. So when that time comes, how should they raise those rtevenues? Higher gas taxes? A sales tax? Higher property taxes? higher Income taxes? It's gonna have to come from somewhere. I'm no fan of tax-and-spend, but some things are necessities. Sarcasm is all clever and amusing, but I still haven't heard anyone have a better idea.
Wear on the roads is a function of weight as well as miles traveled.
I'd be interested to see just what the ration is -- for every X pounds lighter that a vehicle is, the number of addittional miles it can travel before it causes the same amount of wear on the roads.
Posted by: Brian B at May 23, 2005 03:05 PM (CouWh)
19
Brian, I can't speak for Oregon to well, but as a Californian facing the same prospect---maybe the government should shrink.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 23, 2005 03:55 PM (OKZme)
20
"Gee, if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I am the dictator." -- G W Bush
Posted by: greg at May 23, 2005 04:20 PM (/+dAV)
21
If I leave California and head over into Nevada for a thousand miles of tooling around, I shouldn't have to pay California for that. I'm not using their roads.
Hence, goes the specious argument, the need for the GPS to determine where people are racking up the miles.
I've also seen talk here in CA about charging extra taxes for driving in extra congested areas. No references; sorry.
But if the GPS unit is smart enough to do things like know you're in CA or know if you're driving in extra congested areas, it's also smart enough to be able to track things like speed limits on the major interstates and automatically issue speeding tickets. This could be a larger revenue source for the state than a mileage tax and once the GPS units are mandated the infrastructure is in place to do it.
Posted by: Anachronda at May 23, 2005 04:40 PM (IrbU4)
22
See-Dubya,
That's a good point, and obviously trimmer government is always desireable. But no matter how tight the belt, there has to be SOME income in order to fund roads. I'm just waiting for someone who opposes this particular idea to propose a method of raising the funds that's not equally or more arbitrary.
Posted by: Brian B at May 23, 2005 05:03 PM (CouWh)
23
There
are a few idiots in the Willamette valley who would attempt to pass something like this, but note that Oregon is one of the few states left without a sales tax. A number of years ago a popular mayor of Salem, OR attempted to pass and ordinance that would have taxed people for their roof area, dubbed by opponents a "rain tax" because the excuse was that the runoff from the roof created a proportionate burden on water treatment.
A rain tax? In Oregon? The tax was roundly defeated, and that politician never was able to run for another office in the state.
I have my doubts that they'll actually pass this tax. For more likely it's some sort of legislative ploy to dramatize the need for tax revenue in a state that regularly defeats levies. After all, we're talking here about a state that invented the bumber sticker: "Don't Californicate Oregon."
Posted by: Demosophist at May 24, 2005 05:18 AM (d0CtA)
24
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. “
– James Madison
Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 08:44 AM (/+dAV)
25
Demosophist's comments make more sense and reveal a better understanding of my home state than anyone else I've read on this topic. I'd still like to hear better suggestions for how we should pay for roads here.
Posted by: Brian B at May 24, 2005 12:14 PM (CouWh)
Posted by: W.C. Varones at June 05, 2005 04:12 PM (1Yf68)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
