Oregon officials propose per-mile tax for gas sippers
SALEM, Ore. (AP) - Oregon state officials are proposing an alternative tax for drivers who have bought efficient or electric vehicles that seldom or never stop at the gasoline pump, where government has traditionally collected money to build and fix roads.
But the auto-making industry calls the idea of mileage taxes another roadblock for its efficient vehicles, the Salem Statesman Journal reports.
In its upcoming session, the Oregon Legislature is expected to consider a bill to require drivers with a vehicle getting at least 55 miles per gallon of gasoline or its equivalent to pay a per-mile tax after 2015.
Because it raises taxes, such legislation would need approval by three-fifths votes in both the House and Senate.
The tax would be based on mileage reports that could be made in a variety of ways, such as via smartphone app or global positioning system technology. Drivers could also just pay a flat annual fee.
Lawmakers would have to decide on the rates. The proposed bill leaves that part blank.
Oregon transportation officials have been working for more than a decade to figure out how to pay for roads as cars get extra efficient with gasoline, or use batteries. Those developments upset the usual taxation scheme of charging taxes by the gallon at the gasoline pump, an approximate way of charging more for greater use of the roads.
"Everybody uses the road, and if some pay and some don't, then that's an unfair situation that's got to be resolved," said Jim Whitty of the Department of Transportation.
Other states, including Washington, have looked at per-mile charges. A Washington law that would charge electric car owners an annual fee goes into effect in February.
Opponents of the Oregon proposal say it will hurt a new industry.
"It will be one more obstacle that the industry and auto dealers will face in convincing consumers to buy these new cars," said Paul Cosgrove, a lobbyist for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Oregon set up a task force in 2001 and did a pilot study in 2006, which raised privacy concerns — the government could track cars as they use private roads or leave the state. Whitty said the options drivers would have in the new proposal address those concerns.
A second pilot project has involved about 50 participants, mostly state transportation officials and lawmakers. They pay 1.56 cents per mile and get a credit for any gasoline tax they paid at the pump.
Oregon Transportation Commissioner Mary Olson tracked whether she would be charged for miles on private roads by comparing results from her odometer and the GPS-based mileage reporting device.
"It was scary accurate," she said. "I was very pleased."
The per-mile charge wouldn't apply to mileage on private or out-of-state roads.
A similar bill that applied to electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids didn't make it to the House floor in 2011.
The new bill resolves uncertainties about the per-mile charge, said Rep. Vicki Berger of Salem, top Republican on the House Revenue Committee and a member of the Road User Fee Task Force,
"There's a basic unfairness around that tax, and everyone is looking for the magic way to at least get the ball rolling on a different way of doing this, one that reconnects mileage with taxes paid," Berger said.
___
Information from: Statesman Journal.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
Ha ha ha! Wait a minute, I thought Liberals WANTED people to use gas-sipping cars? Well apparently not - if there's one thing liberals can't STAND it's LESS tax revenue ha ha. So what they're saying is that it's the GAS GUZZLERS that are doing the right thing by paying their "fair share" ha ha ha. Love it!
Also, those little fuel efficient cars pose about as much damage to the highway as a rolling tin can. I smell politicians needing more money to pad their 6 digit incomes and fancy houses. Every man needs 4 houses in different countries.
GPS it all the way you dummies! Jammer market needs a boost. Yeah, I only drove 30 miles this month. Here is my paperwork.
Â
This is why the blue-line 70 MPG VW engines (120-130HP) are not allowed in the US market.
"The tax would be based on mileage reports that could be made in a variety of ways, such as via smartphone app or global positioning system technology."
Alternatively, citizens could suggest that the gov't go suck an egg.
damn it near now they going to tax us air tax to breath, this mile tax was coming regardless.
This makes no sense as the largest amount of funding for roads comes out of the general fund and only a portion from gas taxes (and not all of gas taxes usually go into roads anyway). Since there are taxes being paid for the purchase of the car, for the electricity to charge battery powered vehicles, maintenance and replacement of batteries in hybrids and full electric cars, etc. it's all a wash. There are actually studies that show the average person who rides a bicycle to commute actually pays a larger share of road fees than the average driver because of the use of the general tax funds to pay for roads - and the average miles of roads used for commuting when comparing bikes to cars. As for the gas pump taxes - those costs are simply being shifted from collection at the gas pump. This dis-incentive could likely be handled in much more logical ways that don't remove the desire to be easier on the environment.
GPS will never work. I could see the GPS jammer business really taking off, as drivers use GPS jammers to avoid the taxes.
No good deed goes unpunished. Oh, you thought you'd be appreciated for helping protect the environment? Silly you.
"There's a basic unfairness around that tax..."
People looking for fairness from those cretins who make a daily practice of stealing from you, are pretty naive. It's not about fairness at all. It's about plunder, and more of it - as it always is.
Yeah, and let us tax bikes.  All bikes.  Because bikers use the roads and they don't pay gas taxes.  The more people ride bikes instead of cars, the worse off we will all be as the roads are reduced to goat paths.  And, how could I forget, telecommuting needs to be taxed.  People who work one day at home are "privileged" and they don't use the roads that the less fortunate retail workers, and nurses and teachers need to use.  These poor workers need to pay the gas tax, and well, the telecommuter should have to pay a I-don't-need-to-drive-neener-neener tax.  To make it all fair and square.  And stay at home moms need to be taxed because they don't drive to daycare.  In fact, they should be taxed on the daycare they provide at home for their own children.  Gotta tax stay at home moms.  And, ugh,  cooking at home tax.  When you eat out,  you pay a restaurant tax and if you eat at home you don't.  So saving money by cooking at home is just decimating the tax take, we need to tax eating at home to make up for the lost tax not collected by not eating at restaurants.  There are soo  so so many taxes we need to implement.  Good on Oregon for really wrestling with this difficult issue.Â
 @gardenergardener Dude.. I love you. I just spent about 5 minutes laughing my ass off. Cldnt have said it better myself : )
Who would buy a vehicle that provided more than 54 mpgs with such a tax?  The additional savings in gas would be destroyed by the mileage tax.  The state of Oregon should be aligned with the country, we as a whole should have a goal of reducing our oil use if only for geopolitical reasons, never mind the benefits the local environment reaps when vehicle fumes are removed from the road. Â
 @SteveAR , you're an idiot. Yes, it's true that just increasing a simple state sales tax to improves roads is obviously the better and simpler option, but using that as a soapbox to spout your hate for a political party just shows what type of hole a troll like you came from.
Â
Now, the rest of us will get back on the actual topic and move along with the subject :)
You can tell Oregon is a blue state and went for Obama. Dumb, dumb, dumb. We here in good ol' red state Arkansas had a ballot initiative to increase the state sales tax to pay for roads in our state. Being extremely conservative, quite skeptical of government, and very smart, it shouldn't be a surprise how Arkansas voters voted. The measure passed. No worries about privacy concerns, potential GPS errors, or other such nonsense that Oregon seems to want to heap on its citizens. Like I said, we conservatives here in Arkansas are smart. Which makes sense since we didn't go for Obama.
 @SteveAR "Red state"
"increase the state sales tax"Â
Are you sure that's a "red" stand on government? ;)
 @SteveAR I'm sorry but I can't tell if you're joking or not.  Neither party is immune from bad legislation.  Proposed legislation is not the same as enacted legislation.  A politician proposes the law for there to be a debate on the merits and so others can offer amendments and revisions to improve the law if it is desirable on the whole.  Don't jump the gun on a hypothetical law.Â
The working class gets taxed...again...in mass droves....wasn't the whole point of obtaining more fuel efficient vehicles was to save gas and be a little more environment friendly? Sounds like a problem for the state, not its people.
Check out Walter Block's book, The Privatization of Roads and Highways. I have no doubt that we don't need government at all. Only private/voluntary organizations that cannot force us to do things against our will. Sure a road is a road. But we could then negotiate rates; there could actually be accountability. People who owned others roads would even be in competition to attract travelers. I have no doubt quality would improve and costs would go down. Imagine if you were not forced to pay for anything by government? You would choose what products and services you wanted and there would be greater competition to improve. How much would you save? How good would it feel to be a freer person? What possibilities could emerge with a massive reduction of institutionalized crime (which influences the behavior of the masses)?
 @aurelius27 Government exists to protect various minorities from the tyranny of the majority (as Madison called it). There are plenty of instances where something is worthwhile even if unprofitable (for instance: roads critical to agricultural areas, not used by many travelers / education and facilities for developmentally disabled children). The free market is not the cure-all many lay it out to be. It promotes cost efficiency and profit - but that's not always the #1 goal.
Law is the collective organization of the individual right to defense. "Government", or more accurately the State, is a territorial monopolist on law funded via theft (taxation). The state legalizes criminal actions of the agents of this organization. It doesn't exist to protect minorities and if it does, then it does a terrible, terrible job of it. Minorities constantly suffer persecution at the hands of those who gain access to this monopoly on the use of "legitimate" violence in society."The market" is simply the sphere of voluntary human interaction, and is the only rational way to redistribute resources to meet supply with demand. There is no such thing as a "cure all" at all. Lobbying for an organization to use [it's monopoly on] violence to meet your demands is hardly any different from mugging your neighbors at gunpoint, threatening them with kidnapping or death if they won't fund whatever it is that you desire to have funded. This causes the distortion of a spontaneously organizing wealth producing society and causes significant and systemic problems. It's hardly a "cure" for anything, much less the things you find wrong with the world. The initiation of violence is not a means to cure problems you feel have come up through voluntary spontaneous organization through the market. The initiation of violence is a problem itself. The only proper use of violence is in defense against aggression.
It is a shame that beautiful states have to be marred by government.
I say let all governments wither away and die with our tactful and peaceful disobedience. Do this, in large part, by taking all control of your children's education. Make them loving, thoughtful and curious people, who do not accept any violence here or overseas, unless it is in self-defense. Taxation and war go hand-in-hand (obviously not at the state level; but you can see my point).
Is this a joke. How about a tax on giant cars for killing people they hit and kill where a lower mass car would not. People who burn less gas are heroes ours roads should not be an arms race.
Â
I'm confused.. how can they say roads are paid for by gasoline taxes and then argue that we need income tax because that's what pays for roads? Â Isn't that the main reasons supporters of income tax cite is that you like your roads don't you? Â I think we're getting the wool pulled over our eyes.Â
Â
Why don't we figure out how much roads actually cost and then distribute those costs appropriately. Â We should all pay our semi fee through the price of product on store shelves. Â So, figure out how much it costs each average consumer car with average miles per year. Â Let's say its $200/year. Â Let's just have that as a line item on our state taxes deducted each paycheck and eliminate gasoline tax altogether. Â Let's make everything more transparent. Â If someone takes public transportation(i.e. bus, have those fees built into bus tickets). Â
Â
I'm all about paying my fair share. Â But obfuscating what's taken makes me feel like I'm paying WAY more than my fair share. Â I drive, I should pay for maintainence of the roads, comisserate with average usage. Â However, if funds are diverted, don't come back to me asking for more money when the funds are diverted from its original purposes. Â That's like giving a drug addict money for food, but when they come back saying they are out of food, you keep giving them more money.
Â
Lastly, what about all these toll roads? Â I learned last night that the PA turnpike diverts funds from the turnpike to other maintainece projects around the state and now they want to increase the tolls. Â So, I pay my fair share with gas tax, then I pay again with turn pike which is about $7 per 100 miles.
Â
moronsÂ
Â
this is so stupid I don't even know where to begin.Â
Â
how about spending the money the government already steals from us more wisely.Â
Fine. Charge them a mileage tax. As long as you charge regular low efficiency drivers a pollution tax and resource hogging from future generations tax.
The same people that voted in Obama are cheering on this new tax (Ignoring the GPS part.) under the idea that Oregon needs to make up the revenue in taxes to keep the roads in pristine shape.
As most of Oregon voted for Obama, I fully expect this to pass.
Â
I really think this is just an excuse to get more cash to fill the state coffers and data collection via GPS. If the condition of the roads were really the issue, trucking and logging trucks would have to pay more and be done with it.
Â
Frankly, I think the GPS data that will be abused by the police is more frightening.
 @Old Guy This makes zero sense at all. If you want to play off totally incorrect stereotypes, the tree-huggers who voted for Obama want to encourage people to drive nancy-boy hybrids.
Â
GPS tracking is the dumbest idea here. Â They simply need to raise the gas tax -- provide further incentive for people to consume less, however that happens.
This comment has been deleted
@PartyNeutral @Old Guy Relax guy. Maybe Old Guy didn't vote at all. You assume too much. Most people don't vote. Anyway, the points he brings up are legitimate.
 @PartyNeutral  @Old Guy Why is it that you 13 mindset kids jump on here and contribute nothing useful to any conversation in anyway and just say any garbage that you want? What is the point? Why chime in when you have no irrefutable proof that Obama isn't involved in anything? Is that true? Prove it then! Otherwise, let the grownups have their debates and you just need to simply pipe down until you actually know what the hell you're talking about...oh, and can back it up.
Ridiculous!Â
Perhaps if they used all the tax money they presently getting on the highways instead of all the many other programs they have added to it in recent years, it would be plenty to keep up and improve our road system. Do a search and look at all the programs your gas taxes fund.Â
Why do I get the feeling that Oil Company Lobbyists have something to do with this legislation?
@captain plan-it This shows us that all the hype from government to buy hybrids, recycle, or nearly anything else, has never been in our interests. It's in their interests. They are constantly looking to bleed the host, and at this point the parasite doesn't seem to care if it kills the host. All these measures everywhere are about parting you from your money and your independence. It is not about roads, or national security, or healthcare, or education. It is about making people as retarded, weak and debt-ridden as possible. Slaves.
Don't tax the people for making a good decision based on the environment, tax the people that are using over a certain amount of fuel per month or some other way. This is just flat out stupid!
See, this is the kind of thinking that is the problem. Taxes on things you believe in are "bad." Taxes on the things you don't like are "good." This is what governments love. Support from the people so they'll rape eachother. How about fighting to eliminate as many taxes as you can? Your paying for an overseas presence you can't afford, right? So why not make statements about that than some guy driving to work to feed his family. Believe me, if people could drive an affordable car that ran on water, they would do it. People who need fuel are not evil. There are thousands of scientists who say they are not destroying the planet either. But you'll never hear about that on tv.
I really don't like this, no small consumer vehicle - hybrid or otherwise - does near the damage a semi-truck does to the road. I live in an area that has several no-semi roads and guess which roads are in immaculate condition?
Â
This is extremely unfair, levying payment of damage to roads to the people with the least to do with it - and likely without the kind of money the corporate semi backers have.
@Peter Coffin So is it fair to tax the guy who is very productive? We need truckers, and it is a tough/competitive industry. What isn't? What you need is to reduce government and separate it from its partnership with corporations. This is crony capitalism, not genuine capitalism. Truckers are feeling the gas prices more than us. The system we have is failing folks. It is going down the drain. Government is a failure, but we've been told the opposite since we popped out of our mothers. I assure you, your 5th grade teacher lied to you. Government blows. We don't really need it anymore. Hey, maybe if we didn't blow up and rebuild Iraq/Afghanistan, Oregon could have a healthy road budget!
So when everyone buys a hybrid to save money, whos going to remind everyone who then bitches about the roads not being fixed or maintained, that this is all a cyclical process? Taxes fix the roads, keep them maintained, and build new ones. Want to save money so badly? Take the bus. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you can't afford it, you don't get it.Â
Yeah they should tax walking too so they make other people fix my sidewalk, too. And if you don't like it you can get out of MY hood or get your privilege to not live in a tax funded cage revoked.. LOL.Â
@Chelsea O. Extend this reasoning: What if taking the bus is a privilege? Riding a bike is a privilege? Scooter? Privilege. Roller skates? Privilege. Have any rights left?
Â
I'd say if your forced to pay taxes for public roads, driving is a right. I don't have a right to drive my car on your property, but I damn sure have a right to drive on roads I'm forced to pay for. Law enforcement may disagree with me, but that doesn't mean might makes right. Being able to afford something is one thing, but if you can afford to drive, then you have every right to do it. If you cause damage to property or life, then obviously you must be held accountable for that. This should not always mean prison for non-violent people who made a terrible mistake. Often times, people who did something bad could provide restitution to the victims instead of having taxpayers pay for years of jail that ruin an otherwise peaceful person's life.
Â
Sorry, I had to extend my thoughts.
 @Chelsea O. I bet you welfare shame people too huh.  Busses destroy the road much more so your logic certainly won't fix the problem.
I don't see anybody clamoring to figure out how to get semi-trucks to pay their fair share. A single truck causes as much wear and tear on roads and bridges as 7,000 passenger cars, yet here is Oregon trying to think of how they can prevent owners of fuel-efficient vehicles from escaping the mandatory subsidies they pay the wear and tear caused by trucks. Why not switch everyone to a mileage tax? Oh yeah, because that would mean that businesses had to pay their fair share and we can't have that.
I just figured out if I buy a Hybrid the taxes I would pay per mile would cost me approx $6.24 a day to drive. I now own a vehicle that gets 25 mpg and I'm paying $5.25 a day in gas. Would not make sense for me to buy a gas saver.
Does Oregon not already have annual vehicle licensing fees? License plate tabs for your vehicles or something? Why not apply an annual tax for infrastructure support there? Applying a per mile tax on fuel efficient vehicles is just bonkers. And GPS-tracking of your vehicle is a non-starter. This legislation would absolutely kill sales of highly fuel efficient vehicles. I support taxes for repair of roads, but this idea of taxing fuel efficient vehicles by a GPS-tracking system is not the way to do it. Â
 @sp@mmy Licence and registration is dirt cheap in OR, especially compared with CA. Where I grew up, people would skirt the law and register in OR even when they lived in CA and just hope the cops/Highway Patrol didn't catch you dropping your kids off at a CA school.  Raising those costs to the levels of surrounding states would solve the majority of their problem - or impose the new tax based on vehicle weight and levy fines for crashing into barriers/signs sufficient to repair them.
When I read comments like this, I realize that millions of American really do think like slaves. Raising taxes will solve the problem, after all, people can hardly find work!
A government monitoring a GPS-based device on private cars? Does this trouble anyone? Anyone?
Â
Please don't tell me about the "safeguards" in place to protect privacy.
Â
Will the tax be offset by savings that the state realizes because of fewer emissions?
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Reading the comments reminds me of what's so wrong with America -- and why politicians and (business) interest groups will always take advantage of us. Â No one seems capable of thinking beyond their own wallet.
Â
Less polluting cars; less gas guzzling cars on the road is a benefit to the overall economy. Â The benefits come back in health care costs; the economics of bringing new innovation to the market (jobs; taxes on revenues; exports; etc); environmental damage. Â The savings gained there needs to be transferred back to building and maintaining roads. Â You don't tax what will bring overall economic benefit -- you want to encourage it.
Â
 @Becky Simmons Isn't it funny how "thinking beyond your own wallet" seems to mean "thinking with other people's wallets"?And how "thinking with other people's wallets" seems to mean "threatening other people with force to extract what's in their wallets in order to support my own desires and perception of how money I didn't earn should be spent"?
@Becky Simmons The statement that governments bring an overall economic benefit is more than dubious. These criminals line their own pockets with your money (you may be concerned that people are concerned about their own wallets; they have every sensible right over their personal financial well-being) and the roads are probably fixed by no-bids contracts which cost you dearly. This is about skids getting greased while productive people are out of work.
Â
I'm pretty confident that if people weren't forced to pay for government, the earth would not have spun off into the sun. The Wright Brothers had a huge hand in developing airplanes. Just two men among many others. Private development and creativity. Without government, I imagine far more people, who aren't rich, could afford airplanes. Ask "environmentalist" Al Gore. He travels on them and "hurts" the planet.