Oregon Joining Other States In Wanting To Tax Your Movement

Ronald Reagan once made a joke about the government’s approach to policy: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And If it stops moving, subsidize it.” Well it appears as though in Oregon (much like in North Carolina) they’re taking that “if it moves, tax it” part seriously.

A year ago, the Oregon Department of Transportation announced it had demonstrated that a new way to pay for roads — via a mileage tax and satellite technology — could work.
Now Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he’d like the legislature to take the next step.
As part of a transportation-related bill he has filed for the 2009 legislative session, the governor says he plans to recommend “a path to transition away from the gas tax as the central funding source for transportation.”
What that means is explained on the governor’s website:
“As Oregonians drive less and demand more fuel-efficient vehicles, it is increasingly important that the state find a new way, other than the gas tax, to finance our transportation system.”

I don’t understand why, if people are driving less and using lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles, the transportation spending needs to stay at the same level. Or even increase. It sounds suspiciously to me like Oregon, like a lot of other places, has been spending its fuel tax revenue on decidedly non-transportation budget items.
But taxing movement like this is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it requires you to install a tracking device in your vehicle that lets the government track all the places you go. Where’s our privacy?
Second, unlike the fuel tax, a movement tax would remove the incentive for driving more fuel efficient vehicles at least as far as the tax itself goes. If we’re taxing movement instead of consumption, a Prius is going to be taxed at the same rate as a Hummer despite the wildly different impact the two vehicles have on road/highway infrastructure. Is that really the direction we want to go in?
Third, how much is this going to cost to enforce? You can’t dodge the fuel tax easily. Everyone needs gas to run their car, and you aren’t likely to find a black market supplier selling gas tax-free. But how long until some geek out there figures out how to hack these GPS units to dodge paying the tax? How much is it going to cost to send each taxpayer a bill for his/her movement? How much will it cost taxpayers to install GPS units to comply with state law?
GPS tracking is a bad, bad idea. But something tells me that the powers that be are gonna go ahead with it anyway.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array Hawk

    The tax issue is secondary to the privacy issue. The government has no right to know where I go.

  • Neiman

    GPS tracking is a bad, bad idea. But something tells me that the powers that be are gonna go ahead with it anyway.

    California is toying with the same idea. No matter the justification, is it a good thing for liberty to have the movements of its citizens monitored electronicaly?

    I think Liberty in America is becoming an antiquated, quaint concept that a few old white men at our founding thought was a good way for people to live, but cannot apply to a modern, more socialist society like ours. That is the pernicious and evil thing socialism is, in any form or context. It must, by its nature, demand that liberty be surrendered to the ruling elite of the state, people knowing better than the people how they should live.

  • Harry

    As long as tracking devices is discussed, how about a toilet paper sheet counter to tax each square used? If the nation wants to go “green”, this could help save trees.

  • robert108

    JF: You apparently don’t understand what “demand” is.

    Anything that requires govt subsidies is already a failure.

  • http://www.bluegil.wordpress.com/ John Feeney

    Rob: If we rely on “market demand”, how can you loose site the oil companies “control” that demand.

    If the government is bailing out the Auto makers, they should also work as an aggressive partner to insure the success of the investment. Hence, the promotion of vehicles offering alternative fuel solutions. And that has to start with making the source available.

  • http://www.bluegil.wordpress.com/ John Feeney

    A tracking device is one issue, encouraging the installation in each vehicle may be a spike to the Telematics industry many are looking for. However, i take the next step beyond the so-called “tax”. If this new revenue is ear-marked for investment to stimulate the use of alternative fuels? I might be less hesitate.

    There has to be a “selling point” for this to be some-what, if at all accepted. Just to generate a new stream to off-set previously lost dollars has no merit.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    If this new revenue is ear-marked for investment to stimulate the use of alternative fuels? I might be less hesitate.

    I would still be hesitant.

    If an alternative fuel needs subsidy from the government to succeed then it’s not going to be a viable alternative.

    Our energy future needs to be dictated by the market.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development