• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should GPS be installed inside vehicles in order to charge mileage taxes

Should tracking devices be installed inside vehicles in order to charge mileage taxes

  • mileage taxes is a great idea but no GPS

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    44

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should tracking devices be installed inside vehicles in order to charge mileage taxes?


Albany Democrat Herald: Archived Articles
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.”

According to the policies he has outlined online, Kulongoski proposes to continue the work of the special task force that came up with and tested the idea of a mileage tax to replace the gas tax.

The governor wants the task force “to partner with auto manufacturers to refine technology that would enable Oregonians to pay for the transportation system based on how many miles they drive.”
 
We already pay vehicle taxes, sales taxes on the vehicle, fuel taxes, and sales taxes on the fuel, any more taxes are already ridiculous, but even more so is having government saying they have a right to know your driving habits, range, or locations.
 
The governor wants the task force “to partner with auto manufacturers to refine technology that would enable Oregonians to pay for the transportation system based on how many miles they drive.”

And the bailout money is going to fund this? Whose going to pay for this? And I should trust Big Brother because he told me also of the WMDs in Iraq. Don't think so.

fedd979bc9320e7e
 
I'd rather have a gasoline tax. It would be an easier, less intrusive, more efficient, more environmental way of charging user fees for the roads. And it would have the added benefit of improving our national security.
 
Higher mileage vehicles translate into less money for the governement via gasoline taxes. This is simply a move by the government to assure it's income in the event a high percent of the good citizens really do start buying them.

The principle is already in use. Anyone that travels turnpikes and uses EZPass or something similar is paying based on miles driven and their movements could be/are being easily tracked by the system.
 
I'm not worried, as I just cannot see any possible way something like this could ever get abused. :2razz:
 
Isnt it just easier to tax gazoline? Thats sort of a milage tax.:mrgreen:

What you are actually saying here just sounds like an excuse to surveillance cars.
 
Last edited:
Stupid idea. It's intrunsive, expensive, hard to enforce, and doesn't do anything to encourage efficiency because a Pruis owner would pay the same tax as a Hummer owner.

Tax gas instead and let the market work in terms of allocating resources to become more efficient.
 
Isnt it just easier to tax gazoline? Thats sort of a milage tax.:mrgreen:

What you are actually saying here just sounds like an excuse to surveillance cars.
Bingo! That's why most people would be opposed to it. Pretty much your right to transit, property, and privacy would all be breached in one move.
 
Mileage taxes will be used to tax people out of larger vehicles they like to drive.
Higher tax rates will be charged for heavier vehicles.
The government in their effort to prevent people from realizing they are paying taxes, (by charging it on bulk gasoline, instead of directly to the consumer) have prevented themselves from using their taxing power to social engineer people. They have now decided that it's more important for people to know it's going to cost them more to drive gas guzzling vehicles than it is to conceal the taxation.
That being said, IF the mileage tax replaced the gas tax, and IF the mileage tax was charged to everyone at the same rate, including bicycles and walkers that use the road, and IF it's charged to each person riding a bus, I would support it.

NEVER, NEVER GPS except for public government run buses, to determine the charge to the rider.
 
Mileage taxes will be used to tax people out of larger vehicles they like to drive.
It isn't always about like, in my area higher vehicles like trucks are almost a requirement because of flooding, not only that, outside of my city is almost exclusively farming, try doing that in a Prius:doh, I would rather drive a two-seater or similar performance/fun car, but my hobby is drums, can't fit that in a smaller vehicle, a mileage tax would pretty much kill my area.
Higher tax rates will be charged for heavier vehicles.
Seems like it would be unavoidable.
The government in their effort to prevent people from realizing they are paying taxes, (by charging it on bulk gasoline, instead of directly to the consumer) have prevented themselves from using their taxing power to social engineer people. They have now decided that it's more important for people to know it's going to cost them more to drive gas guzzling vehicles than it is to conceal the taxation.
I think that is part of it.
That being said, IF the mileage tax replaced the gas tax, and IF the mileage tax was charged to everyone at the same rate, including bicycles and walkers that use the road, and IF it's charged to each person riding a bus, I would support it.
I can't support it under any conditions, it's the principle of more taxes to cover government mismanagement of their existing revenues, and the principle of smaller government that forms my particular opinion, plus, I am tired of these elected representatives having the opinion that we work for them.
NEVER, NEVER GPS except for public government run buses, to determine the charge to the rider.
I wholeheartedly agree.
 
Should tracking devices be installed inside vehicles in order to charge mileage taxes?


Albany Democrat Herald: Archived Articles
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.”

According to the policies he has outlined online, Kulongoski proposes to continue the work of the special task force that came up with and tested the idea of a mileage tax to replace the gas tax.

The governor wants the task force “to partner with auto manufacturers to refine technology that would enable Oregonians to pay for the transportation system based on how many miles they drive.”

Obama is proposing massive infrastructure 'investment' while we're in a depression, so the money to pay for these programs, despite the fact that they will fail, has to come from somewhere.

No one who voted for Obama has the moral authority to bitch about this. This is what you supported when you supported Obama.

Punishing private transportation will encourage the use of the proposed public transportation. The plan will fail in the long run because the government can't make a return on an investment.

Bearly enough money to ride a buss to work....that’s the "change" we weed :roll:
 
Last edited:
A government claiming they want to track your mileage by installing a GPS in your car is such a transparent attempt at spying its laughable. Why the hell wouldn't you just the the odometer, which all cars already have, is more reliable and can't be used to horribly abuse your privacy?
 
A government claiming they want to track your mileage by installing a GPS in your car is such a transparent attempt at spying its laughable. Why the hell wouldn't you just the the odometer, which all cars already have, is more reliable and can't be used to horribly abuse your privacy?

Exactly right.

The mileage is noted on the bill of sale, so all you need to do is bring the vehicle with you, or the gov could set up a way for a technician to certify the mileage and produce a certificate you could bring in when you do your taxes.

No GPS required.

And I like how the Gov used private industry, like OnStar, to develop the technology before they tried to introduce this intention.
 
Obama is proposing massive infrastructure 'investment' while we're in a depression, so the money to pay for these programs, despite the fact that they will fail, has to come from somewhere.

Why do you think that infrastructure investment will fail? The Interstate Highway System worked out pretty well. What is your alternative? Let our highways, bridges, levies, and power grids decay into a state of total disrepair?

Jerry said:
Punishing private transportation will encourage the use of the proposed public transportation.

That's the idea.

Jerry said:
The plan will fail in the long run because the government can't make a return on an investment.

You just said that it will encourage the use of public transportation. Which is it?

Jerry said:
Bearly enough money to ride a buss to work....that’s the "change" we weed :roll:

Actually it is. We need much better bus systems and metro systems in our urban areas. We need airports and trains that don't suck. And we need to bring our power grid and highways into the 21st century.
 
Actually it is. We need much better bus systems and metro systems in our urban areas. We need airports and trains that don't suck. And we need to bring our power grid and highways into the 21st century.

The 600 billion and counting that you spent in Iraq could have done all that.

Which cities except New York in the US actually have a metro system, tram system and a bus system?
 
I'd rather have a gasoline tax. It would be an easier, less intrusive, more efficient, more environmental way of charging user fees for the roads. And it would have the added benefit of improving our national security.

exactly.

...
 
Why do you think that infrastructure investment will fail? The Interstate Highway System worked out pretty well. What is your alternative? Let our highways, bridges, levies, and power grids decay into a state of total disrepair?

We are not discussing current infrastructure.

With the exception of NY, maybe SF, public transit fails every time it's tried. Just look at the monorail project, for example.

The reason it fails is because bureaucratic decisions are based on politics, NOT making a profit.

That's the idea.

You admit that we don't need the tax to prevent...what did you say..."let our highways, bridges, levies, and power grids decay into a state of total disrepair"...this is social engineering, not taxation for a valid expense.

You just said that it will encourage the use of public transportation. Which is it?

:prof Encourage =/= success.

They will try, and they will fail. Easy to understand.

Actually it is. We need much better bus systems and metro systems in our urban areas. We need airports and trains that don't suck. And we need to bring our power grid and highways into the 21st century.

I was referring to poverty via over taxation, and you agreed.

The reason why the government has to tax us to fund the project is, again, because bureaucrats can't make it turn a profit. Since the project can't turn a profit big bro comes to the tax payer to bail itself out.

This is bad business and further evidence why government should remain small.

I agree that there needs to be improved public transit, but this is not the way to get it.

Public transit in general fails, which is why real businessmen don't step in and turn a profit. Little old ladies just don't have the money to pay what the ride actually costs. Obama think he can spend his way out of recession...don't trust him with a credit card, because when the bill comes in the mail he'll think he can pay off that bill by buying more stuff with it.

Perris Hilton makes more sense than the second black president.
 
Last edited:
The 600 billion and counting that you spent in Iraq could have done all that.

Which cities except New York in the US actually have a metro system, tram system and a bus system?

Most cities have either a metro or a bus system (or neither) here...very few have both. And the ones that do generally have really bad systems.

New York, Washington, and San Francisco have the best public transit IMO. This is mainly because geography prevents these cities from sprawling. Chicago also has a surprisingly decent metro system despite the massive urban sprawl. I've heard that Boston's transit system is pretty good too, although I haven't been there in years so I don't know.

The worst public transit systems in my experience are found in geographically enormous cities in the southwest: Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, and anywhere in Texas.
 
Last edited:
Most cities have either a metro or a bus system (or neither) here...very few have both. And the ones that do generally have really bad systems.

New York, Washington, and San Francisco have the best public transit IMO. This is mainly because geography prevents these cities from sprawling. Chicago also has a surprisingly decent metro system despite the massive urban sprawl. I've heard that Boston's transit system is pretty good too, although I haven't been there in years so I don't know.

The worst public transit systems in my experience are found in geographically enormous cities in the southwest: Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, and anywhere in Texas.

Of the big cities I have only been in Miami, Orlando and Atlanta. None of them have anything. Its ridiculous from a European perspective.

Here most cities even in eastern Europe have both Bus and Tramway, and most cities in the west also have metros in addition, and some in the east also.
Its quite normal for smaller cities to have a bus system which is well developed in addition to trams.. In addition there are trains between all European cities. In many countries they have trains going out even to the smallest cities. In Germany the infrastructure is just stunning.

I was visiting a small town(40.000) in the former east of Germany. It was far from any big city, yet it was connected to an amazing train grid that could take you to any big city anywhere in the proximity of 300km, and there you could get transit to huge cities not only in Germany but in Europe. But th city, called Suhl that I visited had several trains going to tiny suburbs around it, in addition to buses of course. It was just amazing, the roads and sidewalks were also just perfect and nice. And this was all in the middle of nowhere! If you live there you dont actually need a car at all, you can get just about anywhere without one. Germany I think have the superior infrastructure of Europe, incredibly dense and well developed.
I lived in Belgium and the Netherlands, they have trains between all small and large cities, even villages. The cities have trams, buses and metros, and the large cities have trains going to London, Paris(and other places in France), Western Germany and so on.. Its fabulous I must say. I was dissapointed when I lived in Ireland, they only had buses, and one major metro line in Dublin, and trams which only covered the inner city, and bad trains going between the cities. That was bad infrastructure in my eyes.

When I was in the US I found it IMPOSSIBLE to get around without a car, the distances was also huge between any meaningful places in the same city.

I find it strange the differences.
 
Of the big cities I have only been in Miami, Orlando and Atlanta. None of them have anything. Its ridiculous from a European perspective.

Here most cities even in eastern Europe have both Bus and Tramway, and most cities in the west also have metros in addition, and some in the east also.
Its quite normal for smaller cities to have a bus system which is well developed in addition to trams.. In addition there are trains between all European cities. In many countries they have trains going out even to the smallest cities. In Germany the infrastructure is just stunning.

I was visiting a small town(40.000) in the former east of Germany. It was far from any big city, yet it was connected to an amazing train grid that could take you to any big city anywhere in the proximity of 300km, and there you could get transit to huge cities not only in Germany but in Europe. But th city, called Suhl that I visited had several trains going to tiny suburbs around it, in addition to buses of course. It was just amazing, the roads and sidewalks were also just perfect and nice. And this was all in the middle of nowhere! If you live there you dont actually need a car at all, you can get just about anywhere without one. Germany I think have the superior infrastructure of Europe, incredibly dense and well developed.
I lived in Belgium and the Netherlands, they have trains between all small and large cities, even villages. The cities have trams, buses and metros, and the large cities have trains going to London, Paris(and other places in France), Western Germany and so on.. Its fabulous I must say. I was dissapointed when I lived in Ireland, they only had buses, and one major metro line in Dublin, and trams which only covered the inner city, and bad trains going between the cities. That was bad infrastructure in my eyes.

When I was in the US I found it IMPOSSIBLE to get around without a car, the distances was also huge between any meaningful places in the same city.

I find it strange the differences.

We have a fascination with driving our own asses places. Also, I've met several people from Europe whom are well surprised at how seriously Americans take their traffic laws. We stop for pedestrians and such, and they claim that doesn't happen oft where they're from (though I've known a disproportionately large number of Germans...maybe they're just crazy there). We don't have a lot in the ways of public transport, maybe that should change. But we have cars and roads and people seem to be able to handle it; so let them take care of themselves.
 
We have a fascination with driving our own asses places. Also, I've met several people from Europe whom are well surprised at how seriously Americans take their traffic laws. We stop for pedestrians and such, and they claim that doesn't happen oft where they're from (though I've known a disproportionately large number of Germans...maybe they're just crazy there).

Meh, I guess it depends on the city. I found motorists in Berlin and Munich to be very courteous...which is more than I can say for New York and Chicago. ;)

Ikari said:
We don't have a lot in the ways of public transport, maybe that should change. But we have cars and roads and people seem to be able to handle it; so let them take care of themselves.

I think the main problem is just that American cities are so much more spread out than European cities...both internally and between one another. For example, let's look at comparably sized American/European cities: Houston/Paris, Dallas/Munich, Phoenix/Vienna...in nearly all cases, the US city occupies much more area than its European counterpart.

Also, the distances BETWEEN big cities are much greater in most parts of the United States. In Europe, there are very few big cities that are more than a couple hours from another big city, whereas in the United States that's the norm. The Northeast Corridor and California are the only exceptions to that.

I agree though, we are long overdo for some major investment in public transit. It will never be as economical for us as it is for the Europeans, but that's no excuse not to do it. We don't need a state-of-the-art train system criss-crossing every small town in America like the Europeans do, but we do at least need a modern high-speed train system that connects every large and medium-sized city in the country, and a decent bus or metro system in every large city.
 
Last edited:
I agree though, we are long overdo for some major investment in public transit. It will never be as economical for us as it is for the Europeans, but that's no excuse not to do it. We don't need a state-of-the-art train system criss-crossing every small town in America like the Europeans do, but we do at least need a modern high-speed train system that connects every large and medium-sized city in the country, and a decent bus or metro system in every large city.

Not only do we not need them, we can't aford them.
 
Back
Top Bottom