Is this a joke? I'd be furious if this ever happened! It's already expensive to own and drive a car! I'd be searching for a job MUCH closer to home if this did come to be.
This is getting outta control IMO, How many more taxes do we need seriously? Maybe they should quit spending on crap like this and maybe we wouldn't be in such a huge hole. Ridiculous
I would think conservatives would like this plan. It's a pay-per-use, regressive tax plan. Those who drive more pay more, regardless of income. What's the alternative conservative solution? Build and maintain fewer roads? Use more toll roads? Borrow more from China? Personally, I think it's far too complex and does nothing to put a price on the true military, geopolitical and environmental costs of gasoline. Raise gas taxes and lower taxes in other areas so the effect isn't completely revenue neutral (we need to start paying our way) but the price of gas is in line with our priorities.
Why is this a bad thing? There should be some incentive to live close to where you work (or punishment to live far away). We need to figure out a way to limit peoples car usage. This may be the wrong way, in fact I'm pretty sure I'd e against it, but there needs to be something. I'd support a significantly higher gas tax in lieu of this. That way you tax those who not only drive more, but drive less efficient vehicles as well.
pollution limited supply of oil dependence on foreign oil lost productivity expense of building roads probably some other benefits I'm not thinking of barfo
Sounds like you actually weren't thinking, then. I could have sworn there was already a tax on gasoline.
Yeah, because that's really how our tax and spend system is set up. If everything was switched to the "those who use it more, pay more" model, this country's infrastructure would fall apart. As a liberal, I'm surprised you would support that.
No. I think it is unnecessarily complex - they should just hike the gas tax. True, that lets the electric car drivers off the hook, but right now there are few enough of them that it probably doesn't make much difference. In a few years the answer might be different, though. Edit: I see now that they are just proposing to study the idea for future implementation. That makes sense to me. barfo
Hey, I like that rationale. Those who go to Portland Timbers games pay solely for the stadium expansion, and not the taxpayers. Those who use medical services frequently should pay more than healthy people. Those who use public transportation should pay solely to subsidize it out of their tax dollars, instead of the entire populuation.
Well, that's what you get, I suppose, for assuming my political affiliations and my insistence on supporting everything along party lines branlessly.
It would probably be a net loss after the expenses of installing these tracking systems and paying for the man power to operate the department. I like the concept of it, but I think a better solution is raising the tax on gas higher.
Electric car users pay energy taxes when they charge their cars, and some of that tax revenue goes to the general fund, which is then budgeted in part to ODOT.
Well, there's a difference between SOLELY paying for it, and paying more. Those who use the roads more should pay MORE, not all of it, IMO. Because obviously everyone benefits from the roads being there, through their use by trucks, emergency vehicles and whatever. So those are different examples, what you are saying. Sorry. I don't think they should foot the whole bill.
True, you could fund it that way as well. And that might be a better solution, since the infrastructure to tax electricity is already set up. barfo
