Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Oregon instituting per-mile driving tax

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 4:03:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Urban liberals: this is rural conservatives don't vote for you. You feel the need to run your whole state like it's one big city. Look, it's awesome that if you live in Portland, you might not need a car, and even if you do you don't need to drive a lot of miles. Problem is, outside of your little urban bubble, people have to drive. A lot. Especially if you live in rural Oregon. If we want to go to the store, or the doctor, or a restaurant, we might have to drive a lot. It's just a fact of life.

Instituting a tax on driving to replace gasoline taxes would be a tremendous cost for rural folks, who happen to be poorer than city people. Gasoline taxes are fair because they charge based on consumption - you use more gas, you pay more in taxes. Mileage taxes, on the other hand, are designed to punish rural people (who happen to vote Republican most of the time) and advantage urbanites (who happen to vote for Democrats, who run Oregon). Punishing the people who live in rural areas is a cynical, horrible political ploy, but it's all too common in liberal policy agendas.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 6:32:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 4:03:49 PM, TN05 wrote:
Urban liberals: this is rural conservatives don't vote for you. You feel the need to run your whole state like it's one big city. Look, it's awesome that if you live in Portland, you might not need a car, and even if you do you don't need to drive a lot of miles. Problem is, outside of your little urban bubble, people have to drive. A lot. Especially if you live in rural Oregon. If we want to go to the store, or the doctor, or a restaurant, we might have to drive a lot. It's just a fact of life.

Instituting a tax on driving to replace gasoline taxes would be a tremendous cost for rural folks, who happen to be poorer than city people. Gasoline taxes are fair because they charge based on consumption - you use more gas, you pay more in taxes. Mileage taxes, on the other hand, are designed to punish rural people (who happen to vote Republican most of the time) and advantage urbanites (who happen to vote for Democrats, who run Oregon). Punishing the people who live in rural areas is a cynical, horrible political ploy, but it's all too common in liberal policy agendas.

From what I just looked up, it appears to be a voluntary program where an individual opting in gets a gas tax credit.

In a way a mileage fee is a usage fee. Those who use the roads the most should pay the most. On the other hand to your point, building roads in urban settings is much much more expensive than in rural settings.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 6:40:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 4:03:49 PM, TN05 wrote:

Instituting a tax on driving to replace gasoline taxes would be a tremendous cost for rural folks, who happen to be poorer than city people. Gasoline taxes are fair because they charge based on consumption - you use more gas, you pay more in taxes. Mileage taxes, on the other hand, are designed to punish rural people (who happen to vote Republican most of the time) and advantage urbanites (who happen to vote for Democrats, who run Oregon). Punishing the people who live in rural areas is a cynical, horrible political ploy, but it's all too common in liberal policy agendas.

I don't understand this. How would a per-mile driving tax be any worse than a gas tax? Are gas consumption and miles driven not directly related? Actually, the old policy favors rich people more, since they can afford cars with better gas millage and can thus get by paying less in gas taxes per mile driven.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 10:14:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 6:40:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:03:49 PM, TN05 wrote:

Instituting a tax on driving to replace gasoline taxes would be a tremendous cost for rural folks, who happen to be poorer than city people. Gasoline taxes are fair because they charge based on consumption - you use more gas, you pay more in taxes. Mileage taxes, on the other hand, are designed to punish rural people (who happen to vote Republican most of the time) and advantage urbanites (who happen to vote for Democrats, who run Oregon). Punishing the people who live in rural areas is a cynical, horrible political ploy, but it's all too common in liberal policy agendas.

I don't understand this. How would a per-mile driving tax be any worse than a gas tax? Are gas consumption and miles driven not directly related? Actually, the old policy favors rich people more, since they can afford cars with better gas millage and can thus get by paying less in gas taxes per mile driven.

Rural people are poorer than urbanites and have to drive much further. A mileage tax is thus regressive and urban-centric
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 10:15:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 6:32:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:03:49 PM, TN05 wrote:
Urban liberals: this is rural conservatives don't vote for you. You feel the need to run your whole state like it's one big city. Look, it's awesome that if you live in Portland, you might not need a car, and even if you do you don't need to drive a lot of miles. Problem is, outside of your little urban bubble, people have to drive. A lot. Especially if you live in rural Oregon. If we want to go to the store, or the doctor, or a restaurant, we might have to drive a lot. It's just a fact of life.

Instituting a tax on driving to replace gasoline taxes would be a tremendous cost for rural folks, who happen to be poorer than city people. Gasoline taxes are fair because they charge based on consumption - you use more gas, you pay more in taxes. Mileage taxes, on the other hand, are designed to punish rural people (who happen to vote Republican most of the time) and advantage urbanites (who happen to vote for Democrats, who run Oregon). Punishing the people who live in rural areas is a cynical, horrible political ploy, but it's all too common in liberal policy agendas.

From what I just looked up, it appears to be a voluntary program where an individual opting in gets a gas tax credit.

In a way a mileage fee is a usage fee. Those who use the roads the most should pay the most. On the other hand to your point, building roads in urban settings is much much more expensive than in rural settings.

The ultimate goal is to replace the gas tax, though.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:29:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 10:15:15 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/2/2015 6:32:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/2/2015 4:03:49 PM, TN05 wrote:
Urban liberals: this is rural conservatives don't vote for you. You feel the need to run your whole state like it's one big city. Look, it's awesome that if you live in Portland, you might not need a car, and even if you do you don't need to drive a lot of miles. Problem is, outside of your little urban bubble, people have to drive. A lot. Especially if you live in rural Oregon. If we want to go to the store, or the doctor, or a restaurant, we might have to drive a lot. It's just a fact of life.

Instituting a tax on driving to replace gasoline taxes would be a tremendous cost for rural folks, who happen to be poorer than city people. Gasoline taxes are fair because they charge based on consumption - you use more gas, you pay more in taxes. Mileage taxes, on the other hand, are designed to punish rural people (who happen to vote Republican most of the time) and advantage urbanites (who happen to vote for Democrats, who run Oregon). Punishing the people who live in rural areas is a cynical, horrible political ploy, but it's all too common in liberal policy agendas.

From what I just looked up, it appears to be a voluntary program where an individual opting in gets a gas tax credit.

In a way a mileage fee is a usage fee. Those who use the roads the most should pay the most. On the other hand to your point, building roads in urban settings is much much more expensive than in rural settings.

The ultimate goal is to replace the gas tax, though.

Gas does seem to be the easiest place to collect that tax. It includes road usage and efficiency of the vehicle. I'm not certain why they are going in that direction, unless they are worried of the revenue drop due to increasing electric vehicle usage.

For that reason alone, I can see states moving away from gas tax as renewable hit a critical mass. They will have to find other ways to make up that lost revenue.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 12:06:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is no end to liberal tyranny
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 12:12:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree. It's punishing the rural folks. How can this be a fair tax? And Oregon can't afford to be punishing their producers....the loggers, farmers, construction people and the like. Most of these people live in rural areas and have to commute to the larger towns and cities for business and work. The folks in the cities can walk to work, or drive two miles up the street.
Sometimes I think that Oregon is a liberal testing state. Kinda like Obama and his friends get together and brainstorm ideas in a back room and then test them out on Oregon just to see if they will work.
Oregon is the number one food stamp user. It has also remained in the top five for unemployment for the last twenty years. The liberals are doing something wrong, I think. The hippies and environmental wackos took over the timber industry in the 1980's and now the whole state struggles. Imagine what would happen if the EPA and a bunch of burnt out hippies took over the corn growing in Nebraska. It would be hell for Nebraskans, and the citizens would become poor. Well, that's what happened with the timber industry in Oregon back in the 1980's.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 7:44:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 12:12:10 PM, j50wells wrote:
I agree. It's punishing the rural folks. How can this be a fair tax? And Oregon can't afford to be punishing their producers....the loggers, farmers, construction people and the like. Most of these people live in rural areas and have to commute to the larger towns and cities for business and work. The folks in the cities can walk to work, or drive two miles up the street.
Sometimes I think that Oregon is a liberal testing state. Kinda like Obama and his friends get together and brainstorm ideas in a back room and then test them out on Oregon just to see if they will work.
Oregon is the number one food stamp user. It has also remained in the top five for unemployment for the last twenty years. The liberals are doing something wrong, I think. The hippies and environmental wackos took over the timber industry in the 1980's and now the whole state struggles. Imagine what would happen if the EPA and a bunch of burnt out hippies took over the corn growing in Nebraska. It would be hell for Nebraskans, and the citizens would become poor. Well, that's what happened with the timber industry in Oregon back in the 1980's.

It is voluntary and does not punish anybody who docent volunteer to pay their gas tax as a mileage tax.

Your post is riddled with error or intentional deceit. Oregon is no top 5 unemployment for last 20 years. It is currently right in the middle of all states and tends to be just slightly better than the national average.

http://www.politifact.com...-/

They do have highest participation rate in SNAP, but it is mostly due to the fact that they try to sign up people on SNAP, unlike many states that makes it difficult so less eligible people actually sign up. This article explains it quite nicely.

http://www.governing.com...

This is what I hate most about many conservative, spouting off rhetoric without checking any facts.