Oregon officials propose per-mile tax for gas sippers

 @Playanekes  @Rob C 503 Heavy government subsidies for the purchase of hybrid's isn't very conservative, either.  Yet that's what we have.  If it were up to me, the vehicles would live and die in the commercial marketplace like every other car out there.  But, no, the federal government provides huge tax breaks and incentives for folks to buy these cars, now we have a new a special tax, just for the car that the government paid you to buy.  I can't make stuff this good up.....

@margay1 ........absolutely right Margay. Just ask any Californian over 50 years old how sales tax creep occurs. Not only at the state level but the city and county level as well. Because they ride those coat tails real quickly.

 @MarkKpic  @margay1  @deejm2112 We will never stop paying for those wars.

 @MarkKpic  @deejm2112  ~   Thanks, Mark...  

I rest my case... :-)

 @margay1  @deejm2112 RE: Telephone tax of 1898 to fund the Spanish American War. Repealled (defunded) in early 1900's, reinstated in 1914 for long distance calls and helped finance World War I. In 1941 it was extended to local calls to help pay for World War II. It was boosted to help pay for the Korean conflict. Then raised again to help pay for the Vietnam war.

 

Then, In 1990 Congress made it a permanent 3% phone tax.

 

That war has been over for a few years now, yet that tax is still here. 

 @Repoman  @Playanekes  @Justanother1 >'You know the people who benefit from PERS pay into it right?'

 

And you know that PERS doesn't take in anywhere near what it pays out, right?

 

>'Ironically the reason why PERS is having issues...' is because it's guaranteed payout schedule is found NOWHERE in it's private industry counterparts. 

 

>'Oh and the reason why there are fewer employees is to “lower costs”...'

 

There's two problems that exist currently that you address with this part of your post. We're in agreement on one of them. The whole private/public partnership process has gone severely awry. Once upon a time, contractors worked (on their own dime) to prepare proposals, and those proposals were locked at their contracted value. Any cost overruns were absorbed by the contractor. Enter business lobby, and unions instistance on 'prevailing wage' laws, and any hope of private contracts being cheaper went out the window. Now, the government hand picks (based largely on nepotism and/or pie-in-the-sky cost estimates) a few contractors who they fund to engineer a project that may or may not fall within the proposed costs of the signed contract. 

 

BTW... your point about private retirement packages is comparing apples to bowling balls. There is not a single private retirement program out that doesn't have a 'loss of value' disclaimer in the paperwork you sign before you join. As in, (paraphrase) 'investing involves risk, there is no guarantee that your portfolio will not lose valuse... etc..'

 

That is specifically why PERS is so popular among public employees. There is no risk involved. If the PERS portfolio loses value, they are contractually guaranteed that the taxpayer will make up for any losses. That is also where the system is broken. That money doesn't come from a grove of trees out behind the capitol building, it comes directly out of programs and services the state provides.

 

While I agree that the 'profit at all costs' entitlement mentality is pervasive among most businesses, the other side of that same coin is that the 'I was guaranteed a 6% return' entitlement mentality is pervasive among PERS recipiants.  

 @MarkKpic  @Playanekes  @Justanother1 

 

You know the people who benefit from PERS pay into it right?

 

Ironically the reason why PERS is having issues is that the state has fewer employees as a portion of the state population. Thus effectively lowering the amount of money the current state employee population is putting in compared to the number taking out.

 

Other than that point, I can agree with everything you're saying.

 

Oh and the reason why there are fewer employees is to “lower costs” by using private contractors to do the work employees used to. But like all of private industry, it must make some kind of profit to survive. Thus it actually often costs considerably more to do the same thing. ODOT and all public maintenance agencies use private companies to the tune of 8 or 9 of every 10 people on a job (and on large jobs it can be more than 19 out of 20) are private company employees who also get retirement, plus the company their work for makes a profit.

 

 @Repoman  @Playanekes  @Justanother1 >'Yeah but once a sidewalk is in place...'

 

The way the idea of a per-mile tax is being sold is by saying that ODOT is losing money to more fuel efficent vehicles that use roads & bridges that still require money to maintain and repair. I will conceed that it's likely that ODOT, rather than county or municipal DOT organizations, spends less on repair and maintainance of sidewalks and pedestrian rights of way than the latter, they do still spend money on it. About the best example I could come up with is the proposed CRC designs. Even the current I5 bridge has sidewalks that fall under ODOT perview. While I admit that it's extreme, there is an arguable position that if uncharged (taxed) use of ODOT maintained infrastructure is the point of any new taxation, there's a valid consideration to be make for pedestrian infrastructure.

 

 >'Not only that, but transportation gets some funding from the general fund....'

 

The general fund is the catch all for any part of the state operations that doesn't get funded adequately. As such, you are correct in your summation. I think part of the reaction to talk of new forms of taxation (per-mile tax), is that the state is an incredibly hungry addict. The elephant in the room is that there is too much money spent on personnel, and not nearly enough spent on services. Then, any time fiscal reality catches up with the state, another increase in existing fees/taxes/surcharges (or, in this case a new tax) is sold as being 'fair', when in fact it's not. It's just another PR blitz being presented to the public in an effort to create another source of revenue instead of tackling the real (and socally unpopular) problem of the cost of union-inspired wage and benefit packages, and the widespread abuse of state social services (which also come out of the general fund). 

 

Woe to any governor or legislator who DARES to even address the issue publicly, or try to approach any substanitive changes to it. They are demonized and run out of office by the unions PR branch. Simply put, the state does not have an income problem, they have an expense problem. The legislators and governor are therefore placed in the position of coming up with new ways by which to sell increased taxation.

 

>'This discussion is really only about motor vehicles...' 

 

I agree that is what the PR branch of the state legislature WANTS it to be about. It's called 'framing the discussion'. It's how you avoid having to address real issues.  It's also how you keep people from asking tough questions.  Taxpayers are not supposed to think about the fact that Lord Kitzhaber just exponentially increased the drain on the general fund with the 'new and improved' Oregon health plan, or the state education board. Nor are we supposed to discuss the net effect of PERS on the general fund. No, we're only supposed to talk about the loss of revenue ODOT has suffered because of fuel efficent and hybrid vehicles. 

 

Not to be obstinant, but I'm not that taxpayer.

 

Although, I don't drive either a 40mpg  or a hybrid vehicle, so I guess I should just hush and let them do it. 

 @MarkKpic  @Playanekes  @Justanother1 

 

Yeah but once a sidewalk is in place, no amount of pedestrian traffic will wear it out. There are footpaths that date from Roman times that are no worse for wear than then they were installed 3000 years ago.

 

Not only that, but transportation gets some funding from the general fund. That fund is also funded by income and property taxes. It is more than likely pedestrian only people (and what are there like 100 in the state?) still pay at least enough to maintain the sidewalks they use.

 

This discussion is really only about motor vehicles. I think talking about pedestrians and bicycles (as much as a loathe bicycle activists) is out of place.