Just two months ago, the idea of taxing motorists on the basis of how many miles they drive seemed to be dead as a doornail. After being floated by the new transportation secretary as a way to fund our highways, his boss–the guy everyone calls “Mr President”–shot it down remorselessly.
Usually, when a Mr President shoots something down, it stays dead. [Insert own Dick Cheney hunting joke here.] But not in this case. Today, James Oberstar, the head of the House transportation committee, said he wants a mileage tax. And not only does he want one, he wants it to happen in as little as two years — not the decade or more that many advocates have been talking about.
Oberstar said he believes the technology exists to implement a mileage tax. He said he sees no point in waiting years for the results of pilot programs since such a tax system is inevitable as federal gasoline tax revenues decline.
“Why do we need a pilot program? Why don’t we just phase it in?” said Oberstar, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman. Oberstar is drafting a six-year transportation bill to fund highway and transit programs that is expected to total around a half trillion dollars.
Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., [...] said public acceptance, not technology, is the main obstacle to a mileage-based tax. [...]
Oberstar shrugged off that concern.
“I’m at a point of impatience with more studies,” Oberstar said. He suggested that Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the highways and transit subcommittee, set up a meeting of transportation experts and members of Congress to figure out how it could be done.
The tax would entail equipping vehicles with GPS technology to determine how many miles a car has been driven and whether on interstate highways or secondary roads. The devices would also calculate the amount of tax owed.
“At this point there are a lot of things that are under consideration and there is also a strong need to find revenue,” Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said. “A vehicle miles-traveled tax is a logical complement, and perhaps a future replacement, for fuel taxes.”
Gas tax revenues — the primary source of federal funding for highway programs — have dropped dramatically in the last two years, first because gas prices were high and later because of the economic downturn. They are forecast to continue going down as drivers switch to fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.
This is probably something Secretary LaHood was well aware of. In the video we posted yesterday, he seemed almost to stifle a smile when asked about the mileage tax. He said–wink, wink–that the question was entirely in the hands of Congress. Given that Oberstar is the guy responsible for writing the first draft of next transportation bill (which could be signed into law later this year), it seems quite likely that there will be provisions for a mileage tax in it.
(Image via 1world2wheels.org)
April 28th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Government-monitored GPS devices in every car? No chance of any abuse there!
I’m waiting for government-monitored scales in every house, so fat people can be taxed.
April 28th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Isn’t a mileage tax the bad version of a gas tax?
I mean, if your objective is lower pollution and the move toward renewable energy, it seems like you should tax those things instead of something that generally correlates with those things but ignores people’s fuel efficiency.
How could people be in favor of this and not a gas or carbon tax?
April 28th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I find the Obama administration’s offhand rejection of higher gas taxes really hard to swallow. I mean raising them is so self-evidently a good idea. My only guess is that somebody crunched the numbers and figured it would piss off some key voter group and therefore wasn’t a battle worth fighting.
LaHood talked about not raising taxes in a recession, and that’s true, but you announce it, say, a year in advance and then say it’ll be going up two cents a month or whatever for some determined period of time (or forever).
-Jebediah
April 28th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Sheesh, what a horrible horrible idea. Just tax the damn gas rather than spending bazillions of dollars in GPS units and associated IT. I can’t even believe any one, much less LaHood et al would even consider a mileage tax. oy.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I’m glad that John said what he said, because this raises a key misconception (I say that respectfully, John!) about both the gas and mileage tax.
While reducing emissions should be a metric in any transportation-related decision, it is not the sole objective of either the gas or mileage tax. Both taxes are meant to be a “user fee” that addresses three core issues: (1) the wear and tear on infrastructure due to the public’s use of it, (2) the need to fund both the upkeep/maintenance of said part of the infrastructure, as well as the creation of new infrastructure, and (3) congestion.
The key thing you have to understand is either tax is not meant to be a penalty for emissions, but rather a user fee. That being said, on your point about the mileage tax ignoring fuel efficiency, consider that a Toyota Prius weighs just as much if not more than many other cars that don’t even get half its MPG. Thus, most cars, due to their sheer weight, contribute roughly the same amount of wear and tear on the roads they drive on, regardless of how fuel efficient they are.
Even further, the mileage tax as legislation can take on many different forms, and I don’t see why it can’t include a provision that fuel efficient cars pay slightly less per mile than others. Also, consider that even if everyone drove an electric vehicle, there would still be congestion on our roads. A sufficient gas or mileage tax should curb congestion by using revenues to invest in alternatives to automobiles, such as buses and trains.
-Ken
April 30th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Ken, I think, has it right all the way. I think it’s important to emphasize that a VMT charge will be a replacement for the gas tax, not in addition. The fee should be calibrated to vehicle weight and fuel efficiency, and proceeds should be sufficient to maintain the roads and improve system efficiency by offering convenient and reliable alternative to driving.
In any case, Bill also has an excellent point on privacy issues and one that VMT charge proponents cannot ignore. I think it’s worth exploring whether GPS devices are even necessary to implement this program.