LaHood floated an idea for a mileage tax to replace the gas tax and it was immediately shot down by the rest of Team Obama.
But long term is it such a bad idea? What if a large number of cars end up having a large portion of their energy coming from the electrical grid? What if we just get very fuel efficient? You end up without the funds to maintain the roads. Yeah, now is not the time, but at some point isn’t some alternative to the gas tax going to needed?
If the current gas tax fails to generate enough revenue, it seems a lot easier to raise the gas tax than to figure out how to track the mileage of 100,000,000 cars. How would you even do that without spending a fortune equipping existing cars with GPS units or fancy odometers. The honor system?
There’s so many things wrong with it I won’t go into it, but I’ll address one point - if the average real-world fleet economy increased from about 20 to, say, 40 mpg, they’d just double the tax per gallon for keeping up roads. Very easy, and it discourages inefficient gasoline use even more.
Why is this a good idea?
Using less gas by driving a more efficient, smaller vehicle should be encouraged, not discouraged. Such vehicles lead to less damage to the road, too.
Why would you want to waste money creating a big governmental bureaucracy to manage this milage tax agency when the behavior you’d incentivize would be bad for everyone?
If this is a serious enough issue that demand drops the price of gasoline that much, increase the amount of the tax or find alternate funding sources.
How would taxing mileage reward efficiency?
With the current setup having a more efficient car means you get to drive the same distance for less money. This helps everyone out because it helps keep the cost of gas lower by reducing demand.
Energy needs aren’t very elastic so a minor increase or decrease in demand can translate into big price swings. You’d be doing more damage to the economy then the roads cost to maintain.
Then there’s enforcement. What are you going to do? Invade my car and check my odometer every year? That won’t go well in many states. Political suicide. East coast\west coast maybe, and possible Illinois but most states in the middle wouldn’t tolerate that at all.
I’d love to see the gasoline tax significantly higher than it is already, since the externalities of gasoline (including CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions and dependence on unfriendly nations) cost a lot more than what we’re paying for it, and a higher tax would be an incentive for people to use less of it.
There will never be an efficient way to move an average 4000 lbs of steel an average of 46 miles daily. This is just a massive amount of energy and nothing short of a miracle is going to make that ever even a little bit efficient. As long as we use the single-commuter model, we don’t have anything to worry about.
So, in this time of economic uncertainty, what do you propose the poor, many of whom live in areas where public transportation is nonexistent or very expensive, do?
Also keep in mind that the poor tend to use older used cars which can be a decade behind in technology, and moving requires money. Which by definition the poor generally don’t have much of.
I agree we need to clean up our act environment wise, but there aren’t magic bullets.
How on earth is the federal government supposed to keep track of how many miles we drive?
There hasn’t been much improvement in fuel economy in the past 10 years. If you see the numbers in here (tables 4.17 and 18), you’ll see that the average fuel efficiency of cars sold in 2007 was 31.0 mpg, up from 28.7 mpg in 1997. That’s only an 8% improvement. Whereas the average truck (including SUVs, I assume) sold in 2007 got 22.9 mpg average. So a higher gas tax puts more burden on those driving brand new SUVs than those stuck with 10-year old cars.
I am for a mileage tax to adjust driving behavior due to externalities such as congestion and pollution. Unfortunately if we just hand it over to the government, it will be spent, and then raised without regard to actually finding the optimal amount of driving that should be done. Such is the problem with taxing to account for externalities. Ideally I would charge everyone that drives in front of my house, but that is totally impractical.
Today, but what happens when you roll the clock forward 8 years?
If the day ever comes when all the rich people are driving electric cars and plug-in hybrids, and the poor can only afford 10-year old SUVs, maybe then we should reconsider alternative ways to tax road use. But not yet.
You would report your mileage annually when you register your vehicle and pay the tax for the entire year based on annual mileage. Of course, just as there already are, there would be stiff penalties for tampering with odometers and underreporting your mileage. It could also be cross-checked with the mileage you report to your auto insurer.
But I also don’t like the idea unless you incorporated a classification of vehicles based on fuel efficiency with appropriate credits for reducing consumption. I kind of like the idea of only paying the tax annually though. Not sure it’d work though.
I think maybe we arguing different things. I was talking about Chronos assertion that we should drastically increase fuel taxes.
I agree the existing road tax system is fine, more or less, as is.
I also think we should significantly improve our public transportation infrastructure. Yes, that would take time, but I’m quite willing to let the increase in gas tax be phased in gradually over that same time.
As am I. I’m saying that right now, raising the fuel tax would not disproportionately tax the poor, at least not to the extent you claim.
It’s still a regressive tax, since the poor would likely be using a larger percentage of their income to pay for fuel. Then again, any driving beyond the daily commute and errands is pretty much a luxury, and even those are not necessarily unavoidable. So I think it’s reasonable to raise fuel taxes.
That’s not what was proposed in the OP’s link:
In short, you favor a tax based on energy consumption - for example, one linked to the amount of fuel used.
Count me among those who fail to understand how this new tax (which looks to be very expensive to collect) would be in any way better than what we now have.
It’s a bad a idea if the inefficiencies of spending on road works budgets were not addressed first. That means contacts need to be had for the best quality, best price possible. I doubt that happens, ever, in large scale public budgets. It’s all about, “Oh noes! We’re out of money again! What do we do?”, “Raise taxes again!”. It’s never, “maybe we should do an audit and figure out where the waste is.”
Now that would be a good idea. I’d really like to see a train system like they have on the east cost in Michigan personally.
What about increasing bike infrastructure, and adding a really slow lane to highways for slower vehicles such as scooters, and the like that get 60 to 100+ mpg but can’t do highway speeds?
It’s not disproportionally taxing them that troubles me. It’s unnecessarily adding to their costs. You see when you’re rich losing $200 might mean you can’t get that cool blazer you’re eyeing yet. When you’re poor losing just $20 can mean you eat nothing but ramen noodles for a week, or you can’t pay the rent and are now homeless poor.