From what I have read, nothing is fleshed out at all and Obama shot the idea out of the sky. He may also want to re-think his choice for Sec-Transportation.
I think it’s about the GOV not collecting as much tax because cars have become more fuel efficient. Less gas used means less tax paid.
With the downturn of the economy, people are traveling less. Again, less gas tax collected.
But, we still need to keep our roads and bridges up to standards.
The simplest and fairest solution IMHO is to raise gas taxes. Sure people will scream about it, but for now, the VMT makes no sense.
If and when we get to the point where a large number of cars are not using gas, then we will need to find a way to tax those cars for road use so that they pay a share of their costs to maintain the infrastructure. Then we could look at a VMT. Although I still a GOV monitored GPS in your car is intrusive and screams for someone or anyone to abuse it.
In the interim, it makes sense to NOT tax fuel sippers as much (this is from an SUV owner). This will encourage people to purchase them and also encourage research into alternative energy.
I think it’s silly to argue that each and every tax must be progressive. There are plenty of steeply progressive taxes in existance. Even if the gas tax hits women and minorities hardest so what? We already have the EIC, if you’re worried about the gas tax hurting the poor we could increase the EIC a bit. Why should we have a specific tax rebate for a specific tax for specific people? If you’re poor you already get some money back from Uncle Sugar, and it doesn’t seem obvious to me that poor people who use a lot of gasoline should get even more money back.
My first blush upon reading the idea was that it was nutty of LaHood but thinking again I felt it is not to be dismissed so out of hand as concept for the future.
To those who would answer the need for more funds as we wean off of gas by just raising the gas tax -
I have previously advocated for higher gas taxes and been slapped down with the note that he goal of the gas tax is to reliably fund road maintenance, not motivate behavior change. Higher gas taxes would be regressively borne most by those unable to afford newer cars with better mpg or that run partially off of grid-derived power, while allowing those who could afford newer vehicles a free ride so to speak. Better to motivate wise vehicle choices at the point of purchase with a feebate program in which the most guzzling are taxed more and the most efficient are given tax credits.
Moreover even with significant gas tax raises the revenue stream would be unreliable as the vehicle mix continued to change over the years with the wean off of oil. Raising the gas tax more every few years like so many postage stamps would be politically a difficult task. OTOH total mileage traveled is likely to be a fairly predictable number which would produce a reliable income stream.
Privacy concerns are real and a serious issue that I have no great answer for. I agree that the response that the marginal infringement is minimal from the lack of privacy we already have is an unsatisfactory response.
OTOH I have no problem with the cost of the tracking technology and actually see it as meshing well with another fantasy of mine that we have discussed before here - having cars able to automatically communicate with each other and with a central information system and thereby have better management of traffic density and optimizing traffic patterns. Having that technology serve more than one purpose only makes it that much better of a buy.
Long term some alternative to the gas tax is going to be needed. Having that alternative continue to be a user tax makes sense.
It would be fairly easy. Mileage is recorded at inspection stations. NC has just moved to a system where there isn’t an inspection sticker on your car anymore, they enforce regulation by not renewing your license plate if your inspection hasn’t been done. They just track it through DMV computers. Year to year changes in the mileage would then be recorded. Mileage is also recorded and reported when a car is bought/sold.
I’m not saying that it would be a good idea, just that there are systems in place (in some areas at least, I don’t know about the whole country) that could track it.
This is true. But it’s hard to see how it would be politically easy to impose a new tax (which may well be larger due to a significant cost of collection). Fundamentally, people care about the total tax they must pay; the exact ways in which it’s divided are not so important.
I own two 1989 vehicles and I’m just giggling at the thought of either of them having a computer capable of doing more than just throwing the most rudimentary of alerts, let alone “tuning” the car. Anything prior to OBD-II (1996-newer) can only be considered “computerized” by the most generous of definitions. For the record, both my cars are maintained impeccably. The van is averaging just a little over 50% of its original EPA mileage rating (it’s getting pretty much 8 mpg, down from 10-12 when I first bought it–it was ten years old and had either 91K or 191K on the odometer at the time) and the Cav is actually averaging a bit higher than its original EPA combined mileage, but then again it has some mods that help out the fuel economy some.
Some major differences between the two are that the Cav has had an engine rebuild, so in spite of the clock reading circa 240K it’s functionally right around 100K in mileage. The van has the original engine and may have as many as 340K miles on it–the odometer is old school and doesn’t have a counter for the 100Ks. It runs on propane, too, and it’s not unusual for dedicated propane vehicles to get lower mileage due to the lower BTU rating of the fuel. They make up for it, though, by lowered emissions, increased engine longevity and the generally lower cost of propane v. gasoline.
But yeah, re the OP, a per mile tax is retardedly complicated, needlessly invasive and does nothing to reward better fuel economy–which is what we’re after, right? What would persuade me to drive the more economical coupe rather than busting out the V8 van, if I get charged the same tax per mile? Who’s going to be in charge of coming out to my house and pointing a gun at my head to force me to retrofit my cars with GPS units? Who’s going to pay for those? What about people who have to drive a lot of miles, like delivery people or taxi drivers? They’re helping to keep excess cars off the road, they operate on a shoestring already, and taxing them for the miles they can’t help but rack up will probably result in not doing maintenance to keep fuel economy up and emissions down. Counterproductive in the extreme.
As I said, we almost certainly do for the same reason companies pollute too much and the free market won’t provide enough education. There are spillover costs (e.g., pollution, congestion, noise) that drivers do not pay for when they reap the benefits of driving.
It seems to me there are various way to offset this negative impact of higher gas tax: public transport, higher minimum wage, making other types of taxes more progressive to compensate, public housing (allow people to live closer to work), better bicycling infrastructure (how many times have you heard “My work is only 3 miles away but the route is too dangerous to bike”?), etc.
All those have various problems. I’m not saying it isn’t unworkable but if you want to cut oil usage you’re going to have address them.
Last fall I biked 25 miles a day average so I’m not afraid of a good bike ride. However biking means you’re exposed to the weather. Also it can be greatly complicated by kids, pets, and climate. Say you a 6th month old and a 2 year old. How do you safely transport them by bike? What if it rains? What about climate? for about 1/3 of the year here there’s white snowy stuff on the ground which makes biking too dangerous. You hit a patch of black ice on a bike and you know it, and your knees know it, and the side of your leg know it, and you remember it as you head home for bandages.
Say a mom with 2 kids lives in Wisconsin. Goes to bike to drop the kids at the baby sitters, but finds 1 foot of snow on the road. How do you bike on that with kids?
More progressive taxes might be good, but do you think you could get them past a republican filibuster?
Minimum wage increases could be good, but what if that damages other parts of the economy?
As for public housing do you expect people to move every time they get another job? Places around here a job search radius can go out 20 miles in a good economy. In this one 40+ miles. Move to the city you might say, but now you’re expecting people to completely change their life style. Country to city is a big change. I’ve lived in both places and you can really get melancholy for the country.
Plus the cities are now over crowded thanks to the exodus from the country due to taxes. New apartments don’t just spring up overnight like mushrooms. What about jobs in these newly over crowded cities? Would they increase fast enough to support the populations?
Remember our manufacturing infrastructure is spread out in many many many small towns.
How about health? Crime? You’d be expecting people who live in areas you don’t even lock your doors to adapt to places where you could be mugged in broad day light.
I’m talking about reducing car usage, not eliminating it. I use the car when I transport my dog or large items, or go somewhere >10 miles away on a weekday and don’t have time to bike there. In the past month I used the car less than 100 miles, and the bike for 500 miles.
Just pair it with a regressive tax proposal. How about, say, a higher gas tax?
That’s far from inevitable.
Cities tend to have a large number of jobs within close proximity. That’s the advantage of living in a city as opposed to an urban sprawl.
Walking to work in a city is a lot more healty than driving to work in the suburbs.
Cities do not necessarily have more crime than suburbs.
Please. Someone is always on the margin. Your misleadingly vivid counterargument has nothing to do with the discussion. The government always tries to ensure people don’t fall off the bottom of society through tax policy. This is not under dispute here.
