This isn't exactly a political issue, but it's something we need to look at more closely.
Right now, officials in Oregon and California, namely the Departments of Motor Vehicles for those states, are researching a proposal to change the gas tax from a per-gallon tax to a per-mile tax.
This article in Wired magazine explains the logic behind the idea.
"What we're trying to do is find a replacement for the gas tax," said Jim Whitty, administrator of the state's Road User Fee Task Force. The tax, currently 24 cents per gallon, generates about 70 percent of the total budget for building and maintaining roads in Oregon.
However, the tax rate hasn't changed since 1991, and the more fuel-efficient cars on the highways are sucking down far less fuel. The result, according to Whitty, is that tax income hasn't been able to keep pace with inflation, or with the need for additional road repairs due to increased traffic.
More on the flip..
Basically, the logic is this: hybrid cars and more fuel-efficient vehicles are using less gas, and therefore paying less tax. I won't bother going into the issue of how widespread hybrids are compared to your gas-guzzling SUV counterparts.
Currently, the Oregon and California DMVs are considering several approaches to the per-mile tax. Some of them has less potential for abuse later on down the line, but all suffer from a fatal flaw: what's to keep insurance companies from using this information to determine your insurance quotes? Drive in a more dangerous area, you get a higher quote, regardless of YOUR driving record.
The first approach is thus: an electronic odometer log that would transmit its information to the gas pump, which would then calculate your taxes based on how many miles you covered. It's hard to abuse this approach, because it's a passive device that has no idea where it went, only that it covered so many miles since the last time you went to a gas pump.
This idea makes sense from a privacy stand-point, but I'd like to see one minor change: a tax based upon the type of vehicle you're driving. Lighter vehicles do less damage to the roads than heavier vehicles. This should be taxed accordingly. Unfortunately, it won't happen because the oil companies and other interests will fight this with the standard "Why should my gas-guzzling SUV pay more than your 60MPG hybrid?".
The second approach uses a GPS device to record your driving habits and transmit this information. With this device, your tax would be based on where you drove, and the potential is also there for the difference in taxes based on vehicle. Unfortunately, there are a couple of flaws with this idea.
The first problem is that the GPS device could transmit its information in one of two ways. It could do it passively, only when you're within range of a reader (such as a gas pump or specially-equipped toll booth); or alternatively, it could transmit your information actively as you're driving.
The problems I have with either approach are this: what's to keep insurance companies from getting this information and using it on your quotes? Yes, I know, the privacy-loving Government would never ever share your personal information with a corporation whose only goal is to make money.
Secondly, with either approach, it wouldn't take a whole lot for the police to get this information and fine you when you fill up. "You traveled 500 miles in 4 hours. Your fine is 1 million dollars. Please insert ATM/Credit card now." There's some merit to that, because it could potentially reduce the number of speeders.
With the active approach, I have this problem: do I necessarily want Big Brother watching where I drive 24/7?
With the passive approach, not so many problems, because the information is only transmitted when you're near a designated reader.
Now, is the idea solid? Yes. A tax based upon your mileage and vehicle type is pretty fair. Drive more miles in a gas-guzzling SUV, pay more tax.
Unfortunately, the approach that these agencies seem to be taking is one of a flat-fee tax, regardless of your vehicle. To me, this erases any economic incentive I might have to own a hybrid or a more fuel-efficient vehicle. What's the point if I'm just going to pay the same tax?
Oh, and for those that are curious, Oregon did re-do its fee structure to make hybrid registration the same as other vehicles. At one point, there was a higher fee for a hybrid to make up the difference in gas tax revenue losses, but they realized that this was a silly idea.
To the oil companies and other interests who want to see the incentive to own a hybrid erased, shame on you. What would your mother say?
And that's all, folks.