White House Shoots Down LaHood Transit Tax Idea

February 20, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Shortly after Secretary of Transportation Roy LaHood raised the idea of a transportation tax based on mileage, rather than gas, the idea was shot down in both a written statement from the department and by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. LaHood's idea, which would have placed GPS devices in cars, would have taked people by how much they drive, rather than how much gas they purchase. LaHood said that the plan, which could have raised additional funds for infrastructure, was something "we should look at."

According to a Department of Transportation statement: "The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy." The idea of a mileage tax is still being floated around by a few states - namely, Idaho, Rhode Island and North Carolina. Oregon has even run a pilot program, and found the program to be viable.

The tax would have environmental implications both good and bad. When people buy more efficient vehicles, they use less gas, which is good. They're still driving just as much, though, and their cars have the same effect on the road, so the government doesn't get as much revenue from these drivers to fix our highways and bridges. As more and more people begin driving hybrids and using less fuel, this will become a bigger problem.

At the same time, green bloggers have pointed out that presently, a mileage tax would punish them for consuming less gas, and take away the incentive for others to purchase hybrids. Morgan Clendaniel of Good points out that an optimal solution would be a weight-per-mile tax, which would reward drivers of lighter vehicles, like the Prius, which presumably do less damage to the road. The problem with all of these ideas, though, is that they still require a GPS to be put in each car - a privacy concern. Surely, someone is hard at work on a better solution.

Tags:
transportation,
environment

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Payment Love,exercise fine freedom enable just remove earn touch apart rely either theatre increasingly boat annual good available another minister them observe gun capital solicitor young will present team interested stop module commit very arrive message like must will computer suppose fear instruction read beneath eventually place collect knowledge after officer last prospect where regard invite express human share back education special definition remain begin define exist sentence require poor there aim tiny western new next impossible safe group follow derive comment elsewhere meeting

hotel in thailand buchen of 2:51PM April 15, 2010

+1

soundtracks of AL 5:25AM July 17, 2009

I am on my soap box again hoping somebody will listen. I happen to be a systems engineer and have been analyzing mileage-based tax collection mechanisms as part of my job for some time. Unfortunately, many politicians--and engineers for that matter--think that technology is cool. Therefore, more technology is cooler. This assertion could not be farther from the truth.

Mileage tracking systems that rely on in-vehicle devices and a digital communication infrastructure are not only unnecessarily complex, but are also more costly, unreliable, and can be used to invade privacy. The Oregon report does a poor job analyzing its results and is obviously biased in favor of the proposed solution. Someone simply wants to make money at the taxpayers’ expense by implementing an overly-complex and unnecessary solution.

There are a couple of excellent alternatives. I think a combination of the two will provide the most benefit:

The first option is a nation-wide standard gas tax similar to a sales tax instead of our current fixed value. Something around 30% at current gas prices equates to a few cents more than the average flat rate gas tax. A proportional tax will help to moderate supply and demand swings as well as increase tax revenues in the near-term and continue to provide an incentive to purchase more efficient vehicles, ride-share, or use alternative transportation. The infrastructure to collect this tax exists at the pump and will cost very little to implement.

The second option is to record the odometer of a vehicle during a regular registration interval. Many states have annual or biennial inspections and this task could easily be accomplished at that time. Some states might need to add a few job positions. Job creation is exactly what we need right now and the additional mileage-based tax revenue could easily pay for the new staff. Again, the infrastructure needed to collect a mileage-based tax exists and would cost very little implement without violating privacy.

The upside to determining mileage-based tax during vehicle registration is that you would have a single receipt with a tax on it that would qualify as an itemized deduction on your federal taxes. This is much better than calculating your deductible gas tax from a years-worth of pump receipts.

It has been pointed out that for biennial registration an estimated tax would need to be used. As United States citizens with jobs, we pay estimated taxes with every paycheck we receive and either pay more tax or receive a refund when we file our tax returns on April 15 each year. The mileage-based tax would be no different and could be adjusted as needed.

A combination of the two stated approaches will likely achieve the most success. As we transition to greener technologies, each option can be adjusted to keep infrastructure tax revenues steady while maintaining the free market and rewarding greener choices without compromising personal privacy and liberties.

Bryan of MO 10:33PM February 21, 2009

Fresh Greens

Fresh Greens

Maura Judkis is a producer at U.S. News. She writes about the green movement and looks for ways to be an ecofriendly consumer without breaking the bank. Send her your green tips.

advertisement

advertisement