The Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax Would be a Tax from Hell

Eric Cunningham

Eric Cunningham is the editor-in-chief of Elections Daily. He is a lifelong resident of western North Carolina and graduated from Appalachian State University. You can follow him on Twitter at @decunningham2. @decunningham2.

Related Post Roulette

43 Responses

  1. Slade the Leveller says:

    To conservatives, it is an unacceptable burden on the middle class and on Americans who don’t live in dense, urban areas.

    How is a VMT any more burdensome than the already existing fuel tax? Presumable those people are already consuming more gas than drivers in dense, urban areas. Everybody likes to gripe about the state of the roads where they live, but nobody wants to pony up to make them better.

    One solution is to tax electric vehicle owners when they buy license plates. Keep the gas tax for internal combustion engine cars, and everyone gets nailed according to their vehicle.

    Personally, I avoid the gas tax by commuting by bicycle, mostly because driving in my city at rush hour is maddening, and not really a time savings.Report

    • If we’re subsidizing people buying electric vehicles, isn’t it counter-intuitive to install a new tax on them?Report

      • Philip H in reply to Eric Cunningham says:

        Slade is talking about an add-on for licensure, which is independent of foregone tax revenue at sale through subsidies and credits. Electric vehicles still have to have license plates and registration stickers, and while it might slow sales at some point, additional fees tacked on to licensure and registration would be a way to recoup some of the lost gas tax revenue.Report

      • Slade the Leveller in reply to Eric Cunningham says:

        While I’m not a huge fan of behavior mod tax incentives, we do have them, so why not claw them back, a little bit at a time.

        I think it’s possible to divorce the incentive from the cost of using the incentive. The government incentivizes having children through the tax code, while taxing parents to pay for the schools needed to educate them.Report

    • Everybody likes to gripe about the state of the roads where they live, but nobody wants to pony up to make them better.

      Colorado passed a series of fees this year that will generate an additional $4B for roads and transportation over the next 10 years. (Note for those who don’t live here — the legislature no longer uses the word “tax” in statute because all new taxes, rate increases on existing taxes, and fees/fee increases above a certain level must be approved by the voters at the next November election.) I don’t know the final amounts, but they will include on the order of an 8¢ per gallon fuel fee, a 27¢ per delivery fee for goods, and others.

      From memory, so highly suspect, about 60% for road projects and 40% for other things ranging from bicycle to rail to electric charging stations.Report

      • Slade the Leveller in reply to Michael Cain says:

        That’s really smart, given the increase in population recently. Well done, CO.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

        A million years ago, “pot for potholes” was one of the talking points.

        Sigh.

        Colorado Springs is better than it was a couple of years ago, but there are still roads that look like they’ve been shelled.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

          I have, overall, been pleasantly surprised by the condition of the roads in Fort Collins. OTOH, a new overpass is being built a couple of miles down the road from us*, that involves bringing in thousands of loads of dirt, and the big trucks are pounding the stretch of two-lane blacktop that goes by us into gravel.

          * Which will, among other things, make the existing road much safer for bicyclists.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    This strikes me as a solution that does two things

    1. Treats miles traveled as a sin and, thus, makes the gas tax a Pigouvian tax (or a sin tax).
    2. Allows Congress and its hangers on to get their beaks wetter than any other tax by a damn sight.

    Nothing wrong with #1, of course. I mean, if you see a mile traveled as a sin.

    But #2? In conversations about marijuana legalization, it always comes out that Congress is dragging its feet on rescheduling because it doesn’t know how to best tax it. Which strikes me as vaguely tawdry.

    This, also, strikes me as vaguely tawdry.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Jaybird says:

      Allows Congress and its hangers on to get their beaks wetter than any other tax by a damn sight.

      What do you mean by this? In terms of revenue raised, it wouldn’t come close to income or payroll taxes.

      Also, I’m not sure that “sin tax” is really the right term to use. The government is providing a private good (or club good where congestion is a factor). Charging for use doesn’t imply that driving is a sin. It’s just that charging people for use is the most fair way to pay for the cost of providing the good. It’s a use fee, not a sin tax.

      Cigarettes are produced and distributed by private companies, and paid for by consumers. The government taxes them not to recoup the cost of producing and distributing them, but, ostensibly at least, to discourage smoking. That’s a sin tax.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        In terms of revenue raised? Maybe not. In terms of jobs provided? Yeah. I think it creates jobs for administrators.

        It ain’t just about getting the most money. It’s about getting the money and then giving it to somebody.Report

  3. DensityDuck says:

    There are plenty of VMT in existence, they’re just tied to specific roads (the New Jersey Turnpike most famously, but there are toll roads all through the country). It seems like it wouldn’t be a huge imposition on Life Liberty &c. to declare that all interstate highways become toll roads. (The fun part will be watching who argues that they didn’t ought to pay a toll on account of historical inequities or societal marginalisation, though.)Report

  4. Oscar Gordon says:

    Seems to me the biggest issue is the privacy aspect, in that a tracking app is tracking more information than it needs to (which seems to be the problem of our age).

    The only information a tracking system needs to track is miles/km traveled & GPS tag that says what state the mile was traveled in. If you track more than that, you are going to have problems.Report

    • wheelz in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      That’s enough data to screw someone over.
      Not that people don’t publically photograph license plates in front of certain establishments.

      Of course, Google tracks every website you visit, if you’re dumb enough to use Chrome.
      (and if you’re using Brave? Well, then. Brave you are.)Report

    • InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      Theoretically you wouldn’t even need a device. You could just report based on odometer similarly to how people do mileage now.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD says:

        It’s more an issue for people who cross state borders a lot. I would think the bulk of such traffic would be commercial, and most of those already have GPS loggers, so that’s no biggie.

        I have to imagine that the concern over POV miles is mostly an issue in the NE. I mean, you have a lot of NJ residents commuting into NY, but how many NY residents are commuting into NJ? Stuff like that.Report

        • > It’s more an issue for people who cross state borders a lot. I would think the bulk of such traffic would be commercial, and most of those already have GPS loggers, so that’s no biggie.

          Example: Those who live in the Portland metro, the Charlotte metro in North and South Carolina, metro DC, Kansas City, and NYC, among others.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Eric Cunningham says:

            As Marchmaine noted down thread, those who buy gas close to home in Vancouver, WA and work in Portland, OR are not paying the gas tax to Oregon, and yet somehow the diversion has not bankrupted the state.Report

  5. InMD says:

    My opinion is that the idea is just crazy premature. The electric fleet is still small and we should be giving everyone as much (reasonable) incentive to convert as we can, including savings on gas/taxes. There will be plenty of time to figure out how to tax them once the combustion engines are being phased out.Report

  6. Oscar Gordon says:

    When it comes to electric vehicles, tax the electricity. Your local utility already tracks your energy usage for billing purposes, how hard would it be to add an additional tracker to your vehicle charging station?Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      Posts crossed. This is the answer.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      There’s a thought. Though you have to wonder what that would do in the context of renewables and grid modernization.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

        Doesn’t matter really, because it’s not a tax on the production or distribution of electricity, it’s a fuel tax for the vehicle. Even if you were charging your vehicle directly from the solar panels on the house and not using the grid at all, the tax would apply since the charging station would simply report the kWh sent to the vehicle to the house meter, and the utility would apply the tax appropriately.Report

  7. Reformed Republican says:

    I think odometer reading is the way to go. This can be implemented easily in states where they have mandatory inspections. More difficult where they don’t. Sure, other states won’t get money for miles driven where a car isn’t registered, but if I get gas in Florida and drive into Georgia and back without getting gas, Georgia isn’t getting the taxes either.Report

  8. Marchmaine says:

    The simple approach is to embed the technology in the EV chargers to tax them for road-fees.

    The EV charging tax might be some percentage less than the Gas tax to provide a mild incentive… but it’s pure foolery to think that EV’s don’t require roads and maintenance the same as Gas vehicles… and that eventually there isn’t a single ‘incentive’ to having an EV… we just call it owning a car and paying taxes for roads.

    Now… opposition to paying taxes for EV charging at the source? Who whom.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Marchmaine says:

      Ideally we want to do two things:

      1. Tax carbon emissions.

      2. Charge a fee for usage of roads in order to fairly distribute the cost of building and upkeep.

      The problem with trying to do 2 at vehicle charging stations is that people will just charge their cars at home and only pay the emissions tax, not the road usage fee. This assumes that we even have an emissions tax on electricity, which I believe is fairly rare.

      I don’t know. Maybe the grid is or can be smart enough to recognize when a car is being charged?Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        EVs (AFAIK) can not be charged from a wall socket. They need a charging station that usually comes with the car. That charging station could talk to the smart meter on your home and report how many kwh it pumps into the car.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          Get you a setup like this, you can do it off grid.

          Maybe get some off-grid solar panels set up or something like that to act as backup for the gas engine.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

            Totally ok… they paid the gasoline road tax to inefficiently convert it to EV.

            Now, my generator is dual fuel with Propane… so maybe we need a road tax on Propane?Report

        • My son’s girlfriend’s Nissan Leaf can be charged by plugging it into a 120V household outlet. Charged slowly, since it limits itself to 10 amps, or 1.2 kWh (~4 miles range) per hour. When (not if) we get an electric, our garage already has its own 240V 20A circuit for a charger :^)Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

            A computer virus that makes your computer appear to be a Nissan Leaf to your power company.

            Oooh. That makes your smart refrigerator appear to be a Nissan Leaf to your power company.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

            OK, so owners are not just limited to using a charging station, so the vehicle itself would have to talk to the smart meter.

            It’s do-able, but it would require a regulatory framework and vehicle requirements and all that.

            Honestly, having the vehicle have a charge meter much like an odometer might be the smarter idea, so when the odometer is read for tax purposes, electric vehicles just have the charge meter read.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          Yeah… the EV charging station is the compromise position.

          1. It is fixed at your home (or a known charging location)… so it’s not tracking your movement (unlike your phone, but that’s another story).
          2. It is already smart tech, so adding 3G, 4G, 5G or fail-safe Satellite uplink tech for reporting purposes would be ‘easy’. Alternately making ‘smart meters’ smarter is already on the drawing board (for good and/or ill).
          3. If compliance is a concern, there are always simple ways to engineer the Car not to charge from anything other than an ‘authorized’ EV Charger.
          4. This is already how we fund roads… the energy usage is the tax base.

          Arguments that we want to tax ‘exact’ mileage since fuel/power efficiency skews who pays for what is usually offset by the general principle that fuel/power is correlated to weight which is a fairly good proxy for fees anyway.Report

        • Do I get a refund when I use the car’s (soon to be available) ability to keep part of my house powered during outages? I imagine this as a selling point in Texas when the electric F-150 hits the market: “Remember the power outages in February 2021, and the ridiculous power bills? This electric F-150 can power your house for three days, four if you’re careful.”

          With my systems analyst hat on, I believe that in 10-15 years there are going to be a lot of planners looking back and saying, “Why did we build all these giant expensive batteries as part of the grid, instead of arranging deals with the owners of electric cars to use their batteries?”Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to Michael Cain says:

            If we want to, Sure.

            That’s just an engineering / reporting question based on usage.

            Do we want to? Not sure.

            p.s. I’m seriously looking at the new F150 for just that reason… well, not the hypothetical fee avoidance reason… the power outage back-up reason.Report

  9. Reformed Republican says:

    Our infrastructure in Memphis probably needs some help.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/us/mississippi-bridge-crack-memphis.htmlReport

  10. LeeEsq says:

    Car use, even electrical car use, is really bad for the environment. There are some very obvious reasons why hundreds of millions or even billions of people prefer private cars over transit across the world that range from convenience to comfort and more. This caused a lot of environmental damage. Getting people to drive less and use transit more is going to involve punishing people out of their cars.Report