The Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax Would be a Tax from Hell
Politicians are facing a problem. As they have spent the better part of two decades now urging (and subsidizing) Americans to purchase more fuel-efficient or electric vehicles, gas tax revenues have fallen. With electric vehicles not even being charged for road usage and a slew of lobbyists pushing for a massive infrastructure package, politicians now face a dilemma: there’s not enough money. Indexing the gas tax to inflation is a popular proposal among insiders, but gas tax increases are wildly unpopular; polls everywhere from Michigan to Washington have shown gas tax hikes to be unpopular, and even voters in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts repealed their state’s attempt at gas tax indexing.
With the gas tax seemingly dead, some politicians have moved on and are now dead set on passing what is known as a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax, or VMT. This tax is wildly popular among bureaucrats and lobbyists, but how would it work in reality?
How does a VMT work?
In theory, the VMT would be fairly simple. Advocates are often careful to refer to the VMT as a “fee”, not a tax, but in reality it’s a tax like any other. The miles you drive would be tracked, and you would pay a (somewhat) flat tax per mile depending on the type of vehicle you own; I say “somewhat” flat here there are already plans to implement “congestion charging” fees for the crime of driving at the same time as other people, or of driving somewhere where a lot of people live. How these miles are tracked seems to vary. Some have suggested odometer reporting, although at the state level this would tax people for miles driven in other states, robbing those states of tax revenue. Others have suggested requiring a transponder in your vehicle which will continually track every mile you drive; the latter proposal is where the problems arise. Washington state has also experimented with pre-paying for the expected number of miles driven, which seems to be an even less ideal solution. In return for this new tax, a total repeal of the gas tax is often — but not always — suggested. However, the government’s history on actually replacing taxes rather than adding them tends to be fairly poor.
One other thing worth noting: the gas tax is very cheap to collect, while a VMT would inherently have administrative fees associated with it. The Federal Highway Administration suggested this could cost anywhere from 5% to 18% of revenue that a VMT would bring in. So even if a VMT did bring in more money, a large chunk of that benefit would go to enforcement and administering hundreds of millions of individual accounts. This means the actual benefit to actual highway funds might not be as large as expected. A transponder tracking scheme would cost more than a simple odometer reading, but enforcement on the latter could potentially be a challenge.
There are also alternative ideas; Republican Representative Sam Graves of Missouri, the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and a longtime supporter of the VMT, has suggested a tracking system won’t be needed for gas and diesel-powered vehicles. Instead, he argues that a formula could be calculated at the pump, utilizing the average miles per gallon nationwide. However, this still doesn’t encompass electric or hybrid vehicles, a market that is executed to only grow in the coming decades.
Privacy problems
People are already suspicious of both tracking from tech companies and mass government surveillance. If a tracking solution was ultimately decided on as the way to impose a VMT, your entire driving patterns would be fully tracked. This tracking system could be used to enforce traffic laws – imagine one massive red light camera covering the entire United States, but also tracking everything from speeding to illegal turns or improper parking. This could potentially also be funneled to insurance companies, some of which already track driving for these who want it, allowing them to raise or lower your premiums. And hypothetically, if another pandemic lockdown were to occur, a VMT tracker could be used to enforce it.
That might all sound a bit out there, but the technology is already out there. EZ Pass toll road transponders have been used in divorce courts to identify cheaters and can even suspend the passes of drivers who go over the speed limit. Even more concerning is Washington state. During the state’s VMT pilot program, Mariya Frost of the Washington Policy Center enrolled to test it. Through a smartphone app, her driving patterns were tracked and scored — including every time she went over the speed limit, and exactly how long. This information was supposedly for her use only, but city and county governments would kill to get their hands on such a lucrative source of revenue. No longer would small municipalities have to devote police officers to speed traps; instead, they could just use data directly from the VMT system. There’s no reason this technology couldn’t, and wouldn’t, be extended to cover other routine traffic violations as well.
Nobody wants this
Beyond the practical and technical hurdles, there’s one other big problem with the VMT: it doesn’t appeal to anyone. To liberals and progressive voters, the VMT is a regressive tax that also punishes the adoption of electric vehicles. To conservatives, it is an unacceptable burden on the middle class and on Americans who don’t live in dense, urban areas. To civil libertarians, it is an egregious violation of privacy that could lead to even more mass government surveillance. Deficit-hawk centrists might be turned away by its costly administrative fees.
The Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax concept seems designed to alienate virtually every side of the political spectrum. To some, that might be a positive; after all, compromise often requires all sides to face things they don’t like. After an early gaffe from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, President Biden has outright rejected including either a VMT or gas tax hike in any infrastructure bill, noting his pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $400,000 a year. But that hasn’t stopped Congress from pushing for it, and it won’t stop the states from testing the waters either.
Ultimately, only one thing can stop a Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax: the voters.
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
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
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
That’s really smart, given the increase in population recently. Well done, CO.Report
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
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
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
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
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
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
But what about surface streets?Report
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
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
Theoretically you wouldn’t even need a device. You could just report based on odometer similarly to how people do mileage now.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.
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
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
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
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
Posts crossed. This is the answer.Report
There’s a thought. Though you have to wonder what that would do in the context of renewables and grid modernization.Report
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
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
Right. Over time, as with all things, this will even itself out.Report
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
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
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
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
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
https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/how-to-charge-electric-car-at-home/
Yep, not just a 2 prong plug.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
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
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
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
…offset by the general principle that fuel/power is correlated to weight which is a fairly good proxy for fees anyway.
Road wear caused by vehicles is a fourth-power law. Paying for road repairs using the current typical weight-oriented fees is horribly regressive.Report
I’ve always wondered what the theoretical explanation for the fourth-power law is. There doesn’t seem to be one; it was obtained empirically in a single study, and subsequent research has found that the power can vary widely based on the properties of the pavement. Much more than any of us ever wanted to know here:
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/603/RR-603-The-relationship-between-vehicle-axle-loadings-and-pavement-wear2.pdfReport
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
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
Concur, it’s trivial to meter and report the direction of power flow or where the power is used.Report
Our infrastructure in Memphis probably needs some help.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/us/mississippi-bridge-crack-memphis.htmlReport
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