A
recent Freakonmics
podcast caught my attention when gas prices and privacy concerns were
raised. Like many others, I’m conscious of gas prices, and grudgingly cough up
the near fifty bucks each time I’m at the pump. Stephen Dubner, co-author of
the Freaknomics series, explained that we’re at a point in our country’s
history where we get more miles per gallon than ever before, and accordingly,
citizens have an incentive to drive more. As fuel economy advances, the cost of
each mile decreases, and the nation’s transportation budget takes a hit. In
other words, better fuel mileage translates to less money for roads and
bridges. Tax revenues operate at a fixed rate, as opposed to a sales tax, for
example. Currently, the federal rate is 18 cents a gallon. States add an
additional fixed tax (Minnesota’s state excise tax is 28.5 ranking it
18th highest based on state taxes). Because it’s fixed, it doesn’t increase
when the price of gas goes up. Accordingly, gas tax revenues increasingly lose
purchasing power.
So
what’s the solution? Dubner explains that for whatever reasons, gas taxes are a
“no-go zone” for politicians. Alternatively, Robert McDonnell’s (Governor of
Virginia) proposal to eliminate the state gas tax and instead raise the sales
tax has received recognition.
However, there is growing support for a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax. Such
a tax would operate by taxing drivers per mile driven. This scheme would charge
drivers for the same amount of road covered, regardless of the type of car one drives.
In response to this suggestion Freaknomics radio host, Kai Ryssdal, exclaimed “This
smacks of Big Brother watching me when I drive, dude.” Dubner, on the other
hand, offered this: “We’ve all gotten used to willingly carrying around a GPS
device with us at all times, which is what a smartphone does, right? We’re also
getting used to the ideas of electronic tolling where we don’t have to stop at
the booth. So I wouldn’t be shocked if we were to see some per-mile taxing in
the future.” Rob
Puentes, a transportation policy expert at the Brookings Institution and a
VMT proponent, offered support, “If you are driving on the Beltway during rush
hour consistently adding to the traffic on those highly congested roads, you’d
be paying more, and then those revenues would go back to the road you are
using.”
The
podcast reports that “at least 18 states have pursued VMT pilot projects, and
in the past five years, legislatures in at least 11 states have considered more
than 20 proposals to establish or study state level fees of this kind.” Obviously,
privacy is a concern. A study by the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Transportation Planning Board
found that 86 percent of Washington, D.C. commuters oppose having a GPS device
installed in their vehicles to track their miles traveled. Personally, I support this idea, at least
theoretically. I wouldn’t oppose having a GPS tracking my mileage as long as my
personal information isn’t exploited. The use of the GPS would have to be
explicit, but as long as I know that someone isn’t monitoring my whereabouts
for anything other than mileage I’d be comfortable, or at least open to it.
From an economic standpoint this free market concept is nearly perfect; you pay
for what you use. However, Freaknomics commentators are less convinced. Many
suggest that vehicle weight be brought into the equation since large trucks
contribute to most of the wear and tear on the roads. Some claim that this
proposal removes an important incentive to purchase fuel efficient vehicles. However, as the owner of a fuel efficient Ford
Fusion, I would still benefit from filling up less often. Another user is
concerned about how the state would define road usage.
Minnesota’s
outdated infrastructure is evident and VMT offers a viable potential solution.
If the community vehemently contests this suggestion than perhaps we can look
to Finland for guidance. There, traffic fines are indexed based on a driver’s
salary (you’re fined 20 percent of one month’s take-home pay). “Just a few
tickets from a few speeding billionaires could help balance any budget in a
hurry!”
The potential role of GPS isn't clear here. The Puentes quote suggests that drivers using particular roads would trigger higher tax obligations. That would require that the GPS gather more than milage, but actually track which roads and bridges each driver frequented. If the government was truly only interested in was milage, why not just have drivers self-reports, as we do with our car insurance companies, and as we do on other parts of the 1040?
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of self-reporting in theory, as it's a lot less "please watch me every second while I'm driving, government!"
DeleteOf course, the problem with self-reporting in practice is that people suck (for lack of a better legal term) and would lie through their teeth in order to beat that tax.
I imagine that having an opt in program like many private insurance companies do for the potential of lower premiums could be a sufficient motivator (http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/07_payd_bordoffnoel/07_payd_bordoffnoel.pdf) and reduce the potential of Big Brother worries. Alternatively, a congestion tax could reduce the amount of rush hour traffic and help pay for public transportation/bike lanes.
ReplyDeleteI've always considered the use of a gas tax to encourage the use of higher efficiency vehicles. If we're going to a vehicle type independent system, it seems like it would eliminate this incentive. I'd rather just index the gas tax if it really is hit that heavily (something I have some doubts about).
Delete