Soccer Dad

If you drive a car ...

The Washington Post promotes Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood's "good" idea for a mileage tax. A mileage tax would (presumably) replace a gas tax as a way for governments to raise money for highway projects and the like. More accurately, it is a way for governments to continue to rake in huge amounts of money from taxpayers who have acted responsibly and bought hybrids and done other things to conserve fuel.

As automobiles become more efficient and make use of new fuels, the gas tax -- which, we note here for the umpteenth time, should be raised -- will be less effective in capturing revenue. Mr. LaHood's comments reflected what many transportation experts and economists are coming to believe: A tax on vehicle miles traveled, or VMTs, is the most promising, fairest, most environmentally responsible replacement for the gas tax.

I should point out again that this rationale sounds a lot like the the Beatles' Tax Man. Perhaps what we need at this time, is not a government that finds new ways to squeeze the taxpayer, but that becomes a lot more careful about how much money it spends.

Most proposals require a GPS-like "mileage-counter" to be installed in vehicles. When drivers stop to fill up, a tax based on the miles they've driven would be added to their bill in place of a gas tax. The tax rate could be adjusted based on whether someone was driving in rush hour or off-peak times, on clogged freeways or less busy roads.

What, then, prevents the proposal from being taken more seriously? Some opponents fear that the government could use the mileage counters to monitor drivers. There's also criticism that the tax would unfairly burden less affluent motorists.

The worst part about the idea of mileage taxes is the unfairness. As I mentioned above, people are taking greater care to drive carefully or to buy more fuel efficient cars. They have acted responsibly. Now the Post is advocating punishing them for being responsible. The rationale behind such a tax is that the government deserves your money.

If we really need a new tax to raise revenues, why not try one on stupid editorials? As long as newspapers exist, it should provide an endless stream of revenue.