The new year means, in addition to a new
Congress and President, the start of new state legislative sessions in capitals
across the country. Thousands of bills will be proposed, some good, some bad,
some just plain stupid, and most of which will never even make it to a vote,
let alone become law.
And in the several states that still
have Democratic-controlled legislatures, one particularly bad idea will almost
certainly be making a comeback: the Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT), a scheme to
essentially force drivers to pay a tax on every mile traveled, whether on
vacation or a trip to the grocery store.
Nationally, Oregon, California, and
Washington State are currently exploring the concept via pilot programs (Illinois
also uses the system, though its use is restricted to the trucking industry),
but it is likely that as the idea becomes more accepted and widespread, more
states will begin looking into instituting their own systems.
A primary defense of the VMT is the
argument that it will eventually be used as a replacement for state gas taxes,
but it seems more likely that any final institution of the VMT would instead be
used to supplement the revenue already raised by the gas tax—in effect taxing
the same product twice. Yet concerns regarding any VMT proposal necessarily go
beyond even the obvious negative repercussions of yet another tax.
A specific constitutional concern would
be the fact that each state attempting to impose a VMT system would by
necessity need a way to track not only the number of miles travelled, but also
precisely where the car travelled. Constitutionally, a state could only tax
those miles racked up within state borders—if Maryland, for example, attempted
to tax a car's owner for miles travelled in Pennsylvania or Virginia, that
would amount to an unconstitutional burden being placed on interstate commerce
(shorter distances would be travelled, keeping many residents of one state
within the boundaries of that state more often), as well effectively taxing an
action that was performed within another state.
To circumvent these constitutional
issues, a successful VMT system would need to do one of two things. Either the
focus would switch to a national, rather than state, system—which would mean
that, discounting drives to Canada or Mexico, only the mileage on a vehicle's
odometer would need to be counted regularly—or, if the concept remained
state-oriented, some form of GPS would need to be installed in each vehicle, in
order to accurately determine where the vehicle had travelled and what miles
would be taxable under the VMT regime.
And therein lies the final major problem
with the entire VMT concept. As instituting an entirely new tax, one which
would likely have a disproportionate impact on the middle class, would have
little chance of passing Congress, the immediate future of the VMT likely lies
in the states. Mandating that all private vehicles be equipped with a precise
tracking system, for the sole purpose of being accessed by the government at
periodic intervals, would be an invasion of privacy so severe that even many
Democrats would be forced to draw the line.
The essential component of the VMT
scheme, one that even its supporters concede would be necessary for the program
to function, is also the component that—at least for the near future—ensures that
most states will not be subject to yet another example of government overreach.
For many Americans, the prospect of yet another tax, one which also requires
government monitoring of every individual's movements on a daily basis, is a
no-brainer.
No comments:
Post a Comment