Today, the Wall Street Journal is carrying a story (free link) discussing state’s revenue woes as folks shift to driving more fuel efficient cars.
The rationale of these concerns is that most states tax on a per-gallon basis. With fuel efficiency rising, less gasoline is required for the same amount of driving, cutting tax receipts.
(This isn’t as great a concern in Connecticut, where the state double-taxes gas, first on a per-gallon basis, then on a per-dollar basis.)
The reason I’m bringing the article to your attention is discussion of a workaround to this problem being piloted in Oregon:
In a year-long pilot program overseen by Mr. Whitty, the cars of 260 volunteers were outfitted with Global Positioning Systems and electronic odometers that recorded the number of miles driven. The drivers bought gasoline at specially equipped service stations, where computers on the pumps subtracted the 24-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax and added a 1.2 cent fee for every mile driven.
The pilot program ended last month. State officials are reviewing the results to determine whether the system would raise more revenue than the gasoline tax. The initiative likely will be revived and expanded when a few bugs are worked out, says Mr. Whitty.
Even though I trust state governments more than the feds, I do find the idea of essentially mandatory GPS-monitoring by any government entity to be rather creepy.
However, if the idea became widespread enough that such gadgets became standard equipment in new vehicles.well Progressive’s patent on GPS-rating for auto insurance isn’t a permanent obstruction to the idea expanding. Patents do expire, after all.