There is a big problem with high-mileage cars — from the
point-of-view of the government.
Less revenue.
Imagine an 80 MPG car — which could be built right now, easily,
with existing technology. (Several current European models are
already pretty close to the 80 MPG bar.)
Such a car could cut the average person’s fuel costs by
two-thirds — in effect, putting things back the way they were
circa 1986, when gasoline still cost about $1 per gallon. It would
do a great deal to ease the economic pressure bearing down on the
average person. But if tens of millions of Americans were suddenly
using two-thirds less fuel, they’d also be paying two-thirds less
in motor fuels taxes.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to wonder what effect
contemplation of this possibility has had on government policy.
Even assuming the most benevolent, public-spirited intentions,
the situation is a debacle in the making. If revenue derived from
motor fuels taxes declined by 20-30 percent, there would be that
much less revenue available to maintain existing roads — and build
new ones. Meanwhile, the population is galloping upward — more
people, more cars. Where will the money come from to keep pace?
There is always the possibility of making up the shortfall some
other way — but the beauty of the motor fuels tax, historically,
is that it’s a largely hidden tax. The average motorist is
not made to confront the bill in the same way that he’s made to
confront, say, the sales tax on the food he buys after gassing up.
Because unlike the food on which he pays a tax in addition to the
cost of the food itself, the motor fuels tax is discreetly folded
into the cost of the fuel. One does not pay $2.40 a gallon — plus
80 cents per gallon in taxes. One just pays the $3.20 per
gallon.
Thus, “big oil” takes most of the heat — rather than big
government.
Motor fuels taxes are regressive and confiscatory. Other than
“sin taxes” on cigarettes, it’s hard to come up with a product —
in the case of gas, a necessary staple — that is taxed at
a rate equivalent to about 30 percent (or more) of the cost of the
actual item itself. And unlike cigarettes, most of us have no
choice about buying gas. It’s an ingenious trap that government has
set for us: First, use taxes (in the form of tax incentives as well
as the use of taxes as such) to fund artificial, unnatural growth
— in particular, the artificial, unnatural growth of highways and
other roads. Highways and roads that would not have been built
until real demand — as opposed to government “stimulated” demand
— made an economic case for their construction. The artificially
induced roads encourage sprawl — more government subsidized
“growth” — of homes and retail areas that, in turn, encourage more
driving, more consumption, which in turn funds more artificial
growth.
And the cycle is complete.
But, the cycle depends on people continuing to pay the necessary
amount of motor fuels tax in order to keep it going. Very
high-mileage cars would throw a wrench in the gears. In order to
perpetuate the cycle, alternative revenue sources would have to be
found — and tapped. Where will the money come from? At the federal
level, more “qualitative easing” — that is, creating more money —
is always possible. But at the state and local level, there’s no
such option. Either fewer roads will be built — and existing roads
not kept up as they might have been. Or there will be new taxes to
cover the spread. The problem is that socking people with the
equivalent of a 30 percent tax on a product they use every day —
and so must pay every day — is not going to be an easy sell.
People are used to hidden motor fuels taxes. They are not used to
— and may revolt over — a new (and obvious) 30 percent tax on the
miles they drive each week — one of the proposals floated
as an alternative to the motor fuels taxes. This latter idea is why
test balloons have been floated by such as Progressive Insurance to
see what the reaction might be to requiring that cars be fitted
with GPS-based recording/transmitting devices. One of the potential
uses of this technology would be to monitor exactly how often —
and how far — we drive.
And charge us, accordingly.
But, it’s a hot potato, politically. People — most people —
may not be ready for that … yet. In the meanwhile, it’s
easier to keep selling them gas pigs. They’re sold as safe
gas pigs, of course. And late-model America leg humps
safety like an unfixed mongrel dog.
Probably we won’t see 70 MPG-capable cars like the European-spec
VW Passat BlueMotion 1.6 TDI over here until the cost of fuel
(via taxation) is comparable to what it is over there. At
which point, the problem nicely solves itself. Meanwhile, expect
more hot air — more talk about high-mileage cars.
And much less action.
Or rather, less in the way of action to remove the regulatory
stumbling blocks that make it all-but-impossible to build a
genuinely economical car — or even to import reasonably economical
ones like the European Passat 1.6 TDI over here. What we’ll get,
instead, will be more cost and more cumbersome technology — all
nicely wrapped up in “safety” gift-wrap. In a few years, this will
render new cars all-but-unaffordable.
And then, building new roads won’t matter anymore.
