[Still Thinking]

But tax-by-mile advocates say it may be the only way to ensure that fuel efficiency doesn't prevent smooth sailing down the road.

That's simply not true. If someone's beef is that the newer cars are more fuel effient, therefore causing more were and tear on the roads per gallon of fuel (though the cars are fuel efficient partly because they are light, thus wearing the roads less per mile), that can be fixed by adjusting the AMOUNT of the per gallon tax. There's no reason to jump all the way to some new technology they could use (and therefore would eventually use) to invade our privacy.

Also, the per mile method "favors the rich" as SUV miles would presumably be taxed the same as Greenie-mobile miles, despite having a differing effect on the roadbed (so liberals aren't supposed to like it).

[John O]

There's no reason to jump all the way to some new technology they could use (and therefore would eventually use) to invade our privacy.

There's your mistake. You have no right to privacy (unless of course you are a woman intending to murder your unborn child)

[libstripper]

That's what mystifies me about this miles driven mleage tax proposal. The present gas tax is really the fairest way to distribute the burden of road building and maintenance. People who have heavier vehicles, like my Navigator, and who drive more, pay their proportionate share of the cost of highway construction and maintenance through the gas tax, which is essentially based on a combination of vehicle mileage and distance driven.

People who choose to drive hybrids necessarily choose to drive light vehicles that do not cause the wear and tear on highways caused by heavier passenger vehicles. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable that they be rewarded by not paying as much gas tax.