Per mile tax democrats
Executive summary
Democratic lawmakers at both state and federal levels are actively exploring per-mile—or vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT)—charges as a tool to stabilize transportation funding as fuel-tax revenue declines, advancing pilot programs and bills such as California’s AB 1421; proponents frame it as a fairer, future-proof replacement for gas taxes while critics call it double taxation and a privacy nightmare [1] [2] [3]. Several states have funded or proposed pilots, and Congress authorized federal pilot grants in the 2021 infrastructure law; nothing in that law established a national VMT tax, only studies and pilot projects [3] [4] [5].
1. What Democratic lawmakers are actually advancing on per-mile charges
Democrats in multiple jurisdictions are advancing legislation or budget measures to study and pilot per-mile charges and to extend advisory or pilot programs—most concretely California’s assembly action moving AB 1421 forward, which critics warn could layer a mileage tax on top of the existing gas tax, and Michigan Democrats seeking $5 million for a state pilot to test options and technologies for mileage-based fees [1] [6]. At the federal level, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included funding for state and regional pilot projects to test road-usage fees rather than enacting a nationwide VMT tax [3] [5].
2. The practical rationale Democrats cite: declining fuel-tax revenue and equity
Supporters argue that as vehicles become more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles proliferate, gasoline taxes—which now fund a large share of road maintenance—no longer capture road usage reliably, creating a structural shortfall; proponents see per-mile fees as a more direct user-charge to preserve highway funding [7] [8] [5]. State advocates say pilots can test pricing, technology, and public acceptance and design options—such as non-location-based reporting—to reduce privacy risks [6] [7].
3. What pilots, reimbursement models and reporting approaches look like today
States have run or proposed a range of pilots: Oregon’s OReGO program charged volunteer participants a per-mile fee with fuel-tax credits and experimented with different data-collection methods; Washington, Michigan and others have looked at opt-in pilots and hybrid approaches that allow EV drivers to choose mileage billing instead of flat registration fees [7] [9] [6]. The federal pilot funding authorized in the infrastructure law primarily supports feasibility studies and technology testing rather than setting rates or mandating implementation [3] [4].
4. Political and public pushback: taxes, double taxation and privacy
Opponents—especially Republicans and anti-tax groups—paint per-mile proposals as “another tax” and warn of double taxation where per-mile charges could be layered atop high state gas taxes, a charge made against AB 1421 in California and voiced by state GOP leaders [1] [2]. Privacy and government surveillance concerns surface repeatedly: critics worry about location tracking and data collection, prompting some pilots and proposals to require reporting options that do not rely on location data and to minimize personal information collected [6] [7].
5. How this would affect drivers and related measures to offset impact
Impact depends on design: pilots and existing state programs have explored per-mile rates in the cents-per-mile range (examples vary from roughly two to a few cents per mile in state pilots), and many proposals include credits for fuel taxes already paid so heavier gas users or those paying higher per-gallon taxes are not automatically penalized—yet critics still say it could raise costs for high-mileage drivers and truckers unless carefully structured [7] [9] [5]. Tax and reimbursement landscapes complicate comparisons: for example, the IRS sets annual standard mileage reimbursement rates (72.5¢/mile for business in 2026), which are unrelated to per-mile public-user fees but affect employer and tax accounting [10] [11].
6. Bottom line and remaining unknowns
Democratic interest in per-mile charges is pragmatic—driven by funding gaps as fuel consumption falls—and manifests mostly as pilots, advisory extensions and study funding rather than enacted universal VMT taxes; the specifics (rates, privacy safeguards, replacement vs. supplement to gas taxes) remain undecided and politically contentious, with credible critiques about double taxation and surveillance that proponents are trying to address through opt-in choices and technical safeguards [3] [1] [6]. Sources document pilots and proposals but do not support claims of a current nationwide per-mile tax; reporting shows Democrats are advancing study and pilot phases while opponents emphasize taxation and privacy risks [4] [2].