The people behind this project already concede that taxes can be engineered to change behaviors. If Americans begin buying fuel-efficient cars because gasoline costs too much (and there is little evidence to suggest this is happening at the moment), then taxing them by the mile would work in the opposite direction. Why buy a small car when you're taxed as much as in an SUV? If the gas tax is removed, the advertised price of gas would drop considerably, which also could entice a mathematically challenged public to hang on to its SUV love affair.

The people behind Oregon's plan discount this. "The price of gas is enough to be a disincentive to owning and driving an SUV," Oregon's administrator for the Federal Highway Administration was quoted as saying by the AP. Really? It hasn't been so far.

Still, on one level the underlying assumptions for this program make sense. It all has to do with fairness. The more you use the roads, the more you ought to pay for the upkeep of those roads. That's the same philosophy behind the head tax being proposed for funding Utah schools.

But fairness can be an elusive concept. Big commercial trucks already pay taxes based on miles traveled. But they also pay based on the weight of the loads they carry. A small car has less of an impact on asphalt than does a big one. Meanwhile, even non-drivers benefit from a healthy highway system, just as everyone benefits from good schools.

Don't be surprised if you hear more about the Oregon plan. A lot of other states are watching it with interest.

Yes, it is true that modern technology could help overhaul an outdated tax system, both in Utah and nationally. My suggestion, however, is to avoid the plans that threaten to intrude on privacy. It is indeed good to think out of the box, but not every box is bad.

---

Jay Evensen is editor of the Deseret Morning News editorial page. E-mail: even@desnews.com