-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Such taxes should be based on weight (and ideally factoring in the rolling resistance of the tires too) and miles driven within the state. The only viable way I have heard to implement this (without GPS devices inside the car) is to annually report all your total miles to the state your car is registered in (this can be collected during smog and other related events). The form should let you break down your miles by state, but the full amount will be collected and your state forwards "out of state" amounts to the other states. This prevents fraud in reporting out-of-state usage (as the full amount is collected no matter how you break down your usage).
I think the tax should be in the form:
A + B * miles * weight^C
There are fixed costs to maintaining a viable road network, and if you have a car you always have the option of using that network. Therefore A > 0.
There are variable costs caused by vehicles using the road. Therefore B > 0.
The physics of road wear are such that heavier vehicles cause greater-than-proportional damage. Therefore C > 1.
So, for example, a reasonable tax might be:
$20 + $0.0014 * miles * weight^2.5 (where weight is expressed in tons) which approximates a gasoline tax of $0.30/gal.
A + B * miles * weight^C
There are fixed costs to maintaining a viable road network, and if you have a car you always have the option of using that network. Therefore A > 0.
There are variable costs caused by vehicles using the road. Therefore B > 0.
The physics of road wear are such that heavier vehicles cause greater-than-proportional damage. Therefore C > 1.
So, for example, a reasonable tax might be:
$20 + $0.0014 * miles * weight^2.5 (where weight is expressed in tons) which approximates a gasoline tax of $0.30/gal.
artsci
Sponsor
Don't you think the formula should include some kind of discount for propulsion type that provides incentives for low-carbon output vehicles such as EV's? Or are the purchase tax break incentives enough? I know that carbon output probably has very low impact on road damage but I think that there are other social and environmental costs that need to be taken into account.
Last edited:
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
I feel for you guys out there. Wish Virginia would follow California's lead with the $2500 State incentive. We have a Department of Environmental Quality in Virginia, but they seem disinterested in Alternative Energy Incentives. You would think with Dominion Power HQed in Richmond - they would be on the hill pushing for pro BEV legislation- so they could sell more electricity.
muleferg
Active Member
This is why this is completely stupid. I guess a lot of states want to penalize EV owners. The result is going to be bizarre "compliance cars" which have a very, very small gasoline generator.
Charge all cars a flat for road maintenance, charge them by weight, charge them by odometer, whatever, but don't penalize electric cars. States which do so are in the pocket of the oil companies.
- - - Updated - - -
At least this would be fuel-neutral. Basically similar to property taxes.
- - - Updated - - -
Instead, NC established the "principle" that people should pay penalties for buying pure EVs, by paying higher road use fees than purchasers of (for instance) the Volt. This is totally inappropriate and has the smell of an oil company scheme.
ToddRLockwood
Active Member
Visitors to Vermont pay the real estate taxes through room fees, and in some communities, through add-on room taxes. Visitors presently pay road taxes through the gas pumps. Vermont's population is just over 600,000. At certain times of year we have more out-of-state drivers on our roads than in-state drivers. Also, we have no tolls on our two interstates.
The Boston area would have a similar problem because many people who work in Boston commute from nearby New Hampshire where the taxes are more favorable.
artsci
Sponsor
The answer is that most states do charge guests (wherever they come from) an "occupancy" tax for hotel stays. It comes with various names but it's almost universal.
I'm not convinced that road tax should be based on personal usage. Even if you don't own a car, you depend on the infrastructure, roads are used by law enforcement and emergency services, and by commercial operations, including grocery stores where you get your food.
Charging a per gallon carbon tax on gas would make sense though.
Charging a per gallon carbon tax on gas would make sense though.
In the world where Robert is the benevolent overlord, there'd be a carbon tax assessed at the wellhead/minemouth, so the adverse environmental impacts due to your choice of fuel would already be priced in. The extra tax is about the cost of maintaining roads.
(And, to another poster's point, of course we should attempt to eliminate fraud and waste in all areas of government, including transportation departments. But there's no logical necessity that reducing those departments budgets reduces the fraud and waste rather than reducing essential services. As any homeowner knows, it's far more expensive to fix the damage from poor maintenance compared to the cost of the maintenance itself; reducing highway budgets seems to result in increasing amounts of "deferred maintenance" which will come back and bite us. If we added all that deferred maintenance to the debt, you'd see that spending cash to keep maintenance on schedule reduces the debt.)
Similar threads
