9 ms·

It's really going to be interesting when EV drivers start getting charged per mile. We'll have to figure out something to make up for the missing gasoline yeah

by yessql 11y ago

It's really going to be interesting when EV drivers start getting charged per mile. We'll have to figure out something to make up for the missing gasoline yeah revenues. And it is probably already becoming substantial in California.

bpodgursky 11y ago
Reflexive downvotes are kind of out of control on HN now (parent was gray)... For those who don't understand, gasoline taxes provide a large portion of highway maintenance revenue (often most). Electric cars have as much wear-and-tear on roads as gas cars, but avoid that tax right now. At some point we will need to figure out how to shift taxes from per-gallon to per-mile, or add an equivalent surcharge on electric chargers. Since home chargers are just electrical outlets, there's no real way to tax just the "highway electricity" there. So we either have to increase income/property taxes across the board, or have a mileage tax. Most of HN would't like option (1) because then everyone who bikes/takes public transit is subsidizing all highway transit. So yeah, it has to happen eventually.
- ygra 11y ago
  Couldn't you just raise the yearly tax on having a(n electric) car in that case?
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    road taxes should be done for mileage as that more accurately measures their use and impact of roads. you would of course still keep the other fees associated with vehicles like tag fees and such. with regards to the article, charging should not be free in public spaces. that alone would cut down on some of the abuse. Electric cars need a very clear and obvious indicator for charge state as well - that is communicated back to the charger and visual to any who walk up. Likely a standard is going to be needed
    - masklinn 11y ago
      > road taxes should be done for mileage as that more accurately measures their use and impact of roads. Not at all. Axle load has a completely outsized impact on road wear. Civil engineers use a fourth power law to estimate road wear with respect to axle load: if you double the mileage you double road wear, but if you double the axle load (assuming constant axle count) the road wear is multiplied by 16. Put in numbers, a Model S has an axle load of 1T (2T on 2 axles). A fully loaded 18-wheeler is limited to 36T (80000lbs) on 5 axles or a 7.2T average axle load. The road wear impact of the 18-wheeler compared to the Model S is 2.5 * 7.2^4 (2.5 times the number of axles and axle load ratio raised to the 4th power), or about 6700 times that of the Model S. It's actually slightly higher than that as 18-wheelers have 4 7.7T axles and 1 5.5 axle rather than 5 7.2T axles, the estimate is closer to 7500. Your standard 2T sedan has to drive for 7500 miles to generate the road wear a loaded 18-wheeler generates every mile. Assuming your 2T sedan lives for 150000 miles, it's had the same road wear impact as 20 miles of a loaded 18-wheeler. When it comes to road wear and maintenance, mileage-based pricing and taxes are trucking subsidies.
      - mattmanser 11y ago
        Trucking subsidies? I find that a bit of a strange attitude. Without the roads there would be no deliveries. No deliveries, no industry. No industry, no jobs. So of all the things to call it, a trucking subsidy seems a very loaded description.
        URSpider94 11y ago
        Just because we need trucks doesn't mean that we should subsidize them. If trucks paid their fair share of road repair costs, then those costs would be allocated into the costs of goods and services accordingly, while gas and fuel taxes on personal vehicles could decrease. One might argue that this is a more "fair" distribution of costs.
        klipt 11y ago
        Do we really need all those trucks? Trains can ship goods, and rail is much cheaper to maintain than roads.
  - Sembiance 11y ago
    In North Carolina they already do that. I pay an extra $100 a year because I own an electric car.
- brc 11y ago
  Electric cars probably contribute more to road wear and tear because they are generally heavier. I actually support flat rate vehicle weight/mileage use taxes. That woudo encourage lighter cars and less driving. The technology exists and it could be done. You could also add time of use charging (or discounts for off peak driving).
  - dmm 11y ago
    (Vehicle caused*) Road damage cause by anything other than heavy trucks is trival, less than 1%.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Weather also does a lot of damage.
    - cowsandmilk 11y ago
      yep. This is why (even as I am a bicycle commuter) I find it hilarious when people talk about bicycle commuters not causing potholes. Typically, bicycle commuters aren't displacing heavy trucks.
- aexaey 11y ago
  > Electric cars have as much wear-and-tear on roads as gas cars Sometimes even more. Of course that depends on exact car that is being compared, but as a rule of thumb, an all-electric vehicle would be significantly heavier due to battery weight, and as was pointed out: > Road damage rises [...] to the fourth power of the axle weight [0]. Salient example is a Tesla model S, which have a curb weight of 2.1 metric tons in standard configuration [1], while comparable gasoline-powered sedan weights in at approximately 1.5 metric tons [2]. That means that applying formula above, "average", electric car causes 3.6 times more road wear than "average" CO2-belching one, just due to being 40% heavier while having same number of axles. To make matters worse, many countries tax vehicles based on their weight (so to translate a fair share of road repair costs to the vehicle owner). And that makes subsidies (in the form of tax exemptions) to the electric vehicles even more important - otherwise electric cars would not be able to compete at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating [1] http://www.teslamotors.com/support/model-s-specifications http://www.teslamotors.com/support/model-s-specifications [2] http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2015/showroom/technical_data.html http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2015/sho...
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > Salient example is a Tesla model S, which have a curb weight of 2.1 metric tons in standard configuration [1], while comparable gasoline-powered sedan weights in at approximately 1.5 metric tons [2]. That means that applying formula above, "average", electric car causes 3.6 times more road wear than "average" CO2-belching one, just due to being 40% heavier while having same number of axles. The comparison doesn't hold, the Model S is a full-sized sedan, the 3-series is a compact. The Model S is somewhere between the 5-Series and the 7-Series, closer to the 7-Series than the 5. Either way, both EV and ICE car road wear is completely dwarfed by trucks.
    - aexaey 11y ago
      It is a moot point. Having seen (but not driven) model S, I can't say it looks big enough to warrant comparison to a 7-series, and even then latter is 1800kg [0], so Model S is still 17% heavier or causing 1.85 times road wear. Point about trucks stands of course, as you've pointed in the other comment. 3-4 orders of magnitude more road wear - that's crazy! I wonder how does that translates to truck road taxes. [0] http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/7series/sedan/2015/showroom/technical_data.html http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/7series/sedan/2015/sho...
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
  > For those who don't understand, gasoline taxes provide a large portion of highway maintenance revenue (often most). The gas tax indeed provides the largest single source of funding, but many roads are funded mostly by general revenue nowadays. I seem to recall that half of major highways and interstates fail to capture enough gas tax revenue to maintain themselves, with roads in general only getting about half of their funding in the form of the gas tax.
- morgante 11y ago
  Or, you know, we could just use tax revenue from elsewhere. There's absolutely no inherent reason that roads have to be paid for by a tax on their usage.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > There's absolutely no inherent reason that roads have to be paid for by a tax on their usage. Well there's the inherent reason that it's a requirement for proper resources allocation in a capitalistic framework (although the requirement is less tax on their usage and more tax on their consumption/wear)
    - morgante 11y ago
      That's only true if our goal is to minimize consumption, which I'm not sure is advisable for the majority of roads, especially once we switch to electrical vehicles. A subsidized transportation network is pretty effective at encouraging commerce. That being said, I do think there are localized areas where we want to decrease usage. So the future probably involves a combination of tax-free electrical vehicles and substantially more toll roads/congestion-charged zones.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      Over here (Finland), tax revenue from fuel and vehicle taxes is 7 G€ per years, government expenditure on roads is in the order of 1 G€ per year. There is no relationship of vehicle/gas taxes and road maintenance; taxes are just general revenue. And I think it's just the same in most countries: taxes are just taxes, general revenue; not earmarked money for some particular purpose. (What baffles me is that the gas tax in U.S. is so low; that contributes to the situation where vehicles are often very large and consume ridiculously high amounts of fuel).
      - linksnapzz 11y ago
        I had a big long post written about the why and how of the gas tax in the USA, and the economics of consumer preference, the history of American car design, and the implications of the historic price of fuel on car design, penetration of auto use, and the effect of all that on urban planning. It was too long, and I fear it might be boring. So, to summarize: due to historic accident, Americans like big cars. Moreover, no matter what cars they might prefer, ownership of a car is an economic necessity for most Americans-again, historic accident. Those Americans are also not very well off, at least by northern-Europe standards, so money for gas is a big line-item in the family budget. A regressive tax increase on fuel would be clearly felt && very unwelcome, even though many if not most could see the logic behind it.
- baddox 11y ago
  Limited access highways should all be toll roads. It's quite feasible now, and clearly fairer and more efficient than gasoline taxes or funding from general tax revenue.
- jkyle 11y ago
  > For those who don't understand, gasoline taxes provide a large portion of highway maintenance revenue This isn't true. They only provide 20% of revenue in CA and between 20-30% across the country. Taxes on fuel have not been raised for decades. Currently, most road funding comes from non-road related taxes. I made a longer post above with citations.
jeromeflipo 11y ago
Are fossil fuels taxed in California accordingly to their effects on human health and global warming already?
- dxhdr 11y ago
  I agree but I don't see how this is relevant. Electricity in California is generated predominately from natural gas, a slightly cleaner burning fossil fuel than gasoline.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Is that form of revenue even sensible any more? If you used ordinary tax generation for road building you would also silence critics of pedestrian and cycle infrastructure complaining about it being paid for from fuel tax revenue.
- revelation 11y ago
  Ordinary taxation is already a major source of funding for road maintenance and of course the massive externalities. Fuel tax in most states is a flat rate that hence isn't automatically adjusted with inflation, and it's political suicide to increase it (just love that cheap gas, but tax those EV fuckers, they are not paying road tax!). It's pretty much a laughably low amount by now.
baobabaobab 11y ago
We could also just use general tax revenue. You don't have to have a different tax for every expense.
- fiatjaf 11y ago
  Thank you for being the only sane person in this thread.
- avn2109 11y ago
  That's true in a strictly literal sense, but we really want the demand-destroying effects of a per-mile tax on private automobiles so as to incentivize a modal shift to other transit options. From that perspective, there's nothing better than raising taxes proportional to road mile or road hour.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Indeed. Not all taxes are about getting money; some are just about aligning incentives.
  - masterleep 11y ago
    Why do "we" want that?
- superuser2 11y ago
  City-dwelling public transit users should not be forced to subsidize suburban sprawl, especially since there's such a straightforward way around it.
  - ketralnis 11y ago
    I suspect that that's a minority of the miles driven, well behind shipped goods. And that benefits the city dwellers too
  - alasdair_ 11y ago
    And the childless should not be forced to support education for children, and people in low crime neighborhoods should not be forced to support policing in high crime neighborhoods etc. Taxes are going to involve people that don't agree with something supporting those that do almost every time.
protomyth 11y ago
I would rather for the sake of low income people have the electricity charged with a tax. Paying it at registration time or on any other payment schedule is a pain and can be seen at how many people let their tags lapse. Why do people believe you cannot put a use tax on the electricity?
- eitally 11y ago
  Well, in California specifically (and the Bay Area even more specifically), how do you think that would be fair for lower middle class service employees commuting 2hrs+ each direction every day to get to their jobs on the peninsula or in the city? In this case, a use tax just penalizes people who have already been marginalized due to decisions municipalities have made about RE development. I'd be more in favor of increasing property taxes to cover more highway infrastructure than I would taxing the vehicles themselves. And for that matter, Prop 13 has to go.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Property tax is more painful to low income people and already makes it so schools in low income districts suffer. Use taxes are much more fair and immediate so it doesn't require future budgeting.
    - pmoriarty 11y ago
      Property taxes could be progressive. The more your dwelling costs, the more (percentage-wise) you could pay.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        and that is just more taxes without fixing how property taxes are used - we don't need more "progressive" taxes like that. Never mind the contractors and laborers who would be hurt by a lessening of new, more expensive homes. We tried that with luxury items and killed the yacht building industry in the US and put a lot of skilled craftspeople out of work.
Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
Personally I think tolls will become more and more common, both to capture revenue from electric vehicles and to fight congestion. The tolls will likely make public transit much more cost competitive, so it'll be interesting to see this play out.
- gohrt 11y ago
  A far simpler way to make transit cost competitive, for now, is to make transit nearly free, subsidized by existing road users (externality tax for the pollution/noise/etc), instead of making it fund itself.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Fare collection infrastructure is shockingly expensive (it is municipal government IT, after all) and prolongs bus loading times, requiring more equipment/fuel/labor to deliver the same service. Fare collection usually fails to recapture its own cost, or does so just barely. By some estimates, eliminating fare collection would actually consume less tax revenue, not more.
    - alasdair_ 11y ago
      In London (and Seattle) the busses are free to ride in busy locations for this exact reason.
oneJob 11y ago
Silly software engineers. So cute. They think taxes should be logical, effective, relevant. Should someone tell them that taxes are a political issue? (Sarcasm aside, I look forward to the day when our political bodies become composed of a higher percentage of such minded individuals, as software wealth translates into political power, who might inject some reality into the process.)
- masklinn 11y ago
  > Sarcasm aside, I look forward to the day when our political bodies become composed of a higher percentage of such minded individuals, as software wealth translates into political power, who might inject some reality into the process. If that isn't sarcastic, you're in for serious disappointment if you think SEs are any less human than anybody else.
  - oneJob 11y ago
    Used to be in local goverment. Now in SE. I am fully aware of the aspects of human nature epressed by SEs. Perhaps you are are not personally familiar with the polital version of humans. I dare say you would find yourself dissapointed after a week of lobbying appointments, town hall meetings, and closed door discussions.
tigeba 11y ago
Missouri already has a tax stamp for EV's that is ostensibly to offset the lost revenue from gasoline taxes.
jkyle 11y ago
Only 20% of road maintenance in CA is paid for by local and general taxes.[1] Probably less now that gas prices have dropped so much. So even if it dropped to 0%, it would only result in a 20% shortfall that would have to be made up in the general fund. Also of interest, if you look at the numbers most car drivers (gas and otherwise) operate at a deficit. They do more damage to the road then they pay in taxes and fees to maintain it. Pubic transit users, bike commuters, and those who do not car commute in general subsidize car drivers.[2] There was a similar study done on CA alone, can't find it at the moment. Also, remember, this doesn't even take into account the cost of health externalities due to car culture. It's purely cost of maintenance of the roads themselves. At least with electric vehicles, we're subsidizing a mode of transportation that doesn't destroy air quality in urban areas and is generally less of a public nuisance. 1. http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pa... 2. http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-that-only-drivers-pay-for-roads/393134/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-th...

by yessql 11y ago

bpodgursky 11y ago

Reflexive downvotes are kind of out of control on HN now (parent was gray)... For those who don't understand, gasoline taxes provide a large portion of highway maintenance revenue (often most). Electric cars have as much wear-and-tear on roads as gas cars, but avoid that tax right now. At some point we will need to figure out how to shift taxes from per-gallon to per-mile, or add an equivalent surcharge on electric chargers. Since home chargers are just electrical outlets, there's no real way to tax just the "highway electricity" there. So we either have to increase income/property taxes across the board, or have a mileage tax. Most of HN would't like option (1) because then everyone who bikes/takes public transit is subsidizing all highway transit. So yeah, it has to happen eventually.

ygra 11y ago
Couldn't you just raise the yearly tax on having a(n electric) car in that case?
- Shivetya 11y ago
  road taxes should be done for mileage as that more accurately measures their use and impact of roads. you would of course still keep the other fees associated with vehicles like tag fees and such. with regards to the article, charging should not be free in public spaces. that alone would cut down on some of the abuse. Electric cars need a very clear and obvious indicator for charge state as well - that is communicated back to the charger and visual to any who walk up. Likely a standard is going to be needed
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > road taxes should be done for mileage as that more accurately measures their use and impact of roads. Not at all. Axle load has a completely outsized impact on road wear. Civil engineers use a fourth power law to estimate road wear with respect to axle load: if you double the mileage you double road wear, but if you double the axle load (assuming constant axle count) the road wear is multiplied by 16. Put in numbers, a Model S has an axle load of 1T (2T on 2 axles). A fully loaded 18-wheeler is limited to 36T (80000lbs) on 5 axles or a 7.2T average axle load. The road wear impact of the 18-wheeler compared to the Model S is 2.5 * 7.2^4 (2.5 times the number of axles and axle load ratio raised to the 4th power), or about 6700 times that of the Model S. It's actually slightly higher than that as 18-wheelers have 4 7.7T axles and 1 5.5 axle rather than 5 7.2T axles, the estimate is closer to 7500. Your standard 2T sedan has to drive for 7500 miles to generate the road wear a loaded 18-wheeler generates every mile. Assuming your 2T sedan lives for 150000 miles, it's had the same road wear impact as 20 miles of a loaded 18-wheeler. When it comes to road wear and maintenance, mileage-based pricing and taxes are trucking subsidies.
    - mattmanser 11y ago
      Trucking subsidies? I find that a bit of a strange attitude. Without the roads there would be no deliveries. No deliveries, no industry. No industry, no jobs. So of all the things to call it, a trucking subsidy seems a very loaded description.
      - URSpider94 11y ago
        Just because we need trucks doesn't mean that we should subsidize them. If trucks paid their fair share of road repair costs, then those costs would be allocated into the costs of goods and services accordingly, while gas and fuel taxes on personal vehicles could decrease. One might argue that this is a more "fair" distribution of costs.
        klipt 11y ago
        Do we really need all those trucks? Trains can ship goods, and rail is much cheaper to maintain than roads.
- Sembiance 11y ago
  In North Carolina they already do that. I pay an extra $100 a year because I own an electric car.
brc 11y ago
Electric cars probably contribute more to road wear and tear because they are generally heavier. I actually support flat rate vehicle weight/mileage use taxes. That woudo encourage lighter cars and less driving. The technology exists and it could be done. You could also add time of use charging (or discounts for off peak driving).
- dmm 11y ago
  (Vehicle caused*) Road damage cause by anything other than heavy trucks is trival, less than 1%.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Weather also does a lot of damage.
  - cowsandmilk 11y ago
    yep. This is why (even as I am a bicycle commuter) I find it hilarious when people talk about bicycle commuters not causing potholes. Typically, bicycle commuters aren't displacing heavy trucks.
aexaey 11y ago
> Electric cars have as much wear-and-tear on roads as gas cars Sometimes even more. Of course that depends on exact car that is being compared, but as a rule of thumb, an all-electric vehicle would be significantly heavier due to battery weight, and as was pointed out: > Road damage rises [...] to the fourth power of the axle weight [0]. Salient example is a Tesla model S, which have a curb weight of 2.1 metric tons in standard configuration [1], while comparable gasoline-powered sedan weights in at approximately 1.5 metric tons [2]. That means that applying formula above, "average", electric car causes 3.6 times more road wear than "average" CO2-belching one, just due to being 40% heavier while having same number of axles. To make matters worse, many countries tax vehicles based on their weight (so to translate a fair share of road repair costs to the vehicle owner). And that makes subsidies (in the form of tax exemptions) to the electric vehicles even more important - otherwise electric cars would not be able to compete at all. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating [1] http://www.teslamotors.com/support/model-s-specifications http://www.teslamotors.com/support/model-s-specifications [2] http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2015/showroom/technical_data.html http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2015/sho...
- masklinn 11y ago
  > Salient example is a Tesla model S, which have a curb weight of 2.1 metric tons in standard configuration [1], while comparable gasoline-powered sedan weights in at approximately 1.5 metric tons [2]. That means that applying formula above, "average", electric car causes 3.6 times more road wear than "average" CO2-belching one, just due to being 40% heavier while having same number of axles. The comparison doesn't hold, the Model S is a full-sized sedan, the 3-series is a compact. The Model S is somewhere between the 5-Series and the 7-Series, closer to the 7-Series than the 5. Either way, both EV and ICE car road wear is completely dwarfed by trucks.
  - aexaey 11y ago
    It is a moot point. Having seen (but not driven) model S, I can't say it looks big enough to warrant comparison to a 7-series, and even then latter is 1800kg [0], so Model S is still 17% heavier or causing 1.85 times road wear. Point about trucks stands of course, as you've pointed in the other comment. 3-4 orders of magnitude more road wear - that's crazy! I wonder how does that translates to truck road taxes. [0] http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/7series/sedan/2015/showroom/technical_data.html http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/7series/sedan/2015/sho...
Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
> For those who don't understand, gasoline taxes provide a large portion of highway maintenance revenue (often most). The gas tax indeed provides the largest single source of funding, but many roads are funded mostly by general revenue nowadays. I seem to recall that half of major highways and interstates fail to capture enough gas tax revenue to maintain themselves, with roads in general only getting about half of their funding in the form of the gas tax.
morgante 11y ago
Or, you know, we could just use tax revenue from elsewhere. There's absolutely no inherent reason that roads have to be paid for by a tax on their usage.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > There's absolutely no inherent reason that roads have to be paid for by a tax on their usage. Well there's the inherent reason that it's a requirement for proper resources allocation in a capitalistic framework (although the requirement is less tax on their usage and more tax on their consumption/wear)
  - morgante 11y ago
    That's only true if our goal is to minimize consumption, which I'm not sure is advisable for the majority of roads, especially once we switch to electrical vehicles. A subsidized transportation network is pretty effective at encouraging commerce. That being said, I do think there are localized areas where we want to decrease usage. So the future probably involves a combination of tax-free electrical vehicles and substantially more toll roads/congestion-charged zones.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    Over here (Finland), tax revenue from fuel and vehicle taxes is 7 G€ per years, government expenditure on roads is in the order of 1 G€ per year. There is no relationship of vehicle/gas taxes and road maintenance; taxes are just general revenue. And I think it's just the same in most countries: taxes are just taxes, general revenue; not earmarked money for some particular purpose. (What baffles me is that the gas tax in U.S. is so low; that contributes to the situation where vehicles are often very large and consume ridiculously high amounts of fuel).
    - linksnapzz 11y ago
      I had a big long post written about the why and how of the gas tax in the USA, and the economics of consumer preference, the history of American car design, and the implications of the historic price of fuel on car design, penetration of auto use, and the effect of all that on urban planning. It was too long, and I fear it might be boring. So, to summarize: due to historic accident, Americans like big cars. Moreover, no matter what cars they might prefer, ownership of a car is an economic necessity for most Americans-again, historic accident. Those Americans are also not very well off, at least by northern-Europe standards, so money for gas is a big line-item in the family budget. A regressive tax increase on fuel would be clearly felt && very unwelcome, even though many if not most could see the logic behind it.
baddox 11y ago
Limited access highways should all be toll roads. It's quite feasible now, and clearly fairer and more efficient than gasoline taxes or funding from general tax revenue.
jkyle 11y ago
> For those who don't understand, gasoline taxes provide a large portion of highway maintenance revenue This isn't true. They only provide 20% of revenue in CA and between 20-30% across the country. Taxes on fuel have not been raised for decades. Currently, most road funding comes from non-road related taxes. I made a longer post above with citations.

jeromeflipo 11y ago

Are fossil fuels taxed in California accordingly to their effects on human health and global warming already?

dxhdr 11y ago
I agree but I don't see how this is relevant. Electricity in California is generated predominately from natural gas, a slightly cleaner burning fossil fuel than gasoline.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Is that form of revenue even sensible any more? If you used ordinary tax generation for road building you would also silence critics of pedestrian and cycle infrastructure complaining about it being paid for from fuel tax revenue.

revelation 11y ago
Ordinary taxation is already a major source of funding for road maintenance and of course the massive externalities. Fuel tax in most states is a flat rate that hence isn't automatically adjusted with inflation, and it's political suicide to increase it (just love that cheap gas, but tax those EV fuckers, they are not paying road tax!). It's pretty much a laughably low amount by now.

baobabaobab 11y ago

We could also just use general tax revenue. You don't have to have a different tax for every expense.

fiatjaf 11y ago
Thank you for being the only sane person in this thread.
avn2109 11y ago
That's true in a strictly literal sense, but we really want the demand-destroying effects of a per-mile tax on private automobiles so as to incentivize a modal shift to other transit options. From that perspective, there's nothing better than raising taxes proportional to road mile or road hour.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Indeed. Not all taxes are about getting money; some are just about aligning incentives.
- masterleep 11y ago
  Why do "we" want that?
superuser2 11y ago
City-dwelling public transit users should not be forced to subsidize suburban sprawl, especially since there's such a straightforward way around it.
- ketralnis 11y ago
  I suspect that that's a minority of the miles driven, well behind shipped goods. And that benefits the city dwellers too
- alasdair_ 11y ago
  And the childless should not be forced to support education for children, and people in low crime neighborhoods should not be forced to support policing in high crime neighborhoods etc. Taxes are going to involve people that don't agree with something supporting those that do almost every time.

protomyth 11y ago

I would rather for the sake of low income people have the electricity charged with a tax. Paying it at registration time or on any other payment schedule is a pain and can be seen at how many people let their tags lapse. Why do people believe you cannot put a use tax on the electricity?

eitally 11y ago
Well, in California specifically (and the Bay Area even more specifically), how do you think that would be fair for lower middle class service employees commuting 2hrs+ each direction every day to get to their jobs on the peninsula or in the city? In this case, a use tax just penalizes people who have already been marginalized due to decisions municipalities have made about RE development. I'd be more in favor of increasing property taxes to cover more highway infrastructure than I would taxing the vehicles themselves. And for that matter, Prop 13 has to go.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Property tax is more painful to low income people and already makes it so schools in low income districts suffer. Use taxes are much more fair and immediate so it doesn't require future budgeting.
  - pmoriarty 11y ago
    Property taxes could be progressive. The more your dwelling costs, the more (percentage-wise) you could pay.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      and that is just more taxes without fixing how property taxes are used - we don't need more "progressive" taxes like that. Never mind the contractors and laborers who would be hurt by a lessening of new, more expensive homes. We tried that with luxury items and killed the yacht building industry in the US and put a lot of skilled craftspeople out of work.

Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago

Personally I think tolls will become more and more common, both to capture revenue from electric vehicles and to fight congestion. The tolls will likely make public transit much more cost competitive, so it'll be interesting to see this play out.

gohrt 11y ago
A far simpler way to make transit cost competitive, for now, is to make transit nearly free, subsidized by existing road users (externality tax for the pollution/noise/etc), instead of making it fund itself.
- superuser2 11y ago
  Fare collection infrastructure is shockingly expensive (it is municipal government IT, after all) and prolongs bus loading times, requiring more equipment/fuel/labor to deliver the same service. Fare collection usually fails to recapture its own cost, or does so just barely. By some estimates, eliminating fare collection would actually consume less tax revenue, not more.
  - alasdair_ 11y ago
    In London (and Seattle) the busses are free to ride in busy locations for this exact reason.

oneJob 11y ago

Silly software engineers. So cute. They think taxes should be logical, effective, relevant. Should someone tell them that taxes are a political issue? (Sarcasm aside, I look forward to the day when our political bodies become composed of a higher percentage of such minded individuals, as software wealth translates into political power, who might inject some reality into the process.)

masklinn 11y ago
> Sarcasm aside, I look forward to the day when our political bodies become composed of a higher percentage of such minded individuals, as software wealth translates into political power, who might inject some reality into the process. If that isn't sarcastic, you're in for serious disappointment if you think SEs are any less human than anybody else.
- oneJob 11y ago
  Used to be in local goverment. Now in SE. I am fully aware of the aspects of human nature epressed by SEs. Perhaps you are are not personally familiar with the polital version of humans. I dare say you would find yourself dissapointed after a week of lobbying appointments, town hall meetings, and closed door discussions.

tigeba 11y ago

Missouri already has a tax stamp for EV's that is ostensibly to offset the lost revenue from gasoline taxes.

jkyle 11y ago

Only 20% of road maintenance in CA is paid for by local and general taxes.[1] Probably less now that gas prices have dropped so much. So even if it dropped to 0%, it would only result in a 20% shortfall that would have to be made up in the general fund. Also of interest, if you look at the numbers most car drivers (gas and otherwise) operate at a deficit. They do more damage to the road then they pay in taxes and fees to maintain it. Pubic transit users, bike commuters, and those who do not car commute in general subsidize car drivers.[2] There was a similar study done on CA alone, can't find it at the moment. Also, remember, this doesn't even take into account the cost of health externalities due to car culture. It's purely cost of maintenance of the roads themselves. At least with electric vehicles, we're subsidizing a mode of transportation that doesn't destroy air quality in urban areas and is generally less of a public nuisance. 1. http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pa... 2. http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-that-only-drivers-pay-for-roads/393134/ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-th...