5 ms·

Because the people slogging out commutes from places they can actually afford don't have it bad enough? What is the logic behind this? I get that "cars bad" b

Because the people slogging out commutes from places they can actually afford don't have it bad enough? What is the logic behind this? I get that "cars bad" but do they seriously believe they're so bad that tradesmen who lives way out there so they can afford homes should pay more? They're already paying with their time.

vkou 6y ago
The logic behind it is that someone should pay for road construction and wear and tear, and it should probably be heavy road users, as opposed to, you know, light road users. The beauty of the free market is that increases in cost of shipping and transportation trickle down to prices paid by consumers, who can then vote with their wallet. If the cost of road usage is factored into the price of a good, I can choose to buy a good that results in less road usage, because it's cheaper. Gas taxes (as opposed to mileage taxes) are decent enough driver of environmental policy, but they don't accurately capture road usage, especially in a world that's moving towards electric cars.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >The logic behind it is that someone should pay for road construction and wear and tear, and it should probably be heavy road users, as opposed to, you know, light road users. But it still seems wildly incompatible with the "equity over equality" theme that most other new and upcoming CA government policy is based off of. Especially so considering that road wear is mostly from heavy trucks. >Gas taxes (as opposed to mileage taxes) are decent enough driver of environmental policy, but they don't accurately capture road usage, especially in a world that's moving towards electric cars. But the people who are moving to electric cars are already the ones who will benefit most from a mileage based tax since they tend to be wealthier and already have shorter commutes. It's not like CA is going to stop taxing gas.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Road wear is mostly from heavy trucks, but road construction isn't driven by heavy trucks. It's driven by the needs of normal people driving sedans and SUVs and pickups. Wealthier people buy more goods and services, which get delivered to their local store/home on roads. While they personally won't pay more mileage taxes, they will end up paying more of them through their purchases. I get it, this isn't the most progressive form of taxation, but neither are gas taxes (if they don't come with a dividend, like they do in BC.) If anything, poor people pay disproportionately more in gas taxes, than they would in road use taxes, because they tend to drive longer distances in less fuel efficient vehicles. That's a double-whammy.
michael1999 6y ago
Because governments collect road tax from gasoline as an approximate usage fee. As EVs become a measurable part of traffic, they require a replacement.

vkou 6y ago

The logic behind it is that someone should pay for road construction and wear and tear, and it should probably be heavy road users, as opposed to, you know, light road users. The beauty of the free market is that increases in cost of shipping and transportation trickle down to prices paid by consumers, who can then vote with their wallet. If the cost of road usage is factored into the price of a good, I can choose to buy a good that results in less road usage, because it's cheaper. Gas taxes (as opposed to mileage taxes) are decent enough driver of environmental policy, but they don't accurately capture road usage, especially in a world that's moving towards electric cars.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>The logic behind it is that someone should pay for road construction and wear and tear, and it should probably be heavy road users, as opposed to, you know, light road users. But it still seems wildly incompatible with the "equity over equality" theme that most other new and upcoming CA government policy is based off of. Especially so considering that road wear is mostly from heavy trucks. >Gas taxes (as opposed to mileage taxes) are decent enough driver of environmental policy, but they don't accurately capture road usage, especially in a world that's moving towards electric cars. But the people who are moving to electric cars are already the ones who will benefit most from a mileage based tax since they tend to be wealthier and already have shorter commutes. It's not like CA is going to stop taxing gas.
- vkou 6y ago
  Road wear is mostly from heavy trucks, but road construction isn't driven by heavy trucks. It's driven by the needs of normal people driving sedans and SUVs and pickups. Wealthier people buy more goods and services, which get delivered to their local store/home on roads. While they personally won't pay more mileage taxes, they will end up paying more of them through their purchases. I get it, this isn't the most progressive form of taxation, but neither are gas taxes (if they don't come with a dividend, like they do in BC.) If anything, poor people pay disproportionately more in gas taxes, than they would in road use taxes, because they tend to drive longer distances in less fuel efficient vehicles. That's a double-whammy.

michael1999 6y ago

Because governments collect road tax from gasoline as an approximate usage fee. As EVs become a measurable part of traffic, they require a replacement.