3 ms·

>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, li

>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.