5 ms·

I wonder why you don't pay more if you use a heavier vehicle.

by Laaas 4y ago

judge2020 4y ago
Some states do charge you for registering heavier vehicles, and there's the HVUT for the heaviest road users like trucks[0]. 0: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/pdfs/fhwatri-fold.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/pdfs/fhwatri-fold.pdf
thomasjb 4y ago
One of the cantons of Switzerland does this, making it much more economical (in tax terms) to have a very lightweight sportscar than an SUV
TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
In Australia we do pay more for vehicle registration, but only a little, and number of engine cylinders is used as a proxy. Also, taxes make up about half our fuel price, so heavy vehicles tend to pay more tax.
- WirelessGigabit 4y ago
  Belgium does (did?) the same. Engine size was the number one driver of tax. Then turbos came along and engines started to shrink, so tax went down. As an answer to that CO2 taxes were introduced. Then companies started to aim for <= 99 gram CO2 / km, with super-small diesels. But then the report of VW's number fudging came along which caused a shift towards gas again. I don't know now how it works today, with EVs and small gas ICEs with big turbos etc. I do know that they mandate DEF on diesel cars, and OPF on gas cars.
Bootvis 4y ago
Maybe not in the USA but you would in the Netherlands and I bet elsewhere as well. For example, monthly tax for a gasoline car that weighs between 1051 and 1150 kilograms is EUR 125, for cars weighing between 2151 and 2250 you would pay EUR 378.
syzarian 4y ago
In the U.S. the reason is the Republican party. If we pay an amount to register a vehicle based on weight due to the increased damage it does to the roads then it will be portrayed as a radical environmentalist plot to get rid of SUVs and trucks. Republicans as love the idea of pay-as-you-use government services except when it comes to infrastructure. For example, it’s OK for a $25 traffic fine to include $100 in court costs but don’t under any circumstance expect one to pay more for gasoline to pay for road maintenance.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Your average techie/doctor/lawyer/manager who thinks he needs a 4Runner for his 2-kid household is not going to be dissuaded by hundreds of dollars here or their when their mortgage is thousands a month. You need a huge tax. That huge tax would be punitive on all sorts of "legitimate" activity. If it was a politics thing and not a "everybody who looks into it with any depth decides it's dumb" thing then some state like MD, RI, CT, or MA would have taxed it already. Furthermore, we're talking about "damage" (in sarcasm quotes because expected and normal wear isn't damage in any normal sense of the word) power equation here[1]. So basically everything that isn't a class 6/7/8 truck is inconsequential for a road that has any portion of its traffic made up by those vehicles. Since those trucks basically run the economy someone has to pay for it. There's really little political will to engage in an obvious exercise of "picking who to screw" like that vs an imperfect but fairly fair fuel tax. [1] https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
  - syzarian 4y ago
    You are correct that the desire to subsidize commercial activity plays a role. Republicans may not have power in a state like CT but there is still a desire not to be beat up on an issue that will play well to the masses. For instance, Michelle Obama advocated for better nutrition for school lunch programs. No reasonable person could possibly have seen fault with this but after Fox News attacked her over this it became a dead issue. EDIT: It is definitely not a dumb idea as you suggest. Many counties have sensible policies on this issue and yet they manage to trudge along without much trouble. As I said it is OK to advocate for pay-as-you-use government so long as people like you don’t pay for your negative externalities too often.
deelowe 4y ago
In the states, this is generally covered by fuel taxes. Older and heavier vehicles use more fuel, which generates more tax revenue. The model breaks down with EVs though, which is why some states have started to implement EV specific ad valorem taxes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Road wear is proportional to the 4th power of vehicle weight. Fuel economy is closer to linear to weight.
  - KMag 4y ago
    Is tire wear roughly proportional to road wear (in states where chains and studs are illegal)? Increasing tire tax would have negative effects (encouraging people to wear their tires dangerously thin, etc.) Encouraging tire manufacturers to use more durable formulations would likely increase road wear, but reduce amounts of tire dust pollution. In any case, it's not a perfect solution, but does a tire tax more closely approximate taxing road wear vs. a fuel tax or an annual flat tax based on vehicle weight?
  - deelowe 4y ago
    I oversimplified a bit. There are other taxes as well (e.g. trailer, number of axles, etc).
treis 4y ago
In this context, 20 times the damage is effectively 20 times 0. The real damage to roads comes from the big trucks like Garbage trucks and 18 wheelers.
- diggernet 4y ago
  Exactly. My contact in CalTrans tells me that because public roads are built to handle the big trucks, the wear caused by any vehicle under 10,000 lbs is effectively zero.
wfhBrian 4y ago
Similarly, why don't we pay more to drive a vehicle that is more dangerous to both pedestrians and other drivers.
- frumper 4y ago
  That cost gets wrapped up in your insurance rates. If your car actually does cost more then people with your type of car will pay higher rates. If you as a driver are more likely to hit other cars or people, then your personal rates will be higher.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    That only works if you (or your insurer) are actually held responsible to injuries done to people. In most of the US, you can pretty much kill people with impunity with a car as long as you aren't doing something grossly in violation of traffic laws. Drivers have almost completely externalized the cost of injuries caused their excessively large vehicles.
dansteen 4y ago
All the parking garages in NYC do this. Source: I spend a lot of time in NYC driving a minivan which counts as “oversized”. :-)

I wonder why you don't pay more if you use a heavier vehicle.

by Laaas 4y ago

I wonder why you don't pay more if you use a heavier vehicle.

judge2020 4y ago

Some states do charge you for registering heavier vehicles, and there's the HVUT for the heaviest road users like trucks[0]. 0: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/pdfs/fhwatri-fold.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/pdfs/fhwatri-fold.pdf

thomasjb 4y ago

One of the cantons of Switzerland does this, making it much more economical (in tax terms) to have a very lightweight sportscar than an SUV

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago

In Australia we do pay more for vehicle registration, but only a little, and number of engine cylinders is used as a proxy. Also, taxes make up about half our fuel price, so heavy vehicles tend to pay more tax.

WirelessGigabit 4y ago
Belgium does (did?) the same. Engine size was the number one driver of tax. Then turbos came along and engines started to shrink, so tax went down. As an answer to that CO2 taxes were introduced. Then companies started to aim for <= 99 gram CO2 / km, with super-small diesels. But then the report of VW's number fudging came along which caused a shift towards gas again. I don't know now how it works today, with EVs and small gas ICEs with big turbos etc. I do know that they mandate DEF on diesel cars, and OPF on gas cars.

Bootvis 4y ago

Maybe not in the USA but you would in the Netherlands and I bet elsewhere as well. For example, monthly tax for a gasoline car that weighs between 1051 and 1150 kilograms is EUR 125, for cars weighing between 2151 and 2250 you would pay EUR 378.

syzarian 4y ago

In the U.S. the reason is the Republican party. If we pay an amount to register a vehicle based on weight due to the increased damage it does to the roads then it will be portrayed as a radical environmentalist plot to get rid of SUVs and trucks. Republicans as love the idea of pay-as-you-use government services except when it comes to infrastructure. For example, it’s OK for a $25 traffic fine to include $100 in court costs but don’t under any circumstance expect one to pay more for gasoline to pay for road maintenance.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Your average techie/doctor/lawyer/manager who thinks he needs a 4Runner for his 2-kid household is not going to be dissuaded by hundreds of dollars here or their when their mortgage is thousands a month. You need a huge tax. That huge tax would be punitive on all sorts of "legitimate" activity. If it was a politics thing and not a "everybody who looks into it with any depth decides it's dumb" thing then some state like MD, RI, CT, or MA would have taxed it already. Furthermore, we're talking about "damage" (in sarcasm quotes because expected and normal wear isn't damage in any normal sense of the word) power equation here[1]. So basically everything that isn't a class 6/7/8 truck is inconsequential for a road that has any portion of its traffic made up by those vehicles. Since those trucks basically run the economy someone has to pay for it. There's really little political will to engage in an obvious exercise of "picking who to screw" like that vs an imperfect but fairly fair fuel tax. [1] https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
- syzarian 4y ago
  You are correct that the desire to subsidize commercial activity plays a role. Republicans may not have power in a state like CT but there is still a desire not to be beat up on an issue that will play well to the masses. For instance, Michelle Obama advocated for better nutrition for school lunch programs. No reasonable person could possibly have seen fault with this but after Fox News attacked her over this it became a dead issue. EDIT: It is definitely not a dumb idea as you suggest. Many counties have sensible policies on this issue and yet they manage to trudge along without much trouble. As I said it is OK to advocate for pay-as-you-use government so long as people like you don’t pay for your negative externalities too often.

deelowe 4y ago

In the states, this is generally covered by fuel taxes. Older and heavier vehicles use more fuel, which generates more tax revenue. The model breaks down with EVs though, which is why some states have started to implement EV specific ad valorem taxes.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Road wear is proportional to the 4th power of vehicle weight. Fuel economy is closer to linear to weight.
- KMag 4y ago
  Is tire wear roughly proportional to road wear (in states where chains and studs are illegal)? Increasing tire tax would have negative effects (encouraging people to wear their tires dangerously thin, etc.) Encouraging tire manufacturers to use more durable formulations would likely increase road wear, but reduce amounts of tire dust pollution. In any case, it's not a perfect solution, but does a tire tax more closely approximate taxing road wear vs. a fuel tax or an annual flat tax based on vehicle weight?
- deelowe 4y ago
  I oversimplified a bit. There are other taxes as well (e.g. trailer, number of axles, etc).

treis 4y ago

In this context, 20 times the damage is effectively 20 times 0. The real damage to roads comes from the big trucks like Garbage trucks and 18 wheelers.

diggernet 4y ago
Exactly. My contact in CalTrans tells me that because public roads are built to handle the big trucks, the wear caused by any vehicle under 10,000 lbs is effectively zero.

wfhBrian 4y ago

Similarly, why don't we pay more to drive a vehicle that is more dangerous to both pedestrians and other drivers.

frumper 4y ago
That cost gets wrapped up in your insurance rates. If your car actually does cost more then people with your type of car will pay higher rates. If you as a driver are more likely to hit other cars or people, then your personal rates will be higher.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  That only works if you (or your insurer) are actually held responsible to injuries done to people. In most of the US, you can pretty much kill people with impunity with a car as long as you aren't doing something grossly in violation of traffic laws. Drivers have almost completely externalized the cost of injuries caused their excessively large vehicles.

dansteen 4y ago

All the parking garages in NYC do this. Source: I spend a lot of time in NYC driving a minivan which counts as “oversized”. :-)