4 ms·

This sounds like a regressive tax, since lower income workers often have much longer commutes.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> sounds like a regressive tax, since lower income workers often have much longer commutes Ideally it's related to the wear and tear the vehicle places on the road. That's a function of distance. But also weight and axle count.
mcv 2y ago
And does it distinguish between heavy and light vehicles? Heavy vehicles cause much more wear and tear on the road. That's something I'd love to see taken into account.
- dsq 2y ago
  Very good point.
- bonton89 2y ago
  You can just tax tires. And collecting the tax has the added incentives of being much easier to administer and not privacy invading.
  - hindsightbias 2y ago
    I can just see those bare tires on the 101... And now people won't be stealing rims, they'll be stealing tires.
    - mcv 2y ago
      Yeah, I like the idea of taxing the tires at first, but then you start thinking about people postponing replacing their tires to avoid tax, and creating dangerous situations on the road. It reminds me a bit of garbage collection in Amsterdam; lots of cities try to let people pay for the amount of trash they produce, but Amsterdam will let people thrown away their trash for free, and be happy they throw it away properly, because taxing that is going to create a mess. Taxing gas is probably the easiest way to do it. Heavier cars probably use more gas than lighter ones, right? Except EVs don't use gas at all and still use the roads. There's just no easy solution.
      - kevincox 2y ago
        Replacing tires already costs money. How much would an extra tax change behaviour? It is definitely something to consider but doesn't seem like a definite issue.
        iggldiggl 2y ago
        Quick back-of-the-napkin calculation: Let's assume a tyre life of 31,000 miles. At 31 mpg (supposedly the average consumption in California) that's 1000 gallons. Gas tax in California is currently 0.579 $ per gallon, which gives 579 $ in gas taxes over the lifetime of a set of tyres. So the tyre tax would have to be around the order of 145 $ per tyre.
fooker 2y ago
All tax is like this. The rich can always find and lobby for creative loopholes. It’s usually the lower middle class population that gets shafted, and bizarrely the activists among them keep fighting for the government to impose more taxes.
- jerlam 2y ago
  Knowing California, there will probably be yet another carve-out for people in the lowest income category. But it will require them to fill out more paperwork and increase the workload for an already large state bureaucracy, and be poorly advertised so that even more resources are spent to get the message out. For what is probably not a lot of money compared to the spiraling cost of housing. Activists will pat themselves on the back for a job well done, ignoring the larger problem. The rich will figure out a way to make these taxes not apply to them, just like how many take advantage of expensive new EV subsidies, solar generation subsidies, or property taxes. And people wonder why the middle class keeps on getting smaller.
- Tiktaalik 2y ago
  No activists fight for taxes that would target the wealthy, such as capital gains taxes and wealth taxes and are shut down by established wealthy interests.
dsq 2y ago
WFH also suffer less from a miles driven based tax.
- renewedrebecca 2y ago
  If they're using the roads less, shouldn't they?
  - dsq 2y ago
    Well, not all employers/occupations offer WFH, so those who must drive a long way to a low paying in person job suffer more from milage tax than a remote worker. This is regressive.
chung8123 2y ago
Taxes should pay for use. I hate the labeling of something as regressive because it will hit one group more than another when that one group simply uses more of the resource.
- thegrim33 2y ago
  I'm not sure that's a very tenable position. To play devil's advocate - the taxes I pay go towards many, many, things which I never (directly) use; you can only abstractly argue that such things benefit society as a whole, which eventually probably benefits me, even if I myself don't make use of them. For example, maybe you believe this, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but should people who have kids in school pay more taxes allocated to schools than people that don't have any kids? Right now everyone pays equally. Should roads be the same or different? Having a transportation network benefits society as a whole, whether or not you even drive.

> sounds like a regressive tax, since lower income workers often have much longer commutes Ideally it's related to the wear and tear the vehicle places on the road. That's a function of distance. But also weight and axle count.

mcv 2y ago

And does it distinguish between heavy and light vehicles? Heavy vehicles cause much more wear and tear on the road. That's something I'd love to see taken into account.

dsq 2y ago
Very good point.
bonton89 2y ago
You can just tax tires. And collecting the tax has the added incentives of being much easier to administer and not privacy invading.
- hindsightbias 2y ago
  I can just see those bare tires on the 101... And now people won't be stealing rims, they'll be stealing tires.
  - mcv 2y ago
    Yeah, I like the idea of taxing the tires at first, but then you start thinking about people postponing replacing their tires to avoid tax, and creating dangerous situations on the road. It reminds me a bit of garbage collection in Amsterdam; lots of cities try to let people pay for the amount of trash they produce, but Amsterdam will let people thrown away their trash for free, and be happy they throw it away properly, because taxing that is going to create a mess. Taxing gas is probably the easiest way to do it. Heavier cars probably use more gas than lighter ones, right? Except EVs don't use gas at all and still use the roads. There's just no easy solution.
    - kevincox 2y ago
      Replacing tires already costs money. How much would an extra tax change behaviour? It is definitely something to consider but doesn't seem like a definite issue.
      - iggldiggl 2y ago
        Quick back-of-the-napkin calculation: Let's assume a tyre life of 31,000 miles. At 31 mpg (supposedly the average consumption in California) that's 1000 gallons. Gas tax in California is currently 0.579 $ per gallon, which gives 579 $ in gas taxes over the lifetime of a set of tyres. So the tyre tax would have to be around the order of 145 $ per tyre.

fooker 2y ago

All tax is like this. The rich can always find and lobby for creative loopholes. It’s usually the lower middle class population that gets shafted, and bizarrely the activists among them keep fighting for the government to impose more taxes.

jerlam 2y ago
Knowing California, there will probably be yet another carve-out for people in the lowest income category. But it will require them to fill out more paperwork and increase the workload for an already large state bureaucracy, and be poorly advertised so that even more resources are spent to get the message out. For what is probably not a lot of money compared to the spiraling cost of housing. Activists will pat themselves on the back for a job well done, ignoring the larger problem. The rich will figure out a way to make these taxes not apply to them, just like how many take advantage of expensive new EV subsidies, solar generation subsidies, or property taxes. And people wonder why the middle class keeps on getting smaller.
Tiktaalik 2y ago
No activists fight for taxes that would target the wealthy, such as capital gains taxes and wealth taxes and are shut down by established wealthy interests.

dsq 2y ago

WFH also suffer less from a miles driven based tax.

renewedrebecca 2y ago
If they're using the roads less, shouldn't they?
- dsq 2y ago
  Well, not all employers/occupations offer WFH, so those who must drive a long way to a low paying in person job suffer more from milage tax than a remote worker. This is regressive.

chung8123 2y ago

Taxes should pay for use. I hate the labeling of something as regressive because it will hit one group more than another when that one group simply uses more of the resource.

thegrim33 2y ago
I'm not sure that's a very tenable position. To play devil's advocate - the taxes I pay go towards many, many, things which I never (directly) use; you can only abstractly argue that such things benefit society as a whole, which eventually probably benefits me, even if I myself don't make use of them. For example, maybe you believe this, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but should people who have kids in school pay more taxes allocated to schools than people that don't have any kids? Right now everyone pays equally. Should roads be the same or different? Having a transportation network benefits society as a whole, whether or not you even drive.