3 ms·
Yes, but I think OPs point is if you're taxing vehicles according to their contribution to road damage, then cars should efficiently be taxed at 0 (I don't know
by BoiledCabbage 2y ago
Yes, but I think OPs point is if you're taxing vehicles according to their contribution to road damage, then cars should efficiently be taxed at 0 (I don't know I'd that is true, but it seems to be the point their making). If heavy goods are 100% of the damage, they should cover 100% of the tax.
Now that said, I'm not convinced they are actually 100% of the damage. I've seen many residential streets in need of repair that essentially never see heavy vehicle traffic. And I'm also not certain that taxes should be based on cost added vs value provided - but it's a reasonable discussion to have.
But again this seems short sighted. Electric vehicles (vs ICE) remove a ton of negative externalities from society. And while they do bring others (in how many of their materials are sourced) they are a big net positive. Don't disincentivise them because of a change in fuel tax revenue.
- ericd 2y agoYeah, weather/time do a lot, it's definitely not all trucks. And a lot of them are maintained just so they're available for everyone, whether they're being heavily used or not. So I don't actually think that trucks should bear everything. But I do think they should pay a large fraction of highway maintenance budgets, partly so that they're not unfairly advantaged versus cargo rail. Mostly putting it out there so that people don't start thinking that EVs need to be taxed more highly than ICE cars because they're a bit heavier.
- Chris2048 2y ago> I've seen many residential streets in need of repair that essentially never see heavy vehicle traffic Maybe just the freeze-thaw cycle?