News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Why not vary a VMT tax by vehicle weight?

Started by kernals12, March 31, 2021, 10:19:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Scott5114

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 10:29:15 PM
I'd be mildly interested in seeing how the fat activists (the ones who complain about Southwest requiring them to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat, for example) would react to that.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2021, 12:47:11 PM
(He was also exceptionally obese to the point of having weight-related medical problems, so the "vehicle weight" issue might be of interest to him as well.)

I would imagine for purely practical reasons, vehicle weights would be binned in such a way that a variance of a few hundred pounds would still result in the tax paid being the same regardless of the weight of the vehicle. It doesn't make much sense to go through the administrative overhead of weighing individual cars on every trip to calculate the exact share of taxes owed–making passenger vehicles pass through weigh stations isn't likely to be very popular, anyway.

My guess would be this would be implemented as sedans/coupes pay one price, SUVs and trucks pay another, and then anything larger than an SUV is required to pass through the scales and pay a more precise price.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef


SectorZ

Quote from: kernals12 on April 02, 2021, 07:58:32 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 02, 2021, 07:56:39 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 02, 2021, 07:44:03 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on April 01, 2021, 11:49:08 PM
A big reason the Golden Age of EVs didn't last is because most of rural America wasn't electrified at that point and so the cars were mostly confined to urban areas and upper-class buyers. Petroleum cars became popular because gas is easier to store and transport, meaning they were more accessible to rural and middle-class buyers.

As for VMT taxes for private light vehicles, most of the proposals I've seen out there seem unworkable for various reasons described at length in this forum, the main ones being personal privacy or effectiveness of enforcement. I think they're politically a nonstarter in most cases, with the removal of tax incentives for EV adoption upsetting the left, and imposition of government monitoring for purposes of tax collection upsetting the right.


I think a more politically palatable solution to this solution would be something like the one proposed by vdeane where a per-kwh tax is levied on provider utility companies (and in most cases passed on to end consumers) with funds split between improving transportation infrastructure and improving grid infrastructure. This setup would leave in place the incentive structure as the old gas tax system (pay for what you use, encourage more efficient use, etc) and would be less intrusive and thereby easier to accomplish politically. A well-written bill could also tax cleaner sources of energy at a lower rate, giving providers financial incentive to switch.

The main problem with HFC vehicles is not really packaging, implementation, or current infrastructure (A 2021 Toyota Mirai is a nice ride if you live in California), but the fact that roughly 95% of current Hydrogen production capacity is sourced from fossil fuels in some way, making its status as a "clean" fuel somewhat dubious. "Clean" methods, such as electrolysis of water, are available, but they're not as efficient as current methods and currently not cost-practical in most regions without subsidies. Long-term reliability of HFC vehicles is also uncertain, because IIRC all HFC models currently available in the US are lease-only programs at the moment.

A flat fee levied per pound per mile travelled would not be a privacy violation. There'd just be a transponder in your car that would beam to your state's DMV how far you've driven, multiplied by the weight of your vehicle, and they'd bill you. E-Zpass creates more privacy issues than this.

And this would be a true user fee, reflecting your use of the roads and how much wear you're putting on them.

If you think that won't be a privacy violation, I have several bridges to sell you. At least if a state, say Massachusetts, wanted to do this, you could easily log the annual mileage at the annual state inspection without tracking anyone's movements. The government doesn't need to be encouraged to pull this crap.

E-Z Pass is voluntary. And yes, I "illegally" traveled to CT in December and actually took US 20 between Sturbridge and Auburn each way because reasons.

How would Massachusetts know that you travelled to Connecticut based purely on your mileage?

They wouldn't, but they could by tracking me via E-Z Pass, hence I opted not to use it. That's my point, your idea has no opt-out and 100% chance for government abuse, which is going to get MUCH worse over the upcoming years.

kernals12

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 02, 2021, 08:11:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 10:29:15 PM
I'd be mildly interested in seeing how the fat activists (the ones who complain about Southwest requiring them to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat, for example) would react to that.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2021, 12:47:11 PM
(He was also exceptionally obese to the point of having weight-related medical problems, so the "vehicle weight" issue might be of interest to him as well.)

I would imagine for purely practical reasons, vehicle weights would be binned in such a way that a variance of a few hundred pounds would still result in the tax paid being the same regardless of the weight of the vehicle. It doesn't make much sense to go through the administrative overhead of weighing individual cars on every trip to calculate the exact share of taxes owed–making passenger vehicles pass through weigh stations isn't likely to be very popular, anyway.

My guess would be this would be implemented as sedans/coupes pay one price, SUVs and trucks pay another, and then anything larger than an SUV is required to pass through the scales and pay a more precise price.
I was assuming the car would be weighed when it got registered.

SectorZ

Quote from: kernals12 on April 02, 2021, 08:14:15 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 02, 2021, 08:11:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 10:29:15 PM
I'd be mildly interested in seeing how the fat activists (the ones who complain about Southwest requiring them to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat, for example) would react to that.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2021, 12:47:11 PM
(He was also exceptionally obese to the point of having weight-related medical problems, so the "vehicle weight" issue might be of interest to him as well.)

I would imagine for purely practical reasons, vehicle weights would be binned in such a way that a variance of a few hundred pounds would still result in the tax paid being the same regardless of the weight of the vehicle. It doesn't make much sense to go through the administrative overhead of weighing individual cars on every trip to calculate the exact share of taxes owed–making passenger vehicles pass through weigh stations isn't likely to be very popular, anyway.

My guess would be this would be implemented as sedans/coupes pay one price, SUVs and trucks pay another, and then anything larger than an SUV is required to pass through the scales and pay a more precise price.
I was assuming the car would be weighed when it got registered.

Every vehicle curb weight is public available. No need to weigh anything. The GVWR is on the door jam sticker as well, which is just curb weight + carrying capacity.

kalvado

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 02, 2021, 08:11:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 10:29:15 PM
I'd be mildly interested in seeing how the fat activists (the ones who complain about Southwest requiring them to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat, for example) would react to that.

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2021, 12:47:11 PM
(He was also exceptionally obese to the point of having weight-related medical problems, so the "vehicle weight" issue might be of interest to him as well.)

I would imagine for purely practical reasons, vehicle weights would be binned in such a way that a variance of a few hundred pounds would still result in the tax paid being the same regardless of the weight of the vehicle. It doesn't make much sense to go through the administrative overhead of weighing individual cars on every trip to calculate the exact share of taxes owed–making passenger vehicles pass through weigh stations isn't likely to be very popular, anyway.

My guess would be this would be implemented as sedans/coupes pay one price, SUVs and trucks pay another, and then anything larger than an SUV is required to pass through the scales and pay a more precise price.
NY already charges registration fees based on vehicle weight: https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/registration-fees-use-taxes-and-supplemental-fees-passenger-vehicles
In airplane world, maximum certified weight is what used for billing purposes.
So nothing new really...

kernals12

I wish they could've made steam power work. Steam engines are quiet, clean, can run on almost any fuel, and don't need gears. But they have enough mechanical complexity to be satisfying to enthusiasts, unlike boring electric power.

3467

The current plan isn't being funded by user fees at all But a reshuffling of corporate taxes. Much of that is to encourage domestic manufacturing.

kalvado

#32
Quote from: 3467 on April 03, 2021, 03:17:53 PM
The current plan isn't being funded by user fees at all But a reshuffling of corporate taxes. Much of that is to encourage domestic manufacturing.
Taxes to encourage domestic manufacturing.

I am from the government, and I am here to help you.

But this drifts off into politics, so back to topic:
funding roads via user fees - gas tax, tolls, mileage tax - has the advantage of creating a somewhat isolated spending category, with at least some protection of funds redistribution. Same principle works, for example, for social security   While current administration seems to be on a generous side with respect to sending money towards infrastructure, I would prefer to have well defined revenue stream as opposed to  funding due to lobbying efforts wise decision of those at power. At the end of the day, it is me the taxpayer who will be footing the bill anyway.


kernals12

Quote from: kalvado on April 03, 2021, 03:55:57 PM
Quote from: 3467 on April 03, 2021, 03:17:53 PM
The current plan isn't being funded by user fees at all But a reshuffling of corporate taxes. Much of that is to encourage domestic manufacturing.
Taxes to encourage domestic manufacturing.

I am from the government, and I am here to help you.

But this drifts off into politics, so back to topic:
funding roads via user fees - gas tax, tolls, mileage tax - has the advantage of creating a somewhat isolated spending category, with at least some protection of funds redistribution. Same principle works, for example, for social security   While current administration seems to be on a generous side with respect to sending money towards infrastructure, I would prefer to have well defined revenue stream as opposed to  funding due to lobbying efforts wise decision of those at power. At the end of the day, it is me the taxpayer who will be footing the bill anyway.
Infrastructure should be in quotes, because apparently nursing homes are now infrastructure.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.