Maybe the solution would be charging either on registration/insurance renewal or as a levy on new purchase/import of vehicle. I think a formula based on weight and mileage at registration renewal...
Maybe the solution would be charging either on registration/insurance renewal or as a levy on new purchase/import of vehicle. I think a formula based on weight and mileage at registration renewal would be most fair but a one time levy upfront would probably be easier.
I like the idea of a usage-based fee. That's sort of what the gas tax accomplishes now. Mileage could be collected by the inspection stations during their inspections and then billed during...
I like the idea of a usage-based fee. That's sort of what the gas tax accomplishes now. Mileage could be collected by the inspection stations during their inspections and then billed during registration renewal. You could also perhaps tax other consumables like tires.
Gas is taxed at both the state and federal level. I imagine that both will need to replace gas tax revenue with something else in order to pay for roads.
I think this would be a really smart move and I hope it would be a good way to encourage car manufacturers to stop intentionally making massive vehicles in order to get around fuel efficiency...
I think this would be a really smart move and I hope it would be a good way to encourage car manufacturers to stop intentionally making massive vehicles in order to get around fuel efficiency weight class restrictions.
I feel like tyres are a good proxy for ongoing use, because even electric cars need those, but maybe that will incentivise people to replace tyres less frequently and increase risks on the road…
I feel like tyres are a good proxy for ongoing use, because even electric cars need those, but maybe that will incentivise people to replace tyres less frequently and increase risks on the road…
It’s a decent proxy but oddly, electric cars need more tire changes for the same distance travelled. https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/electric-vehicle-tires-wear-out/#
It’s a decent proxy but oddly, electric cars need more tire changes for the same distance travelled.
Some EV drivers are finding that their tires wear out more rapidly than they had with traditional internal combustion-driven vehicles—in some cases, 20 percent faster.
The problem has multiple causes. Many EVs are heavier than regular cars of a similar size, which puts more load on the tires. When combined with the almost instant torque provided by electric motors, that can lead to leaving rubber on the road—even when a driver isn’t attempting to burn rubber.
The convenient thing about the gas tax is that it is so gradual. A yearly tax is something that would hit poorer drivers hard and would likely be resented because it's noticeable and painful. I...
The convenient thing about the gas tax is that it is so gradual. A yearly tax is something that would hit poorer drivers hard and would likely be resented because it's noticeable and painful.
I think adding more tolls might work but it's politically difficult to add new fees. A surcharge on electric charging stations and tires would be what I would try.
The problem is taxing charging stations is that a huge chunk of people will be charging at home the vast majority of the time, so you will have to tax charging stations disproportionately more...
The problem is taxing charging stations is that a huge chunk of people will be charging at home the vast majority of the time, so you will have to tax charging stations disproportionately more compared to gas stations.
Tires will be abused by people travelling out of state to get cheap tires if it's not applied at the federal level.
That would really suck for people who don't drive their car much. The only way that you could properly charge would be to mandate additional meters just for chargers. And people would just slow...
That would really suck for people who don't drive their car much.
The only way that you could properly charge would be to mandate additional meters just for chargers. And people would just slow charge in a different outlet to circumvent.
What I am saying is that it is difficult to get the benefits of the gas tax from other policy alternatives. With tax built into gas price you get immediate feedback of how the cost impacts your...
What I am saying is that it is difficult to get the benefits of the gas tax from other policy alternatives. With tax built into gas price you get immediate feedback of how the cost impacts your budget so you can make hard choices if funds are tight. An electricity meter for chargers would do something similar but not as good because the cost is monthly. A yearly tax is going to really hit the people who can't/don't save.
Tolls for road maintenance would be another incremental solution that could be effective, but finding a way to not impose them on the drivers of gas powered vehicles who pay gas tax could be tricky.
For most people, especially poorer people...they're already operating on bare minimum. If gas prices jump $0.50 arbitrarily, they just have to eat that cost. This is no different. If anything, it...
For most people, especially poorer people...they're already operating on bare minimum. If gas prices jump $0.50 arbitrarily, they just have to eat that cost.
This is no different. If anything, it could reduce burden on the poor, because larger vehicles would incur higher fees, and give an option for a cheaper rate.
Maybe they could have an option to do a re-check every day to pay that day's miles. No less onerous than a gas station....but the annual check and amortization would be even less burdensome. When I was broke, constant payments like rent and debt were way preferrable, because they were predictable.
Anybody whom passed the 3rd grade would be able to do the math required to see what each drive is costing them. People whom are so budget concious that they need to do that are already doing it.
Tolls are even more regressive and complicated. It's mostly a scam that arose out of insufficient gas taxes in the first place Is it easier to check a vehicle once a year, which is already done for other reasons, or to check every entrance and exit point to every non-trivial road? It tends to also hit harder on poorer folks. Have a toll road to a major commerece center? Poor folks working there pay daily to get to work while the wealthier folks only pay the toll when they go shopping.
And if anything, double-taxing on gas vehicles gives the incentives we want, to force down their usage.
The policy questions on this one are complex. Politically, this one is going to hurt incumbents because gas taxes are baked in and assumed but new taxes are new. I've been poor to the point I was...
The policy questions on this one are complex. Politically, this one is going to hurt incumbents because gas taxes are baked in and assumed but new taxes are new.
I've been poor to the point I was choosing between rent and food. I wish our cities were set up so that buses were efficient and reliable and poor people didn't feel forced to drive.
But the set of poor people includes people who are illiterate and innumerate. A tax based on mileage would be straightforward to assess. We already do smog checks. I just know that when you are robbing Peter to pay Paul each month, an annual large tax is hard to manage without a payment plan.
Someone could enter a plan that evens out payments over the year, then corrects for mileage once the actual figures are tallied. That's similar to an option my electric utility offers for example,...
The convenient thing about the gas tax is that it is so gradual. A yearly tax is something that would hit poorer drivers hard and would likely be resented because it's noticeable and painful.
I think adding more tolls might work but it's politically difficult to add new fees. A surcharge on electric charging stations and tires would be what I would try.
Someone could enter a plan that evens out payments over the year, then corrects for mileage once the actual figures are tallied.
That's similar to an option my electric utility offers for example, so if ordinarily someone's electric usage is higher in the summer than in the winter (like say gas heat but air conditioning uses electricity), their bill in the summer is actually lower than it should be, but their bill in the winter is higher than it should be. But it tries to keep it consistent rather than spiky.
It's not perfect, there will be some people that it doesn't match up well or they drive more than they expected and end up with a slightly larger bill later, or drive less and could use the money now rather than later. But I bet it would help cover more cases and make it overall more accessible.
Amortizing Registration makes sense. My property taxes are quarterly...At vehicle reregistration, do mileage calculation, issue total bill, divide payments due by 12. And gas taxes...lets say...
Amortizing Registration makes sense. My property taxes are quarterly...At vehicle reregistration, do mileage calculation, issue total bill, divide payments due by 12.
And gas taxes...lets say they're $1/gallon now (higher than fed+state for most of country). Assume 20 mpg. Average person drives 12,000 miles annually...That's $600/year, $50 a month for road care. Considering it can cost $1,000,000 to lay a mile of road, on the low end, that's probably not anywhere close to properly funding. Adding a weight multiplier makes sense and might reign in urban assualt vehicle fetishism.
Taxes for road maintaince are dangerously low as-is (see collapsing bridges). It'll be good for people to get a big bill (that they can split) to see what the roads are really costing them.
CA doesn't have annual safety inspections, only bi-annual smog inspections, but those aren't required on new cars under a certain age nor on very old cars over a certain age, so I'm not sure that...
CA doesn't have annual safety inspections, only bi-annual smog inspections, but those aren't required on new cars under a certain age nor on very old cars over a certain age, so I'm not sure that your inspection idea would work.
My car's odometer reading is on my smog check report. I'm not 100% sure what exactly gets transmitted to the state since that happens in the background, but if it's the whole report then they...
My car's odometer reading is on my smog check report. I'm not 100% sure what exactly gets transmitted to the state since that happens in the background, but if it's the whole report then they already know the mileage on my car. If not, it should be easy to add it.
1976 is the cutoff year for needing a smog check, so the number of currently registered cars old enough to avoid this policy is really small. In order to avoid the problem of people raiding junkyards for old cars, they could just put in a policy for all newly registered vehicles regardless of age.
This might increase the number of unregistered cars, but I suppose there might be more pressure for law enforcement to go after offenders if there is a significant tax incentive to do so.
In any case, anything that taxes consumption is probably too late to disincentivize it. After buying a new truck or SUV, people might be shocked at how much they're paying for gas, but not shocked enough to return the car or move to a home that's closer to work. I think for any tax to incentivize fuel efficiency or less driving, it would have to be on the purchase price of the car. It would be financed over the duration of the loan, but the sticker shock at purchase time might actually deter people from buying that gas guzzler in the first place.
Existing annual inspections aren't the only way you can collect this information. You could introduce a new inspection process for this purpose in the event that one doesn't exist. You can require...
Existing annual inspections aren't the only way you can collect this information. You could introduce a new inspection process for this purpose in the event that one doesn't exist. You can require repair shops to collect the info. You can require people to self-report with penalties for fraud. Cars with internet connectivity could send the mileage periodically. It could be a combination of any of these things.
Other than maybe the initial registration with the insurance company (I can't remember), I haven't reported mileage to my insurance company on renewal. Plus, the the idea of insurance companies...
Other than maybe the initial registration with the insurance company (I can't remember), I haven't reported mileage to my insurance company on renewal. Plus, the the idea of insurance companies being involved in government tax collection doesn't seem like something that should be done.
In my experience they do ask for a yearly mileage estimate when you sign up, and sometimes ask it to be updated. But I don’t think it’s enforced very well?
In my experience they do ask for a yearly mileage estimate when you sign up, and sometimes ask it to be updated. But I don’t think it’s enforced very well?
Yeah, there's no validation or going back to tell them how much you actually drove. It's just a forward-looking estimate on how much you think you'll drive, and I assume that it factors into their...
Yeah, there's no validation or going back to tell them how much you actually drove. It's just a forward-looking estimate on how much you think you'll drive, and I assume that it factors into their risk calculations and rates somehow.
What my insurance company does is that they have a "low milage discount" (because everything in the US is perpetually in a special sale, you see). At one time I did have low milage so I gave them...
What my insurance company does is that they have a "low milage discount" (because everything in the US is perpetually in a special sale, you see). At one time I did have low milage so I gave them my info regularly. Now I drive insanely long distances so I wouldn't actually get the discount, but they still pester me to submit my odometer ratings, which they word as something like "to retain your milage discount" nonetheless.
Here's the thing, though; even when I did qualify for it, I didn't submit my readings one year and I still got the discount. It appears that, at least for my insurance company, they really don't care.
How would mileage account for miles driven out of state? That is one of the benefits of gas tax and charge station surcharges: you can make reasonable assumptions about where the road use from...
How would mileage account for miles driven out of state? That is one of the benefits of gas tax and charge station surcharges: you can make reasonable assumptions about where the road use from that fill-up occurs.
I would have to imagine that that evens out at some point. I've heard of people on road trips who will skip buying gas in certain states along an interstate because it's more expensive. At that...
I would have to imagine that that evens out at some point. I've heard of people on road trips who will skip buying gas in certain states along an interstate because it's more expensive. At that point, you're using federally funded roads anyway. A portion of taxes would be collected at the federal level.
It's really clear you don't know California or its urban development. The closest major city to a land border is San Diego, at 170 miles across a desert from Arizona. Sacramento is technically...
It's really clear you don't know California or its urban development. The closest major city to a land border is San Diego, at 170 miles across a desert from Arizona. Sacramento is technically only 140 miles from the border, but there's a mountain range with 8000 feet of elevation to clear before you get to Nevada. Sure, some people would dedicate a full day to driving and tire purchasing to save some money, but not in huge numbers. This might be a concern in smaller, more interconnected states, but California is a bit of an island, isolated by deserts, mountains, and thick forests.
Suffice it to say, that's not really a significant concern.
Lol, you're right I don't know that much about US cities, but it does depend on how steep that tax is. There is a LOT of tax on fuel, so if your tires go from $150 a tire to $1500 a tire then...
Lol, you're right I don't know that much about US cities, but it does depend on how steep that tax is. There is a LOT of tax on fuel, so if your tires go from $150 a tire to $1500 a tire then people will absolutely do that trip and enterprising individuals will set up tire shops on the border.
@Devilized says that it could become a federal tax but I would imagine there will be a massive political battle to get to that point. An ideal solution would hand the tax revenue directly to the state and municipality like fuel taxes do.
Fuel taxes were also such a good way to do it before that every solution to replace it just seems bad to me.
I agree that fuel taxes were great when fuel use was directly analogous to road usage (and vehicle weight due to lower MPG,) but we're not living in that world anymore. The goal is to find a...
I agree that fuel taxes were great when fuel use was directly analogous to road usage (and vehicle weight due to lower MPG,) but we're not living in that world anymore. The goal is to find a replacement that works as well as possible, not to dream of a past solution that no longer works given the situation on the ground.
Even a very pessimistic estimate says I pay less than $125/year in state gas taxes. $50/year is probably a more realistic estimate. No one is paying $1500/tire to make up for lost gas tax revenue.
Even a very pessimistic estimate says I pay less than $125/year in state gas taxes. $50/year is probably a more realistic estimate. No one is paying $1500/tire to make up for lost gas tax revenue.
I absolutely admit that $1500 per tire is taking it to an extreme and isn't a likely price. I had a reply typed out with a couple (shitty) sources and my phone deleted it... but I estimate the...
I absolutely admit that $1500 per tire is taking it to an extreme and isn't a likely price.
I had a reply typed out with a couple (shitty) sources and my phone deleted it... but I estimate the actual tax would be in the ballpark of 1000-1500 per set of 4 if the average person is replacing tires every 3 years. California has the highest gas tax in the USA to recoup the loss on at 77c per gallon and the source I used estimated 650 gallons per driver but that seems HIGH.
This will presumably be a national problem though, not just one state. Part of that tax would also be Federal, and identical across all states. You could also possibly tax based on the state that...
This will presumably be a national problem though, not just one state. Part of that tax would also be Federal, and identical across all states.
You could also possibly tax based on the state that the car is registered in. It wouldn't be totally unprecedented, since online retailers have to tax based on the state they're shipping to.
I used to be rather peeved that my "light" pickup truck had a commercial vehicle licensing fee in CA. (Turns out, they exist in TX as well. I haven't owned pickups in any other states; I think I'm...
I used to be rather peeved that my "light" pickup truck had a commercial vehicle licensing fee in CA. (Turns out, they exist in TX as well. I haven't owned pickups in any other states; I think I'm done with them.)
I'm still confused as to why electric cars aren't getting the same treatment due to their weight. The point is that the heavier vehicles increase wear on the roads -- which would likely include all electric cars as batteries aren't light.
California’s funding from gas taxes will drop by nearly $6 billion in the next decade due to the state’s electric car rules and other climate programs, “likely resulting in a decline in highway conditions for drivers,” according to a new state analysis released today.
As California phases in major policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions — such as the mandates for zero-emission cars and trucks — consumers buy less gasoline and diesel, and consequently pay less taxes.
Those declines in tax dollars will be partially offset by the state’s road improvement fee, which drivers pay when they register their electric cars. But the Legislative Analyst’s Office stressed that overall the state will still see a $4.4 billion drop in funding, a 31% decline, over a decade, so the Legislature and governor must come up with substantial new funding sources.
This is the least effective argument to voters, though, because it's a very high level view that sees that money manifesting in other areas of the economy. Voters just want to see dollar X goes...
This is the least effective argument to voters, though, because it's a very high level view that sees that money manifesting in other areas of the economy. Voters just want to see dollar X goes towards spending Y.
I spent the first half of my 30's being really angry about this very issue. But, honesty, a lot of that anger and animosity has gone away. I do hold contempt for the people at high levels of...
I spent the first half of my 30's being really angry about this very issue. But, honesty, a lot of that anger and animosity has gone away. I do hold contempt for the people at high levels of government who manipulate voters, that's some dastardly shit. But I realize that I'm just making it by, doing my best, and that's true for everyone. I have a hard time begrudging someone who can't find the time to plug in to politics, they've got different priorities and their life taxes them in different ways. I don't fault them for weighing the most important things and being either too naive or too oblivious to know that politics is impacting them in a much bigger way than they know.
Maybe this is a good cue to encourage people to use more public transportation instead of figuring out how to tax electric cars. God knows LA needs a better bus and train scheduling. Less people...
Maybe this is a good cue to encourage people to use more public transportation instead of figuring out how to tax electric cars. God knows LA needs a better bus and train scheduling. Less people on the road, less maintenance, less costs.
Of course this is blue sky Dreams given the current state of transportation. But I wanted to throw out an alternative solution to the one that is inevitably going through.
They need to make cities more pedestrian friendly. A lot of cities in the UK have pedestrianised their city centres, incentivising people to walk or cycle. You could set up park-and-ride systems...
They need to make cities more pedestrian friendly. A lot of cities in the UK have pedestrianised their city centres, incentivising people to walk or cycle.
You could set up park-and-ride systems so commuters can park on the outskirts and have a dedicated, reliable bus service to/from the centre. This would reduce congestion, wear on roads, and bring in some money.
You could tax energy companies more for generating non-renewable electricity, and bump it generally to make up for the lost revenue of petrol.
You could investigate inefficiencies in the state government, reducing bureaucracy and wasted money, so state spending goes down.
Didn't California just anounce a $3B train to Vegas? https://tildes.net/~transport/1cnx/las_vegas_s_california_high_speed_rail_gets_3_billion_federal_grant They should have been using gas tax to...
They should have been using gas tax to fund mass public transportation already, not subsidize cars on roads. Now that the fund is dwindling it is too late to start saving.
Brightline is a private company that got a federal grant, California isn’t really all that involved other than letting Brightline lease space in the freeway median.
Brightline is a private company that got a federal grant, California isn’t really all that involved other than letting Brightline lease space in the freeway median.
I’m fairly surprised to see with everyone talking about taxes, everyone’s still talking about use-based taxation. Those are regressive: they cost more proportionally for poor people than they do...
I’m fairly surprised to see with everyone talking about taxes, everyone’s still talking about use-based taxation. Those are regressive: they cost more proportionally for poor people than they do rich people. And the thing about it is that gas taxes have been proven to be poor even before electric cars became feasible on the market. Cars can vary greatly in terms of fuel economy, so taxing people based on fuel consumption really doesn’t really make sense unless we are applying it as a means to discourage its use.
Yes, it’s odd because we should want to discourage carbon emissions and putting miles on electric cars doesn’t directly emit carbon. A gas tax is a narrow version of a carbon tax. This is...
Yes, it’s odd because we should want to discourage carbon emissions and putting miles on electric cars doesn’t directly emit carbon. A gas tax is a narrow version of a carbon tax. This is incentive to improve fuel efficiency (buy a Prius or electric car).
For that reason I’m not in favor of lower gas taxes. When revenue goes down, that’s a sign that incentives to avoid the tax are working. It’s a good problem to have, though still a problem.
Electric vehicles still result in wear on roads, so there’s an argument for taxing weight * miles driven, but it’s working at cross-purposes from incentives to switch to electric vehicles. Congestion taxes might be better?
Tax credits and stimulus checks are a way to make the tax system more progressive while still discouraging carbon emissions and other things we want to discourage. They should make stimulus checks a permanent thing (even if at a low level) so that the payment infrastructure is there when needed.
(Though, this isn’t up to us, so brainstorming solutions is just entertainment. In California, maybe we’ll get to vote on something.)
I feel like a system where your first X gallons are tax free would be nice. If you are just filling up your Corolla once a week you get your gas subsidized by SUVs and Trucks.
I feel like a system where your first X gallons are tax free would be nice. If you are just filling up your Corolla once a week you get your gas subsidized by SUVs and Trucks.
Of course we do! But if that were the case the costs should probably be much higher. But that’s a whole can of worms I’d rather not get into right now.
Of course we do! But if that were the case the costs should probably be much higher. But that’s a whole can of worms I’d rather not get into right now.
Yes, but there are other things that might draw lots of electrical power that would make it somewhat unfair. We generally want people to switch from gas to electric appliances, but if that would...
Yes, but there are other things that might draw lots of electrical power that would make it somewhat unfair. We generally want people to switch from gas to electric appliances, but if that would risk you paying more in taxes it makes the idea much less appealing.
That doesn't mean they don't have an incentive for the roads to be good. If they ride a bike or a bus (or the occasional taxi), having broken roads everywhere is still terrible.
That doesn't mean they don't have an incentive for the roads to be good. If they ride a bike or a bus (or the occasional taxi), having broken roads everywhere is still terrible.
How about a high cost tyre tax that adjusts based on use? I’m picturing a system that starts with the assumption that you’ve driven the tyres to bald, but if you trade your existing tyres in at...
How about a high cost tyre tax that adjusts based on use?
I’m picturing a system that starts with the assumption that you’ve driven the tyres to bald, but if you trade your existing tyres in at time of purchase, instead the tax is significantly reduced based on their condition.
So if you change your tyres regularly, at the point that you’re still safe on the roads, you don’t pay as much on the tax. But if you try to avoid the tax by driving much longer on the tyres than you should be, then the tax hits much harder?
There could also be an extra scale based on the kinds of tyres you get (eg tyres for heavy SUVs have a higher scale than tyres for a tiny hatchback or sedan) in order to also push people away from ludicrous “urban tank” style vehicles which do more damage/wear-and-tear to the roads.
I dunno, it’s not a great solution, but at least somewhat preempts the more obvious ways people might try to circumvent the idea…
Some forms of electricity generation (coal, natural gas) would be affected by a carbon tax. But taxing solar and wind would be counterproductive since that’s what we want more of.
Some forms of electricity generation (coal, natural gas) would be affected by a carbon tax. But taxing solar and wind would be counterproductive since that’s what we want more of.
Yes, much easier to do it at the source. Electricity customers shouldn't need to care how their electricity was generated. And yet, customer demand does matter. Electricity is going to be a lot...
Yes, much easier to do it at the source. Electricity customers shouldn't need to care how their electricity was generated.
And yet, customer demand does matter. Electricity is going to be a lot cheaper when the sun is shining. Sometimes there are shortages when reducing demand matters a lot. Rather than expecting individuals to know about this, it can be done automatically.
Really just make utility companies pay for it. PG&E on its own has made over $1.5B in net income for the first 3 quarters of 2023; that's the amount left over after all costs, expenses, taxes,...
Really just make utility companies pay for it. PG&E on its own has made over $1.5B in net income for the first 3 quarters of 2023; that's the amount left over after all costs, expenses, taxes, etc. Probably will be around $2B once the year is closed out. And again, that's just one utility company.
Additionally, California just allowed utility companies to fuck over people that have their own solar panels with NEM 3. Previously, if I took 1 kWh from the grid I might pay $1.00 (just to make the math simple). If I generated an extra 1 kWh and pg&e took that to give to someone else, they would pay me $1.00. Keep in mind, that dollar is only for energy production; I still pay separate fees for the infrastructure and maintenance and all that. With NEM 3 though, I would only get $0.25 for that 1 kWh and pg&e would pocket the remaining $0.75 as pure profit.
California should just take that 75% tax for themselves, on top of taking more in taxes from the utility companies. It would be trivial to make up $4B from utility companies, and that's just one industry which has plenty of excess that could be taxed to prevent further burdens to regular citizens.
Complaining about PG&E is popular and traditional, but this seems poorly informed. I’m not a financial analyst, but here are some reasons I don’t think that’s right: PG&E has gone bankrupt twice,...
Complaining about PG&E is popular and traditional, but this seems poorly informed. I’m not a financial analyst, but here are some reasons I don’t think that’s right:
PG&E has gone bankrupt twice, most recently in 2019 after catastrophic wildfires. That’s not something profitable companies do.
Looks like they had about $43 billion in debt at the end of last year, and $95 billion in total liabilities. Having lots of debt isn’t uncommon for utilities and I couldn’t really say how healthy that is, but it puts that $2 billion number in perspective. Big companies have big numbers. I don’t want to give anyone homework (including myself), but there’s more to figuring out a large business than gawking at big numbers.
Paying for solar energy at retail rates was a subsidy for solar panel owners. It was nice while it lasted, but a wholesale rates, electricity is usually rather cheap during the day while the sun is shining, due to all the solar energy out there. (This is hidden from customers who pay the same amount regardless of the time of day, because electricity meters were pretty simple devices until recently.) So complaining that you don’t get retail rates is like complaining that you can’t sell fruit for very much when it’s in-season.
The state of california collected 280 billion in taxes in 2022. Im not sure why 6 billion over ten years is an issue. Not all tax revenue stays the same over time.
The state of california collected 280 billion in taxes in 2022. Im not sure why 6 billion over ten years is an issue. Not all tax revenue stays the same over time.
The gas taxes are specifically earmarked for road purposes. If that drops, then the shortfall gets to be paid out of the general fund, or not paid. On one level this is a pain, as having to come...
The gas taxes are specifically earmarked for road purposes. If that drops, then the shortfall gets to be paid out of the general fund, or not paid.
On one level this is a pain, as having to come up with new funding for roads will be a political fight, but then again if people have to fight about road maintenance and infrastructure choices there may be different, more effective choices made.
Maybe the solution would be charging either on registration/insurance renewal or as a levy on new purchase/import of vehicle. I think a formula based on weight and mileage at registration renewal would be most fair but a one time levy upfront would probably be easier.
I like the idea of a usage-based fee. That's sort of what the gas tax accomplishes now. Mileage could be collected by the inspection stations during their inspections and then billed during registration renewal. You could also perhaps tax other consumables like tires.
Gas is taxed at both the state and federal level. I imagine that both will need to replace gas tax revenue with something else in order to pay for roads.
Maybe usage based and weight based too. This way heavy cars that do more damage will pay more.
I think this would be a really smart move and I hope it would be a good way to encourage car manufacturers to stop intentionally making massive vehicles in order to get around fuel efficiency weight class restrictions.
Yeah, this makes sense. That's kind of how it works today anyway. Larger vehicles consume more gas, and in turn pay more taxes.
I feel like tyres are a good proxy for ongoing use, because even electric cars need those, but maybe that will incentivise people to replace tyres less frequently and increase risks on the road…
It’s a decent proxy but oddly, electric cars need more tire changes for the same distance travelled.
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/electric-vehicle-tires-wear-out/#
The convenient thing about the gas tax is that it is so gradual. A yearly tax is something that would hit poorer drivers hard and would likely be resented because it's noticeable and painful.
I think adding more tolls might work but it's politically difficult to add new fees. A surcharge on electric charging stations and tires would be what I would try.
The problem is taxing charging stations is that a huge chunk of people will be charging at home the vast majority of the time, so you will have to tax charging stations disproportionately more compared to gas stations.
Tires will be abused by people travelling out of state to get cheap tires if it's not applied at the federal level.
You could add an electric car ownership roadtax surcharge to the electricity bill for homeowners... maybe
That would really suck for people who don't drive their car much.
The only way that you could properly charge would be to mandate additional meters just for chargers. And people would just slow charge in a different outlet to circumvent.
What I am saying is that it is difficult to get the benefits of the gas tax from other policy alternatives. With tax built into gas price you get immediate feedback of how the cost impacts your budget so you can make hard choices if funds are tight. An electricity meter for chargers would do something similar but not as good because the cost is monthly. A yearly tax is going to really hit the people who can't/don't save.
Tolls for road maintenance would be another incremental solution that could be effective, but finding a way to not impose them on the drivers of gas powered vehicles who pay gas tax could be tricky.
For most people, especially poorer people...they're already operating on bare minimum. If gas prices jump $0.50 arbitrarily, they just have to eat that cost.
This is no different. If anything, it could reduce burden on the poor, because larger vehicles would incur higher fees, and give an option for a cheaper rate.
Maybe they could have an option to do a re-check every day to pay that day's miles. No less onerous than a gas station....but the annual check and amortization would be even less burdensome. When I was broke, constant payments like rent and debt were way preferrable, because they were predictable.
Anybody whom passed the 3rd grade would be able to do the math required to see what each drive is costing them. People whom are so budget concious that they need to do that are already doing it.
Tolls are even more regressive and complicated. It's mostly a scam that arose out of insufficient gas taxes in the first place Is it easier to check a vehicle once a year, which is already done for other reasons, or to check every entrance and exit point to every non-trivial road? It tends to also hit harder on poorer folks. Have a toll road to a major commerece center? Poor folks working there pay daily to get to work while the wealthier folks only pay the toll when they go shopping.
And if anything, double-taxing on gas vehicles gives the incentives we want, to force down their usage.
The policy questions on this one are complex. Politically, this one is going to hurt incumbents because gas taxes are baked in and assumed but new taxes are new.
I've been poor to the point I was choosing between rent and food. I wish our cities were set up so that buses were efficient and reliable and poor people didn't feel forced to drive.
But the set of poor people includes people who are illiterate and innumerate. A tax based on mileage would be straightforward to assess. We already do smog checks. I just know that when you are robbing Peter to pay Paul each month, an annual large tax is hard to manage without a payment plan.
And nobody said there couldn't be a payment plan.... there's plenty of ways to amortize those mileage costs.
What about people with solar?
Someone could enter a plan that evens out payments over the year, then corrects for mileage once the actual figures are tallied.
That's similar to an option my electric utility offers for example, so if ordinarily someone's electric usage is higher in the summer than in the winter (like say gas heat but air conditioning uses electricity), their bill in the summer is actually lower than it should be, but their bill in the winter is higher than it should be. But it tries to keep it consistent rather than spiky.
It's not perfect, there will be some people that it doesn't match up well or they drive more than they expected and end up with a slightly larger bill later, or drive less and could use the money now rather than later. But I bet it would help cover more cases and make it overall more accessible.
Amortizing Registration makes sense. My property taxes are quarterly...At vehicle reregistration, do mileage calculation, issue total bill, divide payments due by 12.
And gas taxes...lets say they're $1/gallon now (higher than fed+state for most of country). Assume 20 mpg. Average person drives 12,000 miles annually...That's $600/year, $50 a month for road care. Considering it can cost $1,000,000 to lay a mile of road, on the low end, that's probably not anywhere close to properly funding. Adding a weight multiplier makes sense and might reign in urban assualt vehicle fetishism.
Taxes for road maintaince are dangerously low as-is (see collapsing bridges). It'll be good for people to get a big bill (that they can split) to see what the roads are really costing them.
CA doesn't have annual safety inspections, only bi-annual smog inspections, but those aren't required on new cars under a certain age nor on very old cars over a certain age, so I'm not sure that your inspection idea would work.
My car's odometer reading is on my smog check report. I'm not 100% sure what exactly gets transmitted to the state since that happens in the background, but if it's the whole report then they already know the mileage on my car. If not, it should be easy to add it.
1976 is the cutoff year for needing a smog check, so the number of currently registered cars old enough to avoid this policy is really small. In order to avoid the problem of people raiding junkyards for old cars, they could just put in a policy for all newly registered vehicles regardless of age.
This might increase the number of unregistered cars, but I suppose there might be more pressure for law enforcement to go after offenders if there is a significant tax incentive to do so.
In any case, anything that taxes consumption is probably too late to disincentivize it. After buying a new truck or SUV, people might be shocked at how much they're paying for gas, but not shocked enough to return the car or move to a home that's closer to work. I think for any tax to incentivize fuel efficiency or less driving, it would have to be on the purchase price of the car. It would be financed over the duration of the loan, but the sticker shock at purchase time might actually deter people from buying that gas guzzler in the first place.
Existing annual inspections aren't the only way you can collect this information. You could introduce a new inspection process for this purpose in the event that one doesn't exist. You can require repair shops to collect the info. You can require people to self-report with penalties for fraud. Cars with internet connectivity could send the mileage periodically. It could be a combination of any of these things.
It's already known due to insurances, no? Or do those not require the reporting of mileage for insurance-purposes in the US?
Other than maybe the initial registration with the insurance company (I can't remember), I haven't reported mileage to my insurance company on renewal. Plus, the the idea of insurance companies being involved in government tax collection doesn't seem like something that should be done.
In my experience they do ask for a yearly mileage estimate when you sign up, and sometimes ask it to be updated. But I don’t think it’s enforced very well?
Yeah, there's no validation or going back to tell them how much you actually drove. It's just a forward-looking estimate on how much you think you'll drive, and I assume that it factors into their risk calculations and rates somehow.
What my insurance company does is that they have a "low milage discount" (because everything in the US is perpetually in a special sale, you see). At one time I did have low milage so I gave them my info regularly. Now I drive insanely long distances so I wouldn't actually get the discount, but they still pester me to submit my odometer ratings, which they word as something like "to retain your milage discount" nonetheless.
Here's the thing, though; even when I did qualify for it, I didn't submit my readings one year and I still got the discount. It appears that, at least for my insurance company, they really don't care.
How would mileage account for miles driven out of state? That is one of the benefits of gas tax and charge station surcharges: you can make reasonable assumptions about where the road use from that fill-up occurs.
I would have to imagine that that evens out at some point. I've heard of people on road trips who will skip buying gas in certain states along an interstate because it's more expensive. At that point, you're using federally funded roads anyway. A portion of taxes would be collected at the federal level.
Not all states and counties have vehicle inspections. Mine doesn't.
Then tons of people would buy tires out of state. Not everyone would have the means but people would totally do it.
It's really clear you don't know California or its urban development. The closest major city to a land border is San Diego, at 170 miles across a desert from Arizona. Sacramento is technically only 140 miles from the border, but there's a mountain range with 8000 feet of elevation to clear before you get to Nevada. Sure, some people would dedicate a full day to driving and tire purchasing to save some money, but not in huge numbers. This might be a concern in smaller, more interconnected states, but California is a bit of an island, isolated by deserts, mountains, and thick forests.
Suffice it to say, that's not really a significant concern.
Lol, you're right I don't know that much about US cities, but it does depend on how steep that tax is. There is a LOT of tax on fuel, so if your tires go from $150 a tire to $1500 a tire then people will absolutely do that trip and enterprising individuals will set up tire shops on the border.
@Devilized says that it could become a federal tax but I would imagine there will be a massive political battle to get to that point. An ideal solution would hand the tax revenue directly to the state and municipality like fuel taxes do.
Fuel taxes were also such a good way to do it before that every solution to replace it just seems bad to me.
I agree that fuel taxes were great when fuel use was directly analogous to road usage (and vehicle weight due to lower MPG,) but we're not living in that world anymore. The goal is to find a replacement that works as well as possible, not to dream of a past solution that no longer works given the situation on the ground.
Even a very pessimistic estimate says I pay less than $125/year in state gas taxes. $50/year is probably a more realistic estimate. No one is paying $1500/tire to make up for lost gas tax revenue.
I absolutely admit that $1500 per tire is taking it to an extreme and isn't a likely price.
I had a reply typed out with a couple (shitty) sources and my phone deleted it... but I estimate the actual tax would be in the ballpark of 1000-1500 per set of 4 if the average person is replacing tires every 3 years. California has the highest gas tax in the USA to recoup the loss on at 77c per gallon and the source I used estimated 650 gallons per driver but that seems HIGH.
This will presumably be a national problem though, not just one state. Part of that tax would also be Federal, and identical across all states.
You could also possibly tax based on the state that the car is registered in. It wouldn't be totally unprecedented, since online retailers have to tax based on the state they're shipping to.
I used to be rather peeved that my "light" pickup truck had a commercial vehicle licensing fee in CA. (Turns out, they exist in TX as well. I haven't owned pickups in any other states; I think I'm done with them.)
I'm still confused as to why electric cars aren't getting the same treatment due to their weight. The point is that the heavier vehicles increase wear on the roads -- which would likely include all electric cars as batteries aren't light.
From the article:
Cool, so people have more money to spend on anything besides gasoline, there's where your new (old) tax revenue comes from for road maintenance.
This is the least effective argument to voters, though, because it's a very high level view that sees that money manifesting in other areas of the economy. Voters just want to see dollar X goes towards spending Y.
Very true and I hate it
Wish more people understood the tangible benefits of having a healthy local economy.
I spent the first half of my 30's being really angry about this very issue. But, honesty, a lot of that anger and animosity has gone away. I do hold contempt for the people at high levels of government who manipulate voters, that's some dastardly shit. But I realize that I'm just making it by, doing my best, and that's true for everyone. I have a hard time begrudging someone who can't find the time to plug in to politics, they've got different priorities and their life taxes them in different ways. I don't fault them for weighing the most important things and being either too naive or too oblivious to know that politics is impacting them in a much bigger way than they know.
Maybe this is a good cue to encourage people to use more public transportation instead of figuring out how to tax electric cars. God knows LA needs a better bus and train scheduling. Less people on the road, less maintenance, less costs.
Of course this is blue sky Dreams given the current state of transportation. But I wanted to throw out an alternative solution to the one that is inevitably going through.
They need to make cities more pedestrian friendly. A lot of cities in the UK have pedestrianised their city centres, incentivising people to walk or cycle.
You could set up park-and-ride systems so commuters can park on the outskirts and have a dedicated, reliable bus service to/from the centre. This would reduce congestion, wear on roads, and bring in some money.
You could tax energy companies more for generating non-renewable electricity, and bump it generally to make up for the lost revenue of petrol.
You could investigate inefficiencies in the state government, reducing bureaucracy and wasted money, so state spending goes down.
Facing a huge deficit, where is the funding for new bus routes coming from? But I agree we need more and better transit
Didn't California just anounce a $3B train to Vegas? https://tildes.net/~transport/1cnx/las_vegas_s_california_high_speed_rail_gets_3_billion_federal_grant
They should have been using gas tax to fund mass public transportation already, not subsidize cars on roads. Now that the fund is dwindling it is too late to start saving.
Brightline is a private company that got a federal grant, California isn’t really all that involved other than letting Brightline lease space in the freeway median.
I’m fairly surprised to see with everyone talking about taxes, everyone’s still talking about use-based taxation. Those are regressive: they cost more proportionally for poor people than they do rich people. And the thing about it is that gas taxes have been proven to be poor even before electric cars became feasible on the market. Cars can vary greatly in terms of fuel economy, so taxing people based on fuel consumption really doesn’t really make sense unless we are applying it as a means to discourage its use.
Yes, it’s odd because we should want to discourage carbon emissions and putting miles on electric cars doesn’t directly emit carbon. A gas tax is a narrow version of a carbon tax. This is incentive to improve fuel efficiency (buy a Prius or electric car).
For that reason I’m not in favor of lower gas taxes. When revenue goes down, that’s a sign that incentives to avoid the tax are working. It’s a good problem to have, though still a problem.
Electric vehicles still result in wear on roads, so there’s an argument for taxing weight * miles driven, but it’s working at cross-purposes from incentives to switch to electric vehicles. Congestion taxes might be better?
Tax credits and stimulus checks are a way to make the tax system more progressive while still discouraging carbon emissions and other things we want to discourage. They should make stimulus checks a permanent thing (even if at a low level) so that the payment infrastructure is there when needed.
(Though, this isn’t up to us, so brainstorming solutions is just entertainment. In California, maybe we’ll get to vote on something.)
I feel like a system where your first X gallons are tax free would be nice. If you are just filling up your Corolla once a week you get your gas subsidized by SUVs and Trucks.
Of course we do! But if that were the case the costs should probably be much higher. But that’s a whole can of worms I’d rather not get into right now.
Many people don't own electric cars...
Some don't own any car
Yes, but there are other things that might draw lots of electrical power that would make it somewhat unfair. We generally want people to switch from gas to electric appliances, but if that would risk you paying more in taxes it makes the idea much less appealing.
That doesn't mean they don't have an incentive for the roads to be good. If they ride a bike or a bus (or the occasional taxi), having broken roads everywhere is still terrible.
How about a high cost tyre tax that adjusts based on use?
I’m picturing a system that starts with the assumption that you’ve driven the tyres to bald, but if you trade your existing tyres in at time of purchase, instead the tax is significantly reduced based on their condition.
So if you change your tyres regularly, at the point that you’re still safe on the roads, you don’t pay as much on the tax. But if you try to avoid the tax by driving much longer on the tyres than you should be, then the tax hits much harder?
There could also be an extra scale based on the kinds of tyres you get (eg tyres for heavy SUVs have a higher scale than tyres for a tiny hatchback or sedan) in order to also push people away from ludicrous “urban tank” style vehicles which do more damage/wear-and-tear to the roads.
I dunno, it’s not a great solution, but at least somewhat preempts the more obvious ways people might try to circumvent the idea…
Some forms of electricity generation (coal, natural gas) would be affected by a carbon tax. But taxing solar and wind would be counterproductive since that’s what we want more of.
Yes, much easier to do it at the source. Electricity customers shouldn't need to care how their electricity was generated.
And yet, customer demand does matter. Electricity is going to be a lot cheaper when the sun is shining. Sometimes there are shortages when reducing demand matters a lot. Rather than expecting individuals to know about this, it can be done automatically.
Really just make utility companies pay for it. PG&E on its own has made over $1.5B in net income for the first 3 quarters of 2023; that's the amount left over after all costs, expenses, taxes, etc. Probably will be around $2B once the year is closed out. And again, that's just one utility company.
Additionally, California just allowed utility companies to fuck over people that have their own solar panels with NEM 3. Previously, if I took 1 kWh from the grid I might pay $1.00 (just to make the math simple). If I generated an extra 1 kWh and pg&e took that to give to someone else, they would pay me $1.00. Keep in mind, that dollar is only for energy production; I still pay separate fees for the infrastructure and maintenance and all that. With NEM 3 though, I would only get $0.25 for that 1 kWh and pg&e would pocket the remaining $0.75 as pure profit.
California should just take that 75% tax for themselves, on top of taking more in taxes from the utility companies. It would be trivial to make up $4B from utility companies, and that's just one industry which has plenty of excess that could be taxed to prevent further burdens to regular citizens.
Complaining about PG&E is popular and traditional, but this seems poorly informed. I’m not a financial analyst, but here are some reasons I don’t think that’s right:
PG&E has gone bankrupt twice, most recently in 2019 after catastrophic wildfires. That’s not something profitable companies do.
Looks like they had about $43 billion in debt at the end of last year, and $95 billion in total liabilities. Having lots of debt isn’t uncommon for utilities and I couldn’t really say how healthy that is, but it puts that $2 billion number in perspective. Big companies have big numbers. I don’t want to give anyone homework (including myself), but there’s more to figuring out a large business than gawking at big numbers.
Paying for solar energy at retail rates was a subsidy for solar panel owners. It was nice while it lasted, but a wholesale rates, electricity is usually rather cheap during the day while the sun is shining, due to all the solar energy out there. (This is hidden from customers who pay the same amount regardless of the time of day, because electricity meters were pretty simple devices until recently.) So complaining that you don’t get retail rates is like complaining that you can’t sell fruit for very much when it’s in-season.
The state of california collected 280 billion in taxes in 2022. Im not sure why 6 billion over ten years is an issue. Not all tax revenue stays the same over time.
The gas taxes are specifically earmarked for road purposes. If that drops, then the shortfall gets to be paid out of the general fund, or not paid.
On one level this is a pain, as having to come up with new funding for roads will be a political fight, but then again if people have to fight about road maintenance and infrastructure choices there may be different, more effective choices made.