In the real world taxation is some mixture of attempting to get people to pay the cost of things they in particular use v things where that’s too obscure and complicated to calculate. Plus the politico-economic dynamic of votes being evenly distributed (insofar as people bother to vote) but money, isn’t so naturally there’s a tendency to vote to make other people pay for things one wants (as in progressive taxation).
But it still makes economic sense to try to attach cost to use. Which is relatively practical for road use. And has been mentioned a couple of times, use taxes would not be equal for heavy commercial vehicles but a function of miles and weight, so covers the fact that non-drivers use products delivered by trucks. Weight is only ignored for the small practical differences in effect on the road among different types personal vehicles. But OTOH congestion is more a function of how many private vehicles and how much they’re used. Likewise while structures like bridges are also somewhat more heavily affected by weight they also simply age, freeze-thaw damage to roads isn’t just about weight either, but how many lane-miles of road there needs to be, etc.
So taxing those who use roads more for traffic system repair is not really like your semi tongue in cheek to outright joke examples. If there was as relatively simple and practical a way to measure the total effect of border control expenditures on various states…but there isn’t. Miles driven with a (large) add on for weight of commercial vehicles captures a lot, 80/20 type rule.
And if people have to pay, directly, closer to the real cost of things, it causes better decisions, even when it’s political and not individual. Using general revenue collected by progressive taxation for roads and bridges gets you more ‘bridges to nowhere’. It’s ‘somebody else’s money’ to almost everyone.
Of course we could eliminate state fuel taxes and a per-mile tax if only the state would divest itself of its roadways and turn them over to private enterprise as the Free Market intended. Then people could choose how much they’re willing to pay to drive on them, how much is a fair surcharge on food, Amazon deliveries, etc.
That’s how new toll roads have been built around the country. Not sure why it qualifies as " " . That’s also how original roads, bridges, canals and railroads were built. And utilities.
Where I live, in a small midwestern city, only one of our roads is a state route. I think 3 or 4 roads are considered part of the county system. All the rest of the roads are maintained by the city, which is paid for via income tax which is assessed on anyone who works here. We do get some money from the state, which presumably is from the gas tax, but that’s like $200k a year.
In my extensive experience, Amish are not driving on interstate highways, and I suspect that is where most gas tax money goes. They do drive on state and county roads. But even in a highly-Amish-Populated place like where my grandparents live in Baltic, Ohio, they may be the most annoying things on the road but certainly they are a mere fraction of the total of traffic on state and county roads.
So, assuming the Amish are paying income tax, as most working Americans do, and their income tax goes to road maintenance in the place where they work, then they do contribute to paying for roads in some fashion.
If and when Amish do travel more extensively (such as on the highway), they are paying Amish Haulers who are driving cars/vans, and paying gas tax, and charging their passengers to cover it.
Also not sure what’s ‘tongue face’ about that in principal. Where it’s practical for people to pay what the things they use, in the amounts they use them, actually cost it’s generally a good idea. Often it’s not practical. But it’s not IMO a question of some true believer ideology of the ‘Free Market’ v those who know to chuckle at it.
As was mentioned, this has been found generally practical for electrical generation and distribution. That could be owned publicly. It sometimes is. But it’s not ‘tongue face’ to suggest it not be.
If you have devices to accurately track mileage, and overcame the reality or perception that this was any more an intrusion than the proctology exam of an income tax return, IOW if you had what you needed to make a public tax by miles practical, I don’t see why it’s a joke for it to become a regulated utility funded by private capital instead.
Granted, the concept even to levy a tax this way could fail if people are too sensitive to the privacy issue. Seems like an idea for heavy commercial vehicles though in any case, aside from any issue of who funds roads, instead of having to levy a single diesel fuel tax that covers the effects of all weights. As mentioned, weight’s effect on roads and fuel mileage isn’t proportional.
People waste stuff you give them for ‘free’ at the margin. That’s a basic fact of human behavior. Sometimes that can’t be avoided in view of other considerations. Other times it can be.
I would be much more in favor of per-mile insurance rates. People who drive 40,000 miles a year have 100 times more risk exposure than a person who has an occasional need vehicle he drives a few miles a week, but pays exactly the same insurance premiums, which in some areas are as high or higher than the fuel tax. A single person who has two vehicles and drives one or the other, according to need, pays twice as much for insurance as the same person who has only one vehicle and drives exactly the same number of miles with the same risk exposure. (Less the multi-car discount, which is a trivial 10% or so)
The last year I had a car, I paid over ten dollars a mile for minimum legal liability insurance. I didn;t even drive my car 50 miles that year.
Well they might do more damage, although the tires probably distribute the weight pretty well, they also are doing something useful that feeds hundreds or thousands, how does you running around in your vehicle rather than public transportation help anyone?
I’ll leave the philosophical question of how much we should subsidize food production to another thread.
I posted my anecdote about road damage I see with my own eyes and you countered that you that you hadn’t personally witnessed it. I then countered with the type of tractor that I see damage the roads. If you believe those tires with huge lugs supporting 50,000 lbs don’t damage the road, I would like to know what you think DOES damage roads? :smack:
BTW, typically when I see them I am out bicycling on rural highways. a) I’m not damaging the roads and b) I’m not paying taxes while doing it.
Farm fuels have a dye added, which can be tested by law enforcement when they pull you over. Around here if you get caught driving too far from the farm while burning farm fuel in your road vehicle, in addition to a fine you can lose your registration number used to buy the farm fuel (IOW you won’t be allowed to get the subsidy anymore).
Of course, I’ve seen authorities actually checking for fuel dye exactly 1 time in forty years…
The ‘tongue-in-cheek’ smiley was because I was using reductio ad absurdum, suggesting that we just turn our roads over to private enterprise. That some people seem to think that’s OK is… disturbing.
My guess is that this won’t go through because the conservative/rural portions of the state is against it. (The argument that I heard is that it benefits people in cities who don’t drive very far. Somehow, it was overlooked that we don’t pay as much in gas taxes either for the same reason). As gas tax is tied to upkeeping the roads, it does seem unfair that someone driving a Corolla is paying a great deal more in taxes than someone driving a Prius. They’re using more gas (and should pay for that) but they’re not using more road.
On the other hand, I have definite concerns about how this would be tracked.
" . That’s also how original roads, bridges, canals and railroads were built. And utilities.