A better way to tax cars? AKA I had an idea on the way home today

[Fenixgoon]

With the introduction of new technologies and new safety requirements of cars, vehicle weight has been steadily increasing over the years. A honda civic is now well over 3000lbs, IIRC, whereas a decade ago it barely tipped over 2000.

In addition to weight reducing fuel efficiency, it also means more wear on the roadways. After all, 18-wheelers are far worse than a small econobox.

Which led me to thinking - why not tax vehicles based on weight? In some sense, this already happens because heavy vehicles have worse gas mileage, and are more likely to have big engines (which need lots of gas) to move them.

Taxing vehicle weight could/would

1) incentivize lighter/smaller vehicles
2) increase fuel economy through decreasing weight
3)push for technological improvements in structural materials (presumably due to consumer demand).
4) additional revenue could expand road maintenance and construction programs.

The downsides that I can think of offhand:

1) with the introduction of lighter vehicles, current (heavier) vehicles pose a greater threat in the event of a crash

2) cost - high strength steels, aluminums, and magnesiums aren't cheap, so the cost of cars would probably rise.

3) alloying means greater use of elements like chromium, vanadium, maganese, etc. (I don't know the rarity of these, so whether it would impact current accessible resources, I have no idea)

4) politcians unable to spend money responsibly.


And of course, there's implementation - is the manufacturer taxed? Is the buyer taxed (like the gas guzzler tax)? Is it a one-time tax or a recurring tax? Would this replace other taxes (in terms of revenue, it would have to be equal to or greater than the taxes it is replacing in order to be financially relevant)

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my idea with ATPN.

 

[Carmen813]

You are trying to intervene with every American's Constitutionally granted right to drive a tank.

 

[heyheybooboo]

It will pretty much take a gazillion vehicle trips with a passenger car or light truck to wear out a road that has been properly spec'ed and built. The difference in wear from a GVW of 4,000 - 6,000 lbs is for the most part negligible. An axle weight of 2-3k lbs ain't nuthin' ...

This, of course, is dependent upon the severity of winter weather, drainage and sub-surface conditions.

Your premise is, however, correct in that higher vehicle weights do have a 'tipping point' in regard to the acceleration of road deterioration (but it is much higher under typical design standards).

I think if you google 'axle weight road design standards' you can get a better idea of what you are dealing with. In my lifetime (it has been a long one) they have made good progress with design standards and load characteristics.

With a typical SR (state road) around here they have focused on compaction and increasing the depth of substrate material.

They have also cut back in the usage of salt during the winter --- they now use a brine-like substance as a pretreatment prior to big storms. They claim it helps and saves them money by preventing deterioration from the interaction of the asphalt with the massive loads of salt they used in previous years.

 

[boomerang]

I'm sure automakers would love to hear your ideas for reducing the weight of vehicles. Any one of them that could come up with a significantly lighter vehicle would instantly have an extreme advantage over the others. I would pick just one, share your ideas with them and don't forget to get a lawyer to make sure you get compensated for your ideas.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Which led me to thinking - why not tax vehicles based on weight?

Already being done, and has been for a long time.

States tax vehicles for highway/road funding, most tax on weight but a few tax on value.

Fern

 

[Fenixgoon]

Already being done, and has been for a long time.

States tax vehicles for highway/road funding, most tax on weight but a few tax on value.

Fern

Do you mean taxes at time of purchase? I always thought those were based on value (sales tax). I was thinking more like a tax levied at the time of (re) registration.

 

[woodie1]

The cost of your tag in many states is based on the vehicle weigh and/or size. I think the sales tax is based on the dollar value of the transaction.

 

[Fern]

Do you mean taxes at time of purchase? I always thought those were based on value (sales tax). I was thinking more like a tax levied at the time of (re) registration.

Yeah, taxed on weight at registration and re-registration.

sales tax is a different thing. By law, sales tax has to be based on value. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a "sales tax".

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Do you mean taxes at time of purchase? I always thought those were based on value (sales tax). I was thinking more like a tax levied at the time of (re) registration.

Iowa taxes on value at purchase -- essentially a sales tax -- plus both weight and value for annual registration. I imagine many other states are the same, though that is speculation.

 

[Fenixgoon]

aw, looks like my idea isn't so awesome after all

 

[monovillage]

Yep, my fuel efficient small truck (25 mpg in all around driving, 30 mpg highway) is taxed (registration) on weight here in Calif. Composites and other light weight materials would certainly help in vehicle weight, but they're not cost effective.

 

[charrison]

The gas tax pretty much taxes on weight, size and usage without any added complexity.


Dont over complicate a simple solution.

 

[LunarRay]

I think this would be seen to be and probably in fact is a tax on business. I presume you mean an additional tax over what may already be charged based on weight, if any.
I think any tax on fuel hits business and people and the ones at the low end of the earnings ladder the most but I'd go for that... so long as there is some thought given to rapid transit. Taxing vehicle weight or capacity seems almost totally against business.

 

[ericlp]

yup...Washington state is already doing that. You pay registration tax on the weight of auto.

Tho, I have a better idea. Why not just do away with all the bull shit. Taxes and Insurance. Tie it all up in GAS. Gas would have bear minimum insurance and registration state tax and would be based on HOW many miles you drive and that's what it should be. Since the more you drive, the more your at risk for an accident and the more you drive, you are beating up the roads. If you don't like the 25-50 cents added get a more efficient vehicle or just stop driving and take the bus or ride a bike.

Just think no more progressive, allstate, farmers commercials we wouldn't have to watch. And instead of spending all the $$ on Geico ads they could actually spend some of that $$$ to fix your car or help you out when you get your medical bill.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I think this would be seen to be and probably in fact is a tax on business. I presume you mean an additional tax over what may already be charged based on weight, if any.
I think any tax on fuel hits business and people and the ones at the low end of the earnings ladder the most but I'd go for that... so long as there is some thought given to rapid transit. Taxing vehicle weight or capacity seems almost totally against business.

rapid transit works in cities. which is to say, not much of the US

 

[LunarRay]

rapid transit works in cities. which is to say, not much of the US

Well, that is true...
How about amending to just vehicles for private use... I'll have to look again at your OP but think you indicated all vehicles. I'd like that if business use was exempt.

 

[Fear No Evil]

How about we stop looking for ways of taking more of people's money and we look for ways to give more of it back to them? Radical concept I know..

 

[LunarRay]

FNE, it is a way to have the user pay for the highway upkeep and to incentivize better milage cars and the environment. It seems a burden shift with out denying your right to drive a Humvee if you choose.

 

[Colt45]

fuel tax sorts this out anyways.

 

[Ozoned]

With the introduction of new technologies and new safety requirements of cars, vehicle weight has been steadily increasing over the years. A honda civic is now well over 3000lbs, IIRC, whereas a decade ago it barely tipped over 2000.

In addition to weight reducing fuel efficiency, it also means more wear on the roadways. After all, 18-wheelers are far worse than a small econobox.

Which led me to thinking - why not tax vehicles based on weight? In some sense, this already happens because heavy vehicles have worse gas mileage, and are more likely to have big engines (which need lots of gas) to move them.

Taxing vehicle weight could/would

1) incentivize lighter/smaller vehicles
2) increase fuel economy through decreasing weight
3)push for technological improvements in structural materials (presumably due to consumer demand).
4) additional revenue could expand road maintenance and construction programs.

The downsides that I can think of offhand:

1) with the introduction of lighter vehicles, current (heavier) vehicles pose a greater threat in the event of a crash

2) cost - high strength steels, aluminums, and magnesiums aren't cheap, so the cost of cars would probably rise.

3) alloying means greater use of elements like chromium, vanadium, maganese, etc. (I don't know the rarity of these, so whether it would impact current accessible resources, I have no idea)

4) politcians unable to spend money responsibly.


And of course, there's implementation - is the manufacturer taxed? Is the buyer taxed (like the gas guzzler tax)? Is it a one-time tax or a recurring tax? Would this replace other taxes (in terms of revenue, it would have to be equal to or greater than the taxes it is replacing in order to be financially relevant)

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my idea with ATPN.

There is going to be a need for some kind of change, otherwise plug-in cars will be driving tax free.

 

[Fenixgoon]

How about we stop looking for ways of taking more of people's money and we look for ways to give more of it back to them? Radical concept I know..

i'm not suggesting we steal everyone's money. like it or not, our road infrastructure is relatively poor. the washington post ran an article a week or two ago about 97% of our bridges needing repair.

not to mention, i think we should be paying off our national debt ASAP. this means LOTS of federal budget cuts as well as some degree of increased taxation (reduce spending, it gets paid off quickly; do both, it gets paid off very quickly; tax only and congress finds new ways of getting into debt)

 

[Patranus]

Time to start taxing bicycles. Bicycles put wear and tear on roads but do not pay gas taxes which are used to fund road construction.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You are trying to intervene with every American's Constitutionally granted right to drive a tank.

I have no problem with that.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Time to start taxing bicycles. Bicycles put wear and tear on roads but do not pay gas taxes which are used to fund road construction.

LOL, what wear does a bicycle put on the roads? I bet the roads would wear out from weather long before any wear from bicyclists.

If it goes by weight I'll gladly pay the 10 cents annually for the amount of wear I put on our roadways on my bicycle.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Time to start taxing bicycles. Bicycles put wear and tear on roads but do not pay gas taxes which are used to fund road construction.

so you're suggesting that i levy a heavy fine against you for riding your bike?


btw, i'm not normally a tax/spend guy. i'm fiscally conservative as all hell. but it seemed to me like an extra few bucks at registration time would help maintain the roads.

of course, the underlying assumption of all this is that congress is able to spend money responsibly. history has proven otherwise.