|
|
|
|
|
by bobthepanda
1764 days ago
|
|
> Traditionally, that has been in the form of fuel taxes. The fuel tax has three major issues: - the US one is a flat fee not indexed to inflation and has not increased since 1993, so the purchase power of it has gone down as well as its percentage of the sale price since gas prices have risen a lot since 1993. no politician at the federal level is brazen enough to suggest actually raising the gas tax and hitting Americans in the pocketbook. In fact the fury is so bad that Massachusetts voters repealed inflation indexing for its state gas tax, because everyone wants the better roads but no one wants to pay for them. - the wear and tear on the roads is not linear with weight. The federal government estimates that one 18-wheeler causes the same amount of road damage as 9,600 cars. The relationship between fuel price and road damage (which is what ultimately impacts the maintenance expense) is not reflected in a gas price even if trucks are less fuel efficient. - the decrease in gasoline needed. Fuel efficiency is very good, and transitioning away from fossil fuels even better, but those cars and trucks will end up paying less money while causing the same amount of road damage as they did before. |
|
It’s almost like you’re saying a fuel tax shouldn’t incentivize fuel efficiency. I am saying it should. Broadly, heavier vehicles do definitely burn more fuel, hence why diesels are more prevalent with heavier workloads.