[epivosism]

Isn't the proper tax on tires? The more you shed, the faster they need replacement. So cars which shed a lot of microplastics would both use up more tires, AND would pay more tax. So as the tax increases we correctly linearly decrease tire use.

It would be a mistake to over-punish EV users compared to ICE just because the average weight of an EV is heavier. (We know the weights, we don't need to average by class)

This would reward companies for inventing tech which would wear our fewer tires, leading to less pollution.

[Kirby64]

This is two different things though.

Road use tax is intended to be used to pay for road maintenance and infrastructure. It's why if you live on a farm you can get tax-free diesel that is dyed red. You aren't using the road/infrastructure, so you shouldn't need to pay the tax.

If the goal is to reduce tire microplastics, the tax should be specifically based on tire lifespan, which is already well known. It's called UTQG.

Today we tend to conflate tax on pollution and tax on infrastructure though, since gas guzzler cars use much more gas (and cause more pollution, theoritically, all else equal) than the wear on the roads themselves. If this was truly about taxing externalities, it would be 3 taxes. Tax based on weight, tax based on efficiency, and tax based on tire tread life.

[owlstuffing]

>Today we tend to conflate tax…

Today we conflate supplying more of our earnings to the government and solutions to problems.

[Kirby64]

The alternative being government restrictions or bans on 'high particulate' tires or something of that nature, if the aim is to fix tire dust.

Which of the two seems more feasible? An outright ban, or an economic incentive that encourages consumers to choose lower particulate tires which thereby applies economic pressure to tire companies?

[maest]

Do you have a constructive alternative you would like to propose?

[golem14]

Then you get a lot of people keeping their old tires far longer than is safe and creating hazardous conditions. Gas tax is different in that regard.

[epivosism]

Agree, but that has already happened. Tires already have tax on them, which makes people replace them somewhat less, since they balance the equation cost vs risk from worn tires, particularly very large scale users like taxi companies, rental fleets, trucking companies etc. We already accept the tradeoff of for example, charging 10% sales tax on tires in return for slightly more accidents.

My point is that we might be able to rebalance it more correctly by raising prices. There could be significant pressure to reduce pollution from wear technically, pressure to drive less, but also pressure to keep tires on carts slightly longer. Given that we're still making the equation more accurate, it would still be a net gain.

You can't just say "don't do that" without also explaining why you do not advocate removing sales tax on tires, or even having negative sales tax (to incentivize more frequent & safe tire replacement). Status quo is not really a defense.