[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?