Lamenting the decline of the car

[lio45]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It would actually be easy for them to track in areas where regular safety inspections are required. In NS the odometer reading is recorded during the inspection - they could just add a requirement that the technician who does the inspection goes to a govt website to enter the VIN and the odometer reading at that time.

Yeah, there's a bunch of ways to do this, it's extremely realistic and I have no doubt we'll soon be smart enough to move from a flat same-for-everyone tax to a more normal use-based one. Can't argue against the idea that roads should be paid for by road users, proportionally. Right...?

And as for Mister F's comment, I completely agree, this tax could easily be odometer-based but modulated by vehicle weight too. I even said so in an earlier post.

[ssiguy]

The problem I have with mileage charges is twofold:

First, they are patently unfair to rural and small town/city Canadians who do not have the option of public transit.

Second, it kind of assumes that all people do with their cars is go back and forth to work. What is someone goes to Florida for the winter or visits family in the next province? Yes, those people may be creating emissions with their car travel but someone driving on a highway for a 1000 km creates a fraction of the amount of emissions a commuter does in stop-and-go urban traffic the same distance. They also probably produce less emissions than if they took a plane.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What is someone goes to Florida for the winter or visits family in the next province?

... they pay for it?

What's the problem? As cars become electric, the "gas tax to pay for the roads" model needs reform. Someone needs to pay for the roads, and ideally that someone is the road users.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

I don't find it fair at all, since it's uncorrelated with use.

A fair tax would be based on miles driven per year then adjusted using vehicle weight. (And if you're too paranoid to let the government track your yearly driving, then you can opt out and there's a special flat tax that assumes you drive as much as humanly possible.)

(I realize that we're likely headed there, and that this flat tax is probably just a temporary measure.)

I agree, but it's fairer than the status quo where EVs aren't charged anything. I like Innsertnamehere's suggestion.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The problem I have with mileage charges is twofold:

First, they are patently unfair to rural and small town/city Canadians who do not have the option of public transit.

Second, it kind of assumes that all people do with their cars is go back and forth to work. What is someone goes to Florida for the winter or visits family in the next province? Yes, those people may be creating emissions with their car travel but someone driving on a highway for a 1000 km creates a fraction of the amount of emissions a commuter does in stop-and-go urban traffic the same distance. They also probably produce less emissions than if they took a plane.

The mileage charge should be lower regardless than gas taxes with an EV, as you are no longer paying the carbon sin tax. Make sure carbon tax is applied on jet fuel, and then if it's cheaper to fly, then it's more environmentally friendly to fly.

[ssiguy]

As much as it may make dearest Suzuki cry and Greenies cry foul, the Sask move is both needed and fair. EV's use the roads and hence should have to help pay and/or expand them. In fact due to their huge weight, EVs cause more damage to regular roadways than standard ICE cars do.

Also, it is a simply reality that gas taxes are of diminishing returns as EVs become more popular and regular ICE cars become vastly more efficient. The government has to make up that declining revenue somehow and a general tax increase would be patently unfair.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

... they pay for it?

What's the problem? As cars become electric, the "gas tax to pay for the roads" model needs reform. Someone needs to pay for the roads, and ideally that someone is the road users.

Again, why don't we all pay for roads? That's how we get around, regardless of method. Urban areas are getting more into electric bikes, scooters, and so on. We going to license and tax those too? It's a bureaucratic mess.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Again, why don't we all pay for roads? That's how we get around, regardless of method. Urban areas are getting more into electric bikes, scooters, and so on. We going to license and tax those too? It's a bureaucratic mess.

Well this is an urbanist forum, there's plenty of positive reasons to discourage vehicle use. Even the US doesn't let drivers off the hook.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

As much as it may make dearest Suzuki cry and Greenies cry foul, the Sask move is both needed and fair. EV's use the roads and hence should have to help pay and/or expand them. In fact due to their huge weight, EVs cause more damage to regular roadways than standard ICE cars do.

Also, it is a simply reality that gas taxes are of diminishing returns as EVs become more popular and regular ICE cars become vastly more efficient. The government has to make up that declining revenue somehow and a general tax increase would be patently unfair.

Well, in BC's case at least they own the utility that will make all the money to power EVs.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Again, why don't we all pay for roads? That's how we get around, regardless of method. Urban areas are getting more into electric bikes, scooters, and so on. We going to license and tax those too? It's a bureaucratic mess.

I agree with this, actually. Whether we own a vehicle or not, we all depend on the roads for transportation of ourselves, but also food and other items that we depend on. This stuff doesn't just magically appear in the store or on our doorsteps. You need a road to get it there, and as somebody mentioned - large trucks and buses do the most damage (i.e. wear and tear) to our roads which requires money to be spent for upkeep. Seems reasonable that we all should pay for something we all benefit from.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree with this, actually. Whether we own a vehicle or not, we all depend on the roads for transportation of ourselves, but also food and other items that we depend on. This stuff doesn't just magically appear in the store or on our doorsteps. You need a road to get it there, and as somebody mentioned - large trucks and buses do the most damage (i.e. wear and tear) to our roads which requires money to be spent for upkeep. Seems reasonable that we all should pay for something we all benefit from.

But in a system where heavier vehicles pay more, we would still pay in the form of increased prices, but there would be some incentive to reduce damage to roads. For example, if a lightweight truck trailer costs 10% more but could save 11% of that purchase price on decreased taxation, that's a good thing all round, the operator saves money and the roads get a little less wear.

Taxation isn't a bad thing, it can be used to invisibly incentivise behaviour that is in everyone's best interest. I think the model of {tax = odometer reading x* vehicle weight * constant} is an excellent one, very fair and simple. And thus the CPC will call it a war on cars and a war on the middle class, and it will never be implemented. And we'll remain with a system of incredibly unequal taxation arbitrarily applied to different vehicles.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Taxation isn't a bad thing, it can be used to invisibly incentivise behaviour that is in everyone's best interest. I think the model of {tax = odometer reading x* vehicle weight * constant} is an excellent one, very fair and simple. And thus the CPC will call it a war on cars and a war on the middle class, and it will never be implemented. And we'll remain with a system of incredibly unequal taxation arbitrarily applied to different vehicles.

Would you allow for a decreased taxation rate or a rebate for people who must own pick-up trucks for their occupation (tradespeople, farmers), or for rural dwellers who must drive longer distances than their urban cousins in order to obtain basic services?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Would you allow for a decreased taxation rate or a rebate for people who must own pick-up trucks for their occupation (tradespeople, farmers), or for rural dwellers who must drive longer distances than their urban cousins in order to obtain basic services?

No. Same principle as carbon pricing.

The increased cost can be passed to the consumers, if there is any. If rural residents/farmers are being disproportionately taxed overall relative to their economic value, then that is an entirely separate issue that can be fixed through other means.

Something is going to need to be done. In 20 years time there are going to be a lot of very heavy EVs on the road and much less income from fuel tax. We could just apply a yearly fee per vehicle, but as Lio says that would have the effect of overcharging those who use the road least, and undercharging those who use/damage the road most.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Would you allow for a decreased taxation rate or a rebate for people who must own pick-up trucks for their occupation (tradespeople, farmers), or for rural dwellers who must drive longer distances than their urban cousins in order to obtain basic services?

Can't those with an occupation already deduct such costs in their taxes? If not, we can adjust that.

On the other hand, if you just live in a rural area and think you need a pickup to fit in, I don't think you need a tax break.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Would you allow for a decreased taxation rate or a rebate for people who must own pick-up trucks for their occupation (tradespeople, farmers)

No need for that, the extra cost can just be passed on to the customers. (I'm saying this as a businessman who owns pickup trucks.)

... or for rural dwellers who must drive longer distances than their urban cousins in order to obtain basic services?

Nope, I think that's also a choice, and one that gets factored in the (lower) price of rural real estate.

If you don't want to pay road taxes then you can just relocate to a home that's within walking distance of all the services you need

[lio45]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I agree with this, actually. Whether we own a vehicle or not, we all depend on the roads for transportation of ourselves, but also food and other items that we depend on. This stuff doesn't just magically appear in the store or on our doorsteps.

That would get priced in. Commercial trucking would be paying a lot of road taxes, and that would be built in the price of items--the longer they're carried, the higher the fees, which is all good and fair. If you buy local food from a neighboring farm yourself, you'll save a bit on the road tax part from the trucking industry, and that'd be normal.

We all depend on roads but not all to the same degree; if we have the technological means to make people pay for the roads based on the wear they inflict on them, then why not do just that? It will encourage people to not drive needlessly, which is good.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

That would get priced in. Commercial trucking would be paying a lot of road taxes, and that would be built in the price of items--the longer they're carried, the higher the fees, which is all good and fair. If you buy local food from a neighboring farm yourself, you'll save a bit on the road tax part from the trucking industry, and that'd be normal.

We all depend on roads but not all to the same degree; if we have the technological means to make people pay for the roads based on the wear they inflict on them, then why not do just that? It will encourage people to not drive needlessly, which is good.

We could make it even more fun and be more specific with the negative externality pricing. Adding bull bars? Well now you have to pay for the increased chance of killing a child with a value to society of x million dollars. Canada seems to do a pretty good job of collecting statistics, so figuring all this out would be fairly easy.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

That would get priced in. Commercial trucking would be paying a lot of road taxes, and that would be built in the price of items--the longer they're carried, the higher the fees, which is all good and fair. If you buy local food from a neighboring farm yourself, you'll save a bit on the road tax part from the trucking industry, and that'd be normal.

A lot more would move by rail. Which is actually efficient.

The only reason so much actually goes by truck is speed. But that speed comes with externalities the rest of us pay for.

[MolsonExport]

Almost every trade has business expenses that can be deducted for tax purposes. I see no reason why tradespeople couldn't do that with their trucks. I have zero sympathy for those not requiring a truck but wanting one anyhow (in such cases, you just have to pay for the externalities caused by your choice...note I am also in favor of this externality additional pricing for other vehicles that have extra weight/size/emissions, such as SUVs and minivans). And if you are caught with one of those after market mufflers that greatly increase the sound emitted by these mechanical assholes, you should be fined $1K the first instance, $5K the second instance, and $10K (+seizure) the third instance.

[Truenorth00]