If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose(slate.com)
slate.com
If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose
https://slate.com/business/2023/01/electric-cars-hummer-ev-tax-fees-weight-joe-biden.html
157 comments
Here in Norway we do have a weight tax. It's linear for normal cars[1] and paid once, for heavier vehicles it's yearly and quite non-linear[2].
edit: doing a quick fit, it seems to just be quadratic with weight though, while damage goes more like the fourth power as noted in sibling comment.
As for miles driven, AFAIK there's nothing direct non-linear there, just some duty and taxes on the fuel.
[1]: https://www.skatteetaten.no/person/avgifter/bil/importere/hv...
[2]: https://www.skatteetaten.no/satser/vektarsavgift/
edit: doing a quick fit, it seems to just be quadratic with weight though, while damage goes more like the fourth power as noted in sibling comment.
As for miles driven, AFAIK there's nothing direct non-linear there, just some duty and taxes on the fuel.
[1]: https://www.skatteetaten.no/person/avgifter/bil/importere/hv...
[2]: https://www.skatteetaten.no/satser/vektarsavgift/
Not sure how far you got in the article but Norway is specifically called out as the country with the best policy the US should mimic to address the problem.
It doesn't seem to mention the non-linear tax on trucks though, from what I could see.
Makes sense given it's an article about regular cars.
Makes sense given it's an article about regular cars.
Is weight tax the same of different for electric and internal combustion cars?
Yes. ICE's have an additional CO2/NOx tax though.
Non-linear is an understatement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Yes. That extends to motorcycles which, in comparison to all cars, do virtually zero damage to roads. Getting everyone out of cars and onto reasonable motorcycles, even sportbikes, would likely do more for the environment than the current plan of everyone driving electric tanks.
Motorcycles are shockingly fuel-inefficient. Some "touring" models get as little as 30 mpg, and few full-size motorcycles get above 60 mpg. While that isn't terrible, it's also not substantially better than a small car, and with much worse cargo capacity and crash survivability.
It is all about speed. Motorcycles are aerodynamic pigs. At low speeds they are very efficient, but at highway speeds they are horrible. Bikes are also not generally tuned for efficiency but horsepower. Find a modern california-spec bike witha modern engine like honda's VFR series. Even being much heavier, they use about 50% of the gas compared to the likes of the R1/6 which are tuned for horsepower.
It's crazy that basically no "fast Velomobile" is in the market. Something shaped like a velomobile (goes 100 km/h downhill by gravity alone), but some what bigger, with a motor and more safety features.
With such height I would expect it to be almost invidible to cars (let's not even think of a collision).
Unless more regulation like the one discussed in the article are passed to stop the suv trends, I would never even consider riding something like this.
Unless more regulation like the one discussed in the article are passed to stop the suv trends, I would never even consider riding something like this.
> With such height I would expect it to be almost invidible to cars
That's the first thing that comes up every time VMs are mentioned. It's definitely not false, but I feelel that some points should be mentioned:
1. Over all VMs are a lot safer than bicycles: 1.1. If a car touches your bicycles handbar you've lost. In a VM the handlebar is inside. 1.2. You ride feet first which increases the length of your "crumble zone" significantly. Watch this and tell me you would have survived in a normal bicycle: https://youtu.be/5aujzL__SZE
2. Huge trucks are not as common in Europe. Everybody here is worried about SUVs getting too big here, but our SUVs are tiny compared to (some) American trucks.
3. Due to the E-Bike boom, cycling infrastructure is becoming a lot better with huge stretches of smooth, paved bicycle lanes along major roads. We are getting there.
4. Some sports cars are only slightly heigher compared to Velomobiles (e.g. Mango: 0.9m vs. Porsche 911 1.2m) and are often painted super bright colors. If a driver overlooks a VM he will probably also overlook a sports car.
(To be fair, I think that there is some "this object does not participate in traffic" recognition happening in the brain that just marks VMs as unimportant. I did a test drive some time ago were we were shouted at because we "drove towards [the other guy] at high velocity" ... while we were literally waiting to pass a parked car. I assume that we just "appeared" for him and his brain decided that therefore we must have been moving at high velocity.)
That's the first thing that comes up every time VMs are mentioned. It's definitely not false, but I feelel that some points should be mentioned:
1. Over all VMs are a lot safer than bicycles: 1.1. If a car touches your bicycles handbar you've lost. In a VM the handlebar is inside. 1.2. You ride feet first which increases the length of your "crumble zone" significantly. Watch this and tell me you would have survived in a normal bicycle: https://youtu.be/5aujzL__SZE
2. Huge trucks are not as common in Europe. Everybody here is worried about SUVs getting too big here, but our SUVs are tiny compared to (some) American trucks.
3. Due to the E-Bike boom, cycling infrastructure is becoming a lot better with huge stretches of smooth, paved bicycle lanes along major roads. We are getting there.
4. Some sports cars are only slightly heigher compared to Velomobiles (e.g. Mango: 0.9m vs. Porsche 911 1.2m) and are often painted super bright colors. If a driver overlooks a VM he will probably also overlook a sports car.
(To be fair, I think that there is some "this object does not participate in traffic" recognition happening in the brain that just marks VMs as unimportant. I did a test drive some time ago were we were shouted at because we "drove towards [the other guy] at high velocity" ... while we were literally waiting to pass a parked car. I assume that we just "appeared" for him and his brain decided that therefore we must have been moving at high velocity.)
1. In city I believe that bicycle might be safer mainly due to agility at lower speed (might be wrong here never used a VM) and the ability to just leave the bike; but I expect this disappear quickly as the speed increase.
2. I know but still too big ^^
4. I think width play an important part too, on motorcycle I had cars merge on me as if I was not there multiple times :(; easier to disappear in the blindspot.
(Funny anecdote, I would have expected the reverse with people ignoring VM because they underestimate the speed :).
2. I know but still too big ^^
4. I think width play an important part too, on motorcycle I had cars merge on me as if I was not there multiple times :(; easier to disappear in the blindspot.
(Funny anecdote, I would have expected the reverse with people ignoring VM because they underestimate the speed :).
I frequent a (German) VM forum ... there definitely are accidents. The only fatal one was on a crossing on fields were the high crop covered the VM ... not sure how high the crop was and if e.g. a child on a bike would have been visible.
Other accidents like the one in the video above are surprisingly non-fatal ... iirc the guy in the video was doing ~60km/h when he collided feet-first with the tree ... got up and recorded a youtube video about his accident :-)
Other accidents like the one in the video above are surprisingly non-fatal ... iirc the guy in the video was doing ~60km/h when he collided feet-first with the tree ... got up and recorded a youtube video about his accident :-)
https://aptera.us/
There have been and continue to be efforts to get something like this to market. There are a lot of hurdles.
There have been and continue to be efforts to get something like this to market. There are a lot of hurdles.
Where are the tens of alternatives to https://www.podbike.com/ . There should be lots of competition in this area
Except that basically every velocar is vaporware atm.
Here in Germany regulations are unnecessarily complex and your best option is to get 10-20 year old Velomobiles that can legally be driven as S-Pedelecs (up to 45 km/h) because they were at some point certified for that speed.
But getting a new velomobile, that you can easily drive faster than 45 km/h by muscle power alone, certified to be powered electrically is apparently near impossible (i.e. not financially feasible).
Here in Germany regulations are unnecessarily complex and your best option is to get 10-20 year old Velomobiles that can legally be driven as S-Pedelecs (up to 45 km/h) because they were at some point certified for that speed.
But getting a new velomobile, that you can easily drive faster than 45 km/h by muscle power alone, certified to be powered electrically is apparently near impossible (i.e. not financially feasible).
Except that most cyclists I know (me included) would be too scared to use one.
Yeah I've seen comment that but I am not convinced. It's expensive, it hardly has more space to bring stuff than a normal bike, and the rain doesn't really bother me most of the time. I am not claiming to be rational here, but for me personally I hardly see any upside besides "arrive a bit quicker and dryer (if buying a closed model)"
Not even sure where I'd park it, maybe my building's small motorcycle parking lot has some space.
Not even sure where I'd park it, maybe my building's small motorcycle parking lot has some space.
> It's expensive
Definitely... The market is too small and everything is built by hand. You can get reasonable used ones for 4000-6000€, but you probably know that.
Otoh you save gasoline which pays for itself after a while (3 years in my case, not counting insurance or maintenance).
> it hardly has more space to bring stuff than a normal bike
It's a bit more and it's safe from the elements. Some 4-wheel models have an actual trunk.
> the rain
Doesn't bother me either, riding bicycles in the rain is surprisingly ok.
> I am not claiming to be rational here
Maybe try one out. I was convinced of the concept when I could easily keep up with my SO who was doing 45 km/h in a e-VM during a test ride.
That said: I don't own a VM either because it never made sense... Either my workplace was too close or too far for a VM to make sense. But I think there is a sweetspot of around 20-40km one way, where a VM is a great alternative to normal bikes and cars.
Definitely... The market is too small and everything is built by hand. You can get reasonable used ones for 4000-6000€, but you probably know that.
Otoh you save gasoline which pays for itself after a while (3 years in my case, not counting insurance or maintenance).
> it hardly has more space to bring stuff than a normal bike
It's a bit more and it's safe from the elements. Some 4-wheel models have an actual trunk.
> the rain
Doesn't bother me either, riding bicycles in the rain is surprisingly ok.
> I am not claiming to be rational here
Maybe try one out. I was convinced of the concept when I could easily keep up with my SO who was doing 45 km/h in a e-VM during a test ride.
That said: I don't own a VM either because it never made sense... Either my workplace was too close or too far for a VM to make sense. But I think there is a sweetspot of around 20-40km one way, where a VM is a great alternative to normal bikes and cars.
I don't have the specific numbers, but I remember putting like 5L of petrol in the tank and riding for a full day when I was in Vietnam. That'd get you maybe 100km in a car.
Except the additional cost via health care either publicly or private via insurance premiums.
Two wheel motorcycles today as they stand should be outlawed.
Two wheel motorcycles today as they stand should be outlawed.
And so should bicycles too. The per-mile injury rate, the stat used when comparing a given journey, for bicycles is several times higher than that of motorcycles. And skateboards... they are per-mile death traps. Rollerblades are likely more dangerous per-mile than driving drunk while smoking. If you have to cover a given distance, the safest is not always the slowest. Often the faster means limits risk exposure and come out safer despite the increases in energy and perceived danger.
The health benefits of cycling outweigh the danger by many times. It's nonsense to only look at the costs of crashes. Besides, it's the cars that are dangerous, not the bikes (in addition to causing pollution, needing more infrastructure, etc).
The health benifits can be gotten from a stationary bike at the gym. There is a reason we have helmet laws for bikes on the street.
The skateboarding and roller blade trips are quite short though, no?
Injuries per minute or per hour seems like a more apt unit to compare
Injuries per minute or per hour seems like a more apt unit to compare
Bicycles and motorcycles aren't dangerous: cars are.
Bikes are pretty bad. Basically everyone who has ever learned to ride a bike will at some point be injured, and not by cars but by user errors. They cannot be made safe. When you fall it will hurt. Ive seen horrible stuff from people riding bikes through woods. Speed+trees is dangerous.
I injured my ACL by riding a bicycle over a slippery manhole cover, no car involved. ;)
Let's start by outlawing the vehicules that kill others before going after bikes ... Weight regulation is a start at least.
Totally agreed that construction costs should be distributed in a manner proportional to usage.
I'm curious though; is road damage based on total vehicle weight, or just the weight on each tire? If the latter, I think the formula should reflect that in order to incentivize vehicles to distribute weight across more tires in order to minimize road damage where that makes sense.
I'm also curious about how much wear is caused by vehicles vs other factors, like the weather. I'd guess that probably depends a lot on the local climate in each state.
I should also point out that maintenance costs aren't the only cost associated with road usage; even light cars take up space on the road, creating traffic and thus reducing the utility for other drivers. Any charges should thus include the cost of additional lanes needed to accommodate those vehicles regardless of their weight.
In an ideal world I'd probably base the cost on miles driven, plus an additional charge based on an estimate of additional maintenance costs incurred depending on mileage, vehicle weight, number of tires, and the local climate. But then you also have to take into account the bureaucratic cost of enforcement, and how complicated you can make things before those costs exceed the benefits of accurate distribution of costs to consumers. Definitely a complex issue.
I'm curious though; is road damage based on total vehicle weight, or just the weight on each tire? If the latter, I think the formula should reflect that in order to incentivize vehicles to distribute weight across more tires in order to minimize road damage where that makes sense.
I'm also curious about how much wear is caused by vehicles vs other factors, like the weather. I'd guess that probably depends a lot on the local climate in each state.
I should also point out that maintenance costs aren't the only cost associated with road usage; even light cars take up space on the road, creating traffic and thus reducing the utility for other drivers. Any charges should thus include the cost of additional lanes needed to accommodate those vehicles regardless of their weight.
In an ideal world I'd probably base the cost on miles driven, plus an additional charge based on an estimate of additional maintenance costs incurred depending on mileage, vehicle weight, number of tires, and the local climate. But then you also have to take into account the bureaucratic cost of enforcement, and how complicated you can make things before those costs exceed the benefits of accurate distribution of costs to consumers. Definitely a complex issue.
> and miles driven
That may unfairly impact people who already cannot afford to live close to where the jobs are.
That may unfairly impact people who already cannot afford to live close to where the jobs are.
That's true, but a key component would be to decouple the payment from the process of paying for fuel.
Once those are separated, providing a tax reduction system for lower incomes would become possible.
Once those are separated, providing a tax reduction system for lower incomes would become possible.
You could do this at the gas pump/charger with built in scales.
Impose a tax on tires based on their mass.
Better to charge for the vehicle. You don't want to incentivize running on bald tires.
Bald tires won't pass inspection.
That's not a thing in most of the US.
Given that some 1 in 5 accidents are caused by a lack of maintenance, I would argue that it's a threat to public health/safety that they are not.
Yeah, it's not great. Unfortunately, a car is basically required to hold any kind of job in most of the US, aside from the (expensive) cores of few select cities. That's doubly true for low-income folks. It's effectively impossible to enforce safety regs when a large part of the population simply can't afford to maintain a safe vehicle. The alternative is even worse mass homelessness. For similar reasons, extremely dangerous drivers basically never get their license taken away.
I live in a snowy place, and the number of people I see running absolutely bald summer tires in the winter is horrifying.
I live in a snowy place, and the number of people I see running absolutely bald summer tires in the winter is horrifying.
Maybe if the police would enforce the laws for proper equipment we could reduce accidents caused by lack of maintenance and that reduction could result in a savings on insurance which would help make things more affordable.
That said, one doesn't have to have a car to get to work --- for almost 5 years, rather than put miles on my truck I rode a bicycle to work, and in the past I've walked to work at need --- hoping to get back to riding to my new job, just waiting for a connecting road through a development to be finished and the ride will become markedly shorter, facilitating this.
That said, one doesn't have to have a car to get to work --- for almost 5 years, rather than put miles on my truck I rode a bicycle to work, and in the past I've walked to work at need --- hoping to get back to riding to my new job, just waiting for a connecting road through a development to be finished and the ride will become markedly shorter, facilitating this.
This article is incorrect, at least based on times i've looked into wear and tear on the road in the past.
4.5 tons over two axles is approximately 25 times the damage of a sedan with 1 ton of weight on each axle. But that's not the same as a semi truck dealing 625 times as much damage as the sedan, or nearly 25 times as much damage as the Hummer EV. Given it costs over $100,000, I don't see 25x as many Hummer EVs hitting the road than big rigs in any given year.
> Consider a standard sedan with two axles and a total weight of 2 tons. Assuming an even distribution, each of its axles would bear the weight of 1 ton. Now consider a semitruck with eight axles and a weight of 40 tons -- each of its axles would weigh 5 tons. The relative damage done by each axle of the truck can be calculated with the following equation, and comes out to 625 times the damage done by each axel of the sedan.
> Considering that the truck has eight axles and the sedan has two, the relative damage caused by the entire semitruck would be 625 x (8/2) -- 2,500 times that of the sedan.
> “The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,” said Karim Chatti, a civil engineer from Michigan State University in East Lansing.
Not the same for bridges though:
> In reality, the relationship is more complicated. For instance, adding extra axles increases the total weight of the vehicle, making it more damaging, especially to bridges, where the total weight instead of axle weight is the main concern.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
4.5 tons over two axles is approximately 25 times the damage of a sedan with 1 ton of weight on each axle. But that's not the same as a semi truck dealing 625 times as much damage as the sedan, or nearly 25 times as much damage as the Hummer EV. Given it costs over $100,000, I don't see 25x as many Hummer EVs hitting the road than big rigs in any given year.
> Consider a standard sedan with two axles and a total weight of 2 tons. Assuming an even distribution, each of its axles would bear the weight of 1 ton. Now consider a semitruck with eight axles and a weight of 40 tons -- each of its axles would weigh 5 tons. The relative damage done by each axle of the truck can be calculated with the following equation, and comes out to 625 times the damage done by each axel of the sedan.
> Considering that the truck has eight axles and the sedan has two, the relative damage caused by the entire semitruck would be 625 x (8/2) -- 2,500 times that of the sedan.
> “The damage due to cars, for practical purposes, when we are designing pavements, is basically zero. It’s not actually zero, but it’s so much smaller -- orders of magnitude smaller -- that we don’t even bother with them,” said Karim Chatti, a civil engineer from Michigan State University in East Lansing.
Not the same for bridges though:
> In reality, the relationship is more complicated. For instance, adding extra axles increases the total weight of the vehicle, making it more damaging, especially to bridges, where the total weight instead of axle weight is the main concern.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
At a hefty 3.5T / 7,000 lbs, the Rivians* aren't much lighter than an E-Hummer (4.5T / 9,000 lbs).
Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones?
Ever noticed how the trucker lanes on the highway are the first to get potholes?
The taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize luxury toys. Let the owners pay a fair amount relative to the strain they're adding to the system (and FWIW, I'm saying this as someone who's immediate family members [plural] own Rivians).
* I was surprised to learn the gross weight of a Rivian the other night at dinner while peeking at a relative's car registration documents on the kitchen counter :p
Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones?
Ever noticed how the trucker lanes on the highway are the first to get potholes?
The taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize luxury toys. Let the owners pay a fair amount relative to the strain they're adding to the system (and FWIW, I'm saying this as someone who's immediate family members [plural] own Rivians).
* I was surprised to learn the gross weight of a Rivian the other night at dinner while peeking at a relative's car registration documents on the kitchen counter :p
> Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones?
This is correct, and it's why your conclusion is nonsensical.
No one is subsidizing luxury toys. The amount of damage done to roads by an e-Hummer or Rivian is mildly above that of, say, a Camry. Both do hundreds of times less damage than an 18-wheeler. The amount of damage done to a road by a passenger sedan is functionally zero, and for a Rivian or Hummer, it remains essentially zero.
The weight of large electric vehicles is an important issue! It makes a huge difference in cases of, for example, striking a pedestrian. But road damage is not a major issue for electric vehicles.
One caveat would be that a lot of road repair is funded via gas taxes, so road damage per dollar paid towards road repair may be lower for electric vehicles. But if we make heavy vehicles pair "their fair share", the Rivians will pay pennies, and the truckers will all go bankrupt.
This is correct, and it's why your conclusion is nonsensical.
No one is subsidizing luxury toys. The amount of damage done to roads by an e-Hummer or Rivian is mildly above that of, say, a Camry. Both do hundreds of times less damage than an 18-wheeler. The amount of damage done to a road by a passenger sedan is functionally zero, and for a Rivian or Hummer, it remains essentially zero.
The weight of large electric vehicles is an important issue! It makes a huge difference in cases of, for example, striking a pedestrian. But road damage is not a major issue for electric vehicles.
One caveat would be that a lot of road repair is funded via gas taxes, so road damage per dollar paid towards road repair may be lower for electric vehicles. But if we make heavy vehicles pair "their fair share", the Rivians will pay pennies, and the truckers will all go bankrupt.
> the truckers will all go bankrupt
I still think the alternative to pay per weight*distance is good - trucks should be last-mile delivery, not the primary source of transportation for goods in North America. Cargo trains are much better in many different dimensions, even more-so if they're electrified (Though, that's an impossibility in this market)
I still think the alternative to pay per weight*distance is good - trucks should be last-mile delivery, not the primary source of transportation for goods in North America. Cargo trains are much better in many different dimensions, even more-so if they're electrified (Though, that's an impossibility in this market)
Tell me you've never worked in logistics without telling me you've never worked in logistics.
For all of us who haven't worked in logistics, why not explain what you're talking about instead of being snarky?
I work for a logistics company which operates a hub-and-spoke network of trucks running between its branches in the US and Europe. Think just like an airline running scheduled flights, but with trucks going warehouse to warehouse. The truck is contracted out to a service provider, and goes on schedule regardless of what is on it at the time. The reason we do this is because it offers a predictable way of getting stuff from point A to point B using existing infrastructure. And 99 times out of 100, with the volumes we move, the truck is full of something. Or many somethings.
And when you move the volumes of freight we do, that helps us fulfill our business case, which is "give us your stuff. Here's the paperwork saying we take responsibility. We'll make sure it arrives at point B on time, compliant with customs and all import/export laws, and compliant with all your industry's off-the-wall niche requirements, without you having to do so much as think about it anymore."
This isn't feasible using only rail without multiple governments across the world investing billions or maybe trillions of dollars/Euros in new track. Especially in America, where the rail network has always gotten outcompeted by truck freight for many different reasons. What you're describing is a pie-in-the-sky ideal, not what's necessarily feasible without making freight prices skyrocket due to high rail demand, low capacity, and the probably 25+ years it would take to change this. If not 50-100 years.
And when you move the volumes of freight we do, that helps us fulfill our business case, which is "give us your stuff. Here's the paperwork saying we take responsibility. We'll make sure it arrives at point B on time, compliant with customs and all import/export laws, and compliant with all your industry's off-the-wall niche requirements, without you having to do so much as think about it anymore."
This isn't feasible using only rail without multiple governments across the world investing billions or maybe trillions of dollars/Euros in new track. Especially in America, where the rail network has always gotten outcompeted by truck freight for many different reasons. What you're describing is a pie-in-the-sky ideal, not what's necessarily feasible without making freight prices skyrocket due to high rail demand, low capacity, and the probably 25+ years it would take to change this. If not 50-100 years.
We put a lot of effort into not using rail for freight, it stands to reason that if we actually set our minds to it we could start using it more again.
(At least, I think that the argument you’re making is about modern logistics and modern rail freight being surprisingly incompatible. But it’s hard to tell since you haven’t actually provided a rebuttal.)
(At least, I think that the argument you’re making is about modern logistics and modern rail freight being surprisingly incompatible. But it’s hard to tell since you haven’t actually provided a rebuttal.)
[deleted]
I doubt all roads are built to the same specification and they should not. 18 wheelers have no place in city center or suburb.
How do you think goods are getting into a Target or Costco? 30 delivery vans an hour?
I'm not living in the US but I was under the impression that Target&Cosco were already not in the city center or the middle of suburbs but more like close to an interstate or other main road ?
How much damage does a 7,000 lb vehicle do to a road designed for 80,000 lb?
Or is the real measure ground pressure? Apparently semi trucks run 6000lb up front per wheel and 4300lb in the rear. The Rivian runs 1400lb.
With asphalt, which is softer, I imagine the road damage more readily accumulates over time. Whereas the concrete on freeways I guess has an actual sheer strength and either breaks or it doesn’t.
I am neither a mechanical nor civil engineer, so just curious how the wear manifests.
Or is the real measure ground pressure? Apparently semi trucks run 6000lb up front per wheel and 4300lb in the rear. The Rivian runs 1400lb.
With asphalt, which is softer, I imagine the road damage more readily accumulates over time. Whereas the concrete on freeways I guess has an actual sheer strength and either breaks or it doesn’t.
I am neither a mechanical nor civil engineer, so just curious how the wear manifests.
I don't think this thread is as much about actual tire wear as it is a bunch of people preening about how Trucks Bad because You Don't Need That.
This.
I mentioned this in my comment, but the "AASHO Road Test" gave us something called the Generalized Fourth Power Law. Explained
> It’s a rule of thumb for comparing the amount of pavement damage caused by vehicles with different weights, in terms of axle loads:
> (W1/W2)^4
> In the equation, W1 is the weight of an axle on vehicle 1, which we would compare to W2, the weight of an axle on vehicle 2.
For W1 of 4 tons on an axle and W2 of 1 ton on an axle, vehicle 1 does 256 times as much damage to pavement as vehicle 2.
> It’s a rule of thumb for comparing the amount of pavement damage caused by vehicles with different weights, in terms of axle loads:
> (W1/W2)^4
> In the equation, W1 is the weight of an axle on vehicle 1, which we would compare to W2, the weight of an axle on vehicle 2.
For W1 of 4 tons on an axle and W2 of 1 ton on an axle, vehicle 1 does 256 times as much damage to pavement as vehicle 2.
> For W1 of 4 tons on an axle and W2 of 1 ton on an axle, vehicle 1 does 256 times as much damage to pavement as vehicle 2.
OK so take a loaded semi-truck at 40 tons / 80 000 pounds. How much more damage does it do than the 4 tons W1 of your example?
How's the road still even there at all after the semi-truck passed on it?
The answer is: because even the W1 vehicle at 4 tons cannot even dent that road.
Now I'm not saying a 4 tons car is a good thing but honestly 1 ton to 2.5 tons, I don't think it's even possible to measure the tiny damage they do.
OK so take a loaded semi-truck at 40 tons / 80 000 pounds. How much more damage does it do than the 4 tons W1 of your example?
How's the road still even there at all after the semi-truck passed on it?
The answer is: because even the W1 vehicle at 4 tons cannot even dent that road.
Now I'm not saying a 4 tons car is a good thing but honestly 1 ton to 2.5 tons, I don't think it's even possible to measure the tiny damage they do.
You do realize that not all roads are designed to allow for frequent 40t trucks usage (and they should not). So they might not dent a highway but probably not the same for city streets / suburbs and parkings.
Indeed. So while a 4.5 ton vehicle, the Hummer EV, does 25 times as much damage as a 2 ton sedan, a semi truck with 5 tons on each axle does ~625 times as much damage to the road.
But 5 tons is not the standard. The federal axel limit is 20,000 pounds, so a fully loaded truck could be doing the same amount of damage to the road as 10,000 sedans. I doubt this is the average axle weight of all semis on the road, though.
But 5 tons is not the standard. The federal axel limit is 20,000 pounds, so a fully loaded truck could be doing the same amount of damage to the road as 10,000 sedans. I doubt this is the average axle weight of all semis on the road, though.
The AASHO test comes up frequently, but there’s an easier way to evaluate this: What’s the internal pressure required to inflate the tires? The higher it is, the smaller the contact patch and the more damage it will inflict on the road. Large trucks are between 80 and 100 PSI, while your typical passenger vehicle is going to be 35 PSI or under.
Road bicycles go over 100PSI. Motor bike tires have a similar pressure to cars.
[deleted]
Taxes and fees just let the wealthy do whatever they want, while putting the less-wealthy at even further disadvantage.
Regulations that say a normal household passenger vehicle can't weigh over X can be made to apply to everyone.
Regulations that say a normal household passenger vehicle can't weigh over X can be made to apply to everyone.
Agreed. I’m sure the family that has their kids killed by a brodoser feels better knowing the owner paid extra taxes on it.
Having recently shopped for an EV, I did find that there are a lot more options in the US if you’re looking for larger vehicles. It’s a shame because many smaller models exist abroad, they just don’t want to bring them here (e.g. the VW ID.3).
What’s also funny is in many parts of Europe, their idea of a “small” car seems to be very different from ours. I’ve heard people there classify cars like the Honda CRV or the VW ID.4 as “big”.
What’s also funny is in many parts of Europe, their idea of a “small” car seems to be very different from ours. I’ve heard people there classify cars like the Honda CRV or the VW ID.4 as “big”.
I own an ID.4 and live in the US. In my opinion, the ID.4 is enormous and handles like a barge. For perspective, I used to drive a Corolla as my commuting car.
In hindsight, I kinda wish I would’ve just waited for a current-year Nissan Leaf to be in stock. But, I had burned out on looking for Leafs between dealerships blatantly lying to me and trying to sell me 5+ year old Leafs for roughly the MSRP of a brand new one.
Strange they skipped the step of 1) taxing cars which cause more injuries per mile, 2) taxing resources (including externality cost) so that if you use more, you pay more.
Instead they are taxing a pretty bad proxy for those actual policy goals.
i.e. this incentivizes companies to reduce weight rather than add safety measures, and to use light materials regardless of if they cause more environmental damage. Hypothetical example: carmakers might use more aluminum & titanium, which may cause lots of harm to produce, rather than iron.
Just tax the thing you don't like: pollution & using resources you want to control distribution of.
Wired has really fallen. It's like they don't understand markets or incentives at all. Also - isn't tesla one of the safest cars on the road per mile? So it's really inane to write a hit piece on their alleged safety without say actually looking at their safety results
Instead they are taxing a pretty bad proxy for those actual policy goals.
i.e. this incentivizes companies to reduce weight rather than add safety measures, and to use light materials regardless of if they cause more environmental damage. Hypothetical example: carmakers might use more aluminum & titanium, which may cause lots of harm to produce, rather than iron.
Just tax the thing you don't like: pollution & using resources you want to control distribution of.
Wired has really fallen. It's like they don't understand markets or incentives at all. Also - isn't tesla one of the safest cars on the road per mile? So it's really inane to write a hit piece on their alleged safety without say actually looking at their safety results
> Wired has really fallen
I mean maybe, but TFA is from Slate. Moreover, the article argues in favour of taxing the thing we want less of: weight. Weight means more power required to start, more mass to change direction and stop, more materials required for the larger batteries, and more of a literal impact on pedestrians.
I mean maybe, but TFA is from Slate. Moreover, the article argues in favour of taxing the thing we want less of: weight. Weight means more power required to start, more mass to change direction and stop, more materials required for the larger batteries, and more of a literal impact on pedestrians.
It also often equates to safer vehicles. Crash safety matters.
Only to the people inside. Though per US crash regulations (until recently), anything and anyone else was literally an externality.
> Just tax the thing you don't like
and in a democracy, this can't happen because those being taxed have political power to prevent it, or dilute it. Therefore, a proxy gets taxed indirectly, which also dilutes the said tax to more constituents, thus spreading it out thinly enough to not "cause" the ruckus in said group of constituents.
and in a democracy, this can't happen because those being taxed have political power to prevent it, or dilute it. Therefore, a proxy gets taxed indirectly, which also dilutes the said tax to more constituents, thus spreading it out thinly enough to not "cause" the ruckus in said group of constituents.
[deleted]
In the early 70s, insurance companies were able to severely curtail the power levels of cars coming out of Detroit by pricing in the actual risk. If a car causes lots of injuries, then that needs to be priced into the insurance. Eventually, that won’t be a car you can buy.
>Slapping new taxes on EVs might seem like a head-scratcher, especially since around 4 in 5 cars on Norwegian roads are still gas-powered. But the country’s new weight-based car fees are a sensible move to address two critical drawbacks of oversize EVs: These models exacerbate climate change, and they endanger everyone else on the street. Other countries—and U.S. states—should follow Norway’s lead.
Just... no. That's a luxury we don't currently have. Get as many ICE cars off the road as quickly as you can, then worry about right-sizing by levying taxes based on weight. Why on earth would you give ANY disincentive to people from buying an EV? If someone wants to blow $150k on a hummer EV instead of buying another diesel pickup, great! Anyone claiming it's somehow more dangerous to a pedestrian is just being belligerent - if you get hit by the average 3/4 truck doing 60mph you'll be just as dead as the hummer despite the hummer weighing slightly more.
I think people in the US fail to realize that even the heaviest passenger vehicle does almost nothing to a road in comparison to a single semi-tractor. You can find various studies but even the most conservative put the average OTR truck at 2500X the damage of a passenger vehicle:
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
Just... no. That's a luxury we don't currently have. Get as many ICE cars off the road as quickly as you can, then worry about right-sizing by levying taxes based on weight. Why on earth would you give ANY disincentive to people from buying an EV? If someone wants to blow $150k on a hummer EV instead of buying another diesel pickup, great! Anyone claiming it's somehow more dangerous to a pedestrian is just being belligerent - if you get hit by the average 3/4 truck doing 60mph you'll be just as dead as the hummer despite the hummer weighing slightly more.
I think people in the US fail to realize that even the heaviest passenger vehicle does almost nothing to a road in comparison to a single semi-tractor. You can find various studies but even the most conservative put the average OTR truck at 2500X the damage of a passenger vehicle:
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
Let's scale licensing requirements with weight instead. Require regular re-testing for all but the most basic class license.
Regular re-testing means those driving heavier (read: more dangerous) vehicles would have to maintain competency rather than be punished in proportion to the consequences of their incompetency. The usual moral qualms about revoking licensing would be somewhat side-stepped as well since you could at least knock a bad driver down to the basic class and reduce the damage they're likely to do.
Regular re-testing means those driving heavier (read: more dangerous) vehicles would have to maintain competency rather than be punished in proportion to the consequences of their incompetency. The usual moral qualms about revoking licensing would be somewhat side-stepped as well since you could at least knock a bad driver down to the basic class and reduce the damage they're likely to do.
America is not a nation of light vehicles, and that is largely due to the MPG standards that have been legislated for decades. An "out" was given based on vehicle weight, with heavier vehicles not having to meet as high a standard as lighter ones. Which is part of why trucks have gotten so huge over the past few decades.
This. Ignorant dweebs like the type who write for Slate fail to understand that the growing size of vehicles is not driven by demand, it's driven by EPA policy.
Anecdotally, this is false for anyone I have talked to. They want bigger vehicles, they want to sit up high. There exists demand for bigger vehicle, whether or be to feel safer or superior.
They may want big, but big doesn't have to be heavy. We could have big and relatively light vehicles. Most of a cars volume is air.
But big is higher drag and higher drag is less mpg and the only way to be allowed less mpg is heavy as per EPA rules.
But big is higher drag and higher drag is less mpg and the only way to be allowed less mpg is heavy as per EPA rules.
People you are talking to only care about image, they just buy into the macho image projected by marketing.
There are many tradesmen, farmers, etc who would love to buy one of the small trucks that used to be available. They are great for tossing tools into and going to fields, work sites, etc. But trucks with that wheel base now require an efficiency level that isn't feasible. Many have resorted to using UTVs in their place where it makes sense, but those can't completely fill the gap since they aren't street legal.
Regulations always have intended consequences.
There are many tradesmen, farmers, etc who would love to buy one of the small trucks that used to be available. They are great for tossing tools into and going to fields, work sites, etc. But trucks with that wheel base now require an efficiency level that isn't feasible. Many have resorted to using UTVs in their place where it makes sense, but those can't completely fill the gap since they aren't street legal.
Regulations always have intended consequences.
You can tell with the aggressive aesthetic of these new trucks that there is clearly some appeal to fragile egos as well.
He says exactly this in paragraph 9. What article did you read?
It isn't an exception for weight, but rather the misguided footprint regulation that incentivizes larger vehicles that are allowed to have lower fuel economy. That coupled with the silliness of hatchback cars being classified as trucks has distorted the market and ruined the options for small vehicles that are truly trucks.
This problem will take care of itself once EVs are no longer a Luxury Good. I'd rather not do a bunch of damage to a fledgling market when all I want is more choices and innovation in charging times.
> But EVs still require energy to move, and generating it creates emissions.
Only if you use coal/gas plants to generate your electricity. Mostly, there are better options. Many EV owners also have solar panels, for example. Or alternatively they'll use charging stations that are mostly powered by renewables (because that's cheaper for those who operate those commercially). The bottom line is that generating electricity indeed generates some emissions sometimes. And generally a lot less than burning petrol/diesel do.
> Gigantic batteries consume larger amounts of critical minerals like graphite and lithium that are in short supply worldwide.
Lithium shortages are mostly on the refining side; there's plenty of lithium on this planet. And for cheaper cars there's also sodium ion. Likewise, we're not exactly running out of carbon. Scaling up graphite and lithium production is a bit of a logistical challenge. We're much better at producing epic amounts of oil. The problem with that of course is that we need to stop doing that. Vastly less oil in exchange for a little bit extra graphite. Maybe we can even turn (some) oil into graphite.
This reads to me like a puff piece that is designed to lazily (without much critical thinking or journalistic expertise) rehash some cliches and half truths about EVs. We can guess at motivation but probably some advertising money can be traced back to the usual suspects in the burning dead dinosaur juice sector.
Are cars needlessly big and heavy in the US. Yes. No doubt about. That started years ago, long before there were EVs. And the trend continues. It's not because batteries are heavy but because people thing they need big heavy cars. It's perfectly doable to make a small, lightweight EV. There are some sports car conversions to electric that weigh less than the original without loss of range and with a lot better performance.
Only if you use coal/gas plants to generate your electricity. Mostly, there are better options. Many EV owners also have solar panels, for example. Or alternatively they'll use charging stations that are mostly powered by renewables (because that's cheaper for those who operate those commercially). The bottom line is that generating electricity indeed generates some emissions sometimes. And generally a lot less than burning petrol/diesel do.
> Gigantic batteries consume larger amounts of critical minerals like graphite and lithium that are in short supply worldwide.
Lithium shortages are mostly on the refining side; there's plenty of lithium on this planet. And for cheaper cars there's also sodium ion. Likewise, we're not exactly running out of carbon. Scaling up graphite and lithium production is a bit of a logistical challenge. We're much better at producing epic amounts of oil. The problem with that of course is that we need to stop doing that. Vastly less oil in exchange for a little bit extra graphite. Maybe we can even turn (some) oil into graphite.
This reads to me like a puff piece that is designed to lazily (without much critical thinking or journalistic expertise) rehash some cliches and half truths about EVs. We can guess at motivation but probably some advertising money can be traced back to the usual suspects in the burning dead dinosaur juice sector.
Are cars needlessly big and heavy in the US. Yes. No doubt about. That started years ago, long before there were EVs. And the trend continues. It's not because batteries are heavy but because people thing they need big heavy cars. It's perfectly doable to make a small, lightweight EV. There are some sports car conversions to electric that weigh less than the original without loss of range and with a lot better performance.
Its about bringing externalaties to account, ie if you cost someone else money be it through particulate pollution, noise pollution, road maintenance, road provision you should pay that. So you can choose, but you must pay the full cost of your decision. If you get this right then everyone will choose optimally and the overall costs will diminish. Gas tax is roughly correlated but not great and a weight tax is better but still not exact.
FTFA: “If we can redistribute these resources—instead of putting them in a Hummer, put them in smaller cars or e-bikes—that’s preferable,” said Jay Turner
Or even PHEVs which typically have 1/10th the batteries and 1/10th the range of an EV, yet reduce fuel usage by 90% since most people's daily driving is under 50 kilometres or 30 miles.
Or even PHEVs which typically have 1/10th the batteries and 1/10th the range of an EV, yet reduce fuel usage by 90% since most people's daily driving is under 50 kilometres or 30 miles.
F=mv^2
The problem is moreso speed, not mass, when discussing pedestrian fatalities.
Better yet, protect pedestrians from getting hit in the first place with better street design for more walkable cities. There are tons of examples of protected bike lanes, pedestrian islands, and more frequent crosswalks with stiffer penalties for blowing through them, regardless of what the vehicle is.
The problem is moreso speed, not mass, when discussing pedestrian fatalities.
Better yet, protect pedestrians from getting hit in the first place with better street design for more walkable cities. There are tons of examples of protected bike lanes, pedestrian islands, and more frequent crosswalks with stiffer penalties for blowing through them, regardless of what the vehicle is.
1/2 mv^2 is energy (not force).
F = m * a
Keeping constant acceleration, compare hummer against corolla. Hummer is going to squash pedestrians.
Keeping constant acceleration, compare hummer against corolla. Hummer is going to squash pedestrians.
I think that its foolish to over-legislate at this stage in the game.
1. The Hummer EV is not going to do a ton of volume. Compared to other vehicles on the road, esp commercial, it's a drop in the bucket. "in 2022, GMC delivered 854 Hummer EV Pickups. Currently, the cumulative number is 857."
2. People do not consider the weight of the vehicle when purchasing. No one cares. And it's not something we should need to consider. The Rivian (a 'quarter ton' truck) weighs 7,000 lbs, a good 2,000 lbs more than my RAM 1500 (a 'half ton' truck). This is counter intuitive and not obvious to most buyers.
3. Batteries are the problem, but battery tech is truly in its infancy. They will continue to get lighter and more efficient.
Why would we want to penalize the transition to EV with more taxes and fees on owners? Ignore the fact that Hummer owners "can afford it" - what about other EVs? We want more adoption of EVs. We need to figure out another strategy. Manufacturers should carry the burden here because they are the ones producing these heavy vehicles. That is a slippery slope though because again it will stifle innovation.
This will be a messy transition but progress is progress.
1. The Hummer EV is not going to do a ton of volume. Compared to other vehicles on the road, esp commercial, it's a drop in the bucket. "in 2022, GMC delivered 854 Hummer EV Pickups. Currently, the cumulative number is 857."
2. People do not consider the weight of the vehicle when purchasing. No one cares. And it's not something we should need to consider. The Rivian (a 'quarter ton' truck) weighs 7,000 lbs, a good 2,000 lbs more than my RAM 1500 (a 'half ton' truck). This is counter intuitive and not obvious to most buyers.
3. Batteries are the problem, but battery tech is truly in its infancy. They will continue to get lighter and more efficient.
Why would we want to penalize the transition to EV with more taxes and fees on owners? Ignore the fact that Hummer owners "can afford it" - what about other EVs? We want more adoption of EVs. We need to figure out another strategy. Manufacturers should carry the burden here because they are the ones producing these heavy vehicles. That is a slippery slope though because again it will stifle innovation.
This will be a messy transition but progress is progress.
> People do not consider the weight of the vehicle when purchasing. No one cares. And it's not something we should need to consider.
Of course they don’t care. Because it’s only others being hurt. Which is why we need to push the problem back to the source. We shouldn’t allow deadly machines to be operated around urban spaces. If you need one out on the farm, that’s fine. But it’s not appropriate to take in to the city.
Of course they don’t care. Because it’s only others being hurt. Which is why we need to push the problem back to the source. We shouldn’t allow deadly machines to be operated around urban spaces. If you need one out on the farm, that’s fine. But it’s not appropriate to take in to the city.
Who is being hurt? Deadly machines? This is a very unpleasant curmudgeonly take. The context of this discussion is regarding road use and wear and tear.
Have you taken a look at the road fatalities in the US recently. People are quite literally being killed at an increasing rate. And these oversized cars are directly more deadly.
You might not care about putting lives over appearances. But others do.
You might not care about putting lives over appearances. But others do.
[deleted]
I notice that you submitted a link to encourage deflating the tires of large vehicles.
> Our aim is to make it impossible to own a huge polluting 4x4 in the world’s urban areas. To do that, we need people everywhere deflating 4x4 tyres, week-in, week-out.
absolutely unhinged activities.
> Our aim is to make it impossible to own a huge polluting 4x4 in the world’s urban areas. To do that, we need people everywhere deflating 4x4 tyres, week-in, week-out.
absolutely unhinged activities.
The Tyre Extinguishers are doing gods work. Governments are failing to act against car killings which are driven by oversized SUVs and trucks. So some push back from the public is needed. Hopefully the laws soon catch up and ban these vehicles.
Sick people
[deleted]
EVs could be treated separately from IC vehicles (e.g., battery weight doesn’t count or something)
It makes total sense to me, for everyone that got screwed out of home ownership because of prices skyrocketing, some of them didn't go homeless. The ones that bought a large truck and an RV (to live in full time) need to pay. That should make them go fully homeless.
I dunno if it makes sense to create a bizarre kind of carbon tax that applies to that one specific scenario. But vehicles that are too large or two heavy should have some stricter zoning constraints.
They aren't safe everywhere, and they create some strong traffic degradation.
They aren't safe everywhere, and they create some strong traffic degradation.
Vehicle mileage is taxed at the pump and at the charging station. The material is taxed at sale. Charging an excess tax is just. . . In excess.
The pedestrian crash problem has more to do with our terrible alternative transportation traffic mixing. If the US took a more serious approach for bike lanes and pedestrian accessible infrastructure, the injury rate would decrease. Heavy vehicles is not a new problem. Look at gross vehicle weights of cars and light trucks before 1980.
The pedestrian crash problem has more to do with our terrible alternative transportation traffic mixing. If the US took a more serious approach for bike lanes and pedestrian accessible infrastructure, the injury rate would decrease. Heavy vehicles is not a new problem. Look at gross vehicle weights of cars and light trucks before 1980.
If road damage grows exponentially rather than linearly with weight, then so should the taxes. Nothing excess about it, it's just proportional.
The usual approximation is the 3rd or 4th power of weight, not exponential.
But yeah, growing taxes on that proportion would make sense.
But yeah, growing taxes on that proportion would make sense.
This I've heard several times recently but it's not really true. The current 4-door Bronco is larger in every direction and 900 pounds heavier than a 1976 Ramcharger, which we used to think of as a benchmark for way-too-big cars. The best-selling car from 1976 weighed 3700 pounds, only 3-5% more than the best-selling Toyota Camry of 2022. The 1976 Ford F-100 (the best-selling truck of that year) base weight is the same as a 2023 Ford F-150 base, at 4000 pounds.
So the least safe your car is, the more you pay. I'll take my crash safety in my volvo station wagon 'little tank' over an 'efficient tin can' any day. I can also haul a trailer which you can't do in light weight cars.
Can we add more taxes, I still get to keep some of my income?
A left-inclined publication wants more government interference and more taxes? I'm shocked!
How about just not taxing everything and everyone into oblivion? Reduce all the wasteful government spending, and remove most of the government.
How about just not taxing everything and everyone into oblivion? Reduce all the wasteful government spending, and remove most of the government.
Could not agree more.
Everyone’s answer to anything they don’t like is “tax it moar!!” but it’s just throwing money away. I would be more OK with a mandatory donation to like the Girl Scouts rather than sending even more money to the government to just be wasted.
Everyone’s answer to anything they don’t like is “tax it moar!!” but it’s just throwing money away. I would be more OK with a mandatory donation to like the Girl Scouts rather than sending even more money to the government to just be wasted.
And what do you think would happen then?
Freedom.
Uh huh, nice word. And could you put some details around that, some specifics? What would our society look like, in your estimation, without regulation?
Some regulations would exist even with a smaller government. I just can’t understand all the other responses here that amount to giving the federal government even more power and having them take even more money. We already lose something like 30-40% of every dollar in various taxes and they have the power to continually devalue whatever is left through inflationary monetary policy.
Just look up total inflation over the past several decades and it becomes very clear why so many are struggling just to make ends meet. And again, so many of the commenters here think giving the gov more power is the answer.
Just look up total inflation over the past several decades and it becomes very clear why so many are struggling just to make ends meet. And again, so many of the commenters here think giving the gov more power is the answer.
It could look like reciprocal easements throughout the entire town and the roads. The people own the infrastructure and use legal structures to cooperate with their neighbors.
That’s a great starting point. But how would you handle it if you were on a main thoroughfare with 4.5 tonne EVs rolling through from, and to, parts unknown?
The easements allow other property owners to get to their houses. Everyone understands work trucks going to work at a house. A big advertising billboard truck going in circles would be trespass on my part of the "road". EV going to a residence seems to comply with easement to travel, within bridge weight limits.
The government, at best, and excluding any other criticisms, is a middle man. At the very least, it absorbs money and decreases efficiency.
1) Government taxation model.
Tax payer X makes $100. The government takes $40 (excluding for now the additional taxation on every purchase, sale, savings, etc). The government spends $20 of that just to fund itself. The government spends the other $20 on whatever. X has $60, and things he cares about MIGHT have been given a fraction of that $20.
2) Other.
Tax payer X makes $100. He spends $40 on whatever the hell he wants to support or fund. He still has $60. Something he actually cares about, for example a local hospital, has $40.
No matter what other factors you add to complicate matters, the existence of any middle men add cost and reduce efficiency.
1) Government taxation model.
Tax payer X makes $100. The government takes $40 (excluding for now the additional taxation on every purchase, sale, savings, etc). The government spends $20 of that just to fund itself. The government spends the other $20 on whatever. X has $60, and things he cares about MIGHT have been given a fraction of that $20.
2) Other.
Tax payer X makes $100. He spends $40 on whatever the hell he wants to support or fund. He still has $60. Something he actually cares about, for example a local hospital, has $40.
No matter what other factors you add to complicate matters, the existence of any middle men add cost and reduce efficiency.
Yep, totally agree that government is both expensive and wasteful. Absolutely no disagreement there.
Let’s say we do away with government and regulating companies then, in the interests of efficiency and liberty. What’s the state of play a few years into that experiment, do you reckon?
Let’s say we do away with government and regulating companies then, in the interests of efficiency and liberty. What’s the state of play a few years into that experiment, do you reckon?
I live in a town where the "roads" are private property and everyone has an easement to travel on everyone else's piece of what look like roads. Most of town budget goes to "road maintenance". Everyone understands their role, roads are maintained, and if government misbehaves we will chop our taxes and do the roads ourselves. By not owning the "road" property, government is kept in check and are our servants. There are also zero problems with parking on roads - it gets towed for trespass parking on private property.
Love it - an excellent solution for a local problem. Sounds far more optimal for you guys than having government involvement.
I consider that fine evidence that we over-regulate in some areas. I reckon there’s also a lot of evidence that we under-regulate in others. By contrast, I don’t think it’s evidence for a general proposition that any reduction in regulation is a priori a good thing - despite what the Murdoch press would say.
I consider that fine evidence that we over-regulate in some areas. I reckon there’s also a lot of evidence that we under-regulate in others. By contrast, I don’t think it’s evidence for a general proposition that any reduction in regulation is a priori a good thing - despite what the Murdoch press would say.
Yes, it is not so much about government regulation and more about people owning the property and infrastructure. Government ownership of property leads to lack of accountability to the people.
Perhaps just free markets, and individuals determining how those markets go. Individuals funding local community assets as they see fit.
Perhaps a cartel like situation such as the Hanseatic League.
Perhaps a cartel like situation such as the Hanseatic League.
Okay so survival of the fittest-type thing. Essential services such as hospitals, schools, electricity, etc would have to handle their own fundraising and would live and die by their performance in the market. Competing for mindshare with Wendys and Facebook could be tricky, but yeah, I’m a believer that people are fundamentally good and I reckon we could find a way to make it work.
Would we need any coordination at all, you reckon? After a time, would people say, “hey, these hospitals shouldn’t have to go cap-in-hand every month looking for funds, we should set something up to make sure they get what they need”, or no coordination at all?
And what about “businesses” that inherently aren’t very profitable? Let’s say there are two schools in town - one profitable and one not. The profitable one is profitable because it optimises for profits. The unprofitable one optimises for things that are harder to measure - student experience, community, etc. Would people choose to help fund the unprofitable one out of their own pockets when there was another option that’s profitable? What would be the consequences of that over time?
And finally, how about bad actors - companies that produce a dangerous product that kills or harms people, or that negligently fail to maintain a nuclear power station? Or just really big, heavy cars that tear up roads and the planet and kill people more often than the alternatives. How would we handle such actors, or would we just not handle them - let the free market sort it out?
Would we need any coordination at all, you reckon? After a time, would people say, “hey, these hospitals shouldn’t have to go cap-in-hand every month looking for funds, we should set something up to make sure they get what they need”, or no coordination at all?
And what about “businesses” that inherently aren’t very profitable? Let’s say there are two schools in town - one profitable and one not. The profitable one is profitable because it optimises for profits. The unprofitable one optimises for things that are harder to measure - student experience, community, etc. Would people choose to help fund the unprofitable one out of their own pockets when there was another option that’s profitable? What would be the consequences of that over time?
And finally, how about bad actors - companies that produce a dangerous product that kills or harms people, or that negligently fail to maintain a nuclear power station? Or just really big, heavy cars that tear up roads and the planet and kill people more often than the alternatives. How would we handle such actors, or would we just not handle them - let the free market sort it out?
Consider something like a town/region hospital. Don't want to fund it? Don't. Want treatment? Cough up the cash. At the moment, here in Australia, the government does the middle man thing, and money is just blown on crap. The town hospital is underfunded, understaffed, and KPIs for just about everything are dropping. Meanwhile, every tax-payer is coughing up dollars every day for not using the service until they need it. They might pay millions of dollars throughout their working lives for something they use for three days. OTOH, if they don't get taxed like that, and only pay directly to the hospital when they use it, maybe that would work out better. It certainly worked in the past. And every citizen would retain more wealth, some of which they could spend (if they chose) on improving their lifestyle with home gym, better food, etc.
Should hospitals need to beg? No. Just require payment for service. Maybe it'll cost you $100,000 to get a broken leg fixed. But if you weren't paying that in taxes for the past 3 years, you've got that and more spare.
Competition: That's how it works. If the school is optimised for profits, wouldn't that mean the parents think it does the best job? Otherwise they can just start their own school (without government interference), or individuallly home school.
I do think one of the few things government should do is set human and environmental safety requirements, such as not putting radium in kids toys. Alternatively, if parents find radium in kids toys, they should find the people responsible and deal with them appropriately.
Should hospitals need to beg? No. Just require payment for service. Maybe it'll cost you $100,000 to get a broken leg fixed. But if you weren't paying that in taxes for the past 3 years, you've got that and more spare.
Competition: That's how it works. If the school is optimised for profits, wouldn't that mean the parents think it does the best job? Otherwise they can just start their own school (without government interference), or individuallly home school.
I do think one of the few things government should do is set human and environmental safety requirements, such as not putting radium in kids toys. Alternatively, if parents find radium in kids toys, they should find the people responsible and deal with them appropriately.
Bad actors don't make money because you can only rip off people once and never at scale. Ironically, the only actor that can do the aforementioned is the state. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
[deleted]
this is America. any attempt at this sort of taxation is doa, even as far backs as the 70s. It's like " it worked in Norway (or other small, liberal, or collectivist or highly authoritarian country), it can work America too" um un no.
America has income taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, I could go on.
And clearly taxes that fund roads are soon going to need to be completely revised, since they can't all come from gas anymore.
Whatever the gas tax is replaced/supplemented with, I would be surprised if it doesn't take into account vehicle weight, since the whole point is to fund road maintenance. And remember that road tolls roads already take weight/wheels into account, so there's plenty of precedent.
Heck, NYC is implementing congestion taxes now, if we want to talk about the possibility of new taxes. Nothing "DOA" about it.
And clearly taxes that fund roads are soon going to need to be completely revised, since they can't all come from gas anymore.
Whatever the gas tax is replaced/supplemented with, I would be surprised if it doesn't take into account vehicle weight, since the whole point is to fund road maintenance. And remember that road tolls roads already take weight/wheels into account, so there's plenty of precedent.
Heck, NYC is implementing congestion taxes now, if we want to talk about the possibility of new taxes. Nothing "DOA" about it.
I would just like to mention for the non-Americans here that "America has <X> tax" is a gross and possibly useless oversimplification.
There are federal taxes, which generally will be levied uniformly across the country.
There are state, county, and municipal taxes, of which the rates will all vary as well as whether any specific tax is levied at all (eg: Oregon has no sales tax).
Certain taxes will be levied by multiple levels of government, such as gasoline tax which is levied by both federal and state taxes.
Most countries' taxes are far simpler because their structures of governance are simpler, so it's worth keeping in mind that mindset shouldn't be applied to the US.
There are federal taxes, which generally will be levied uniformly across the country.
There are state, county, and municipal taxes, of which the rates will all vary as well as whether any specific tax is levied at all (eg: Oregon has no sales tax).
Certain taxes will be levied by multiple levels of government, such as gasoline tax which is levied by both federal and state taxes.
Most countries' taxes are far simpler because their structures of governance are simpler, so it's worth keeping in mind that mindset shouldn't be applied to the US.
In USA, income taxes are not apportioned uniformly. Sales tax, property tax, and most everything else is applied uniformly based on price. I still can't believe there was a civil war about slavery, yet the government takes my work product as if I am their slave.
Yes, the USA has far too many taxes feeding a bloated, corrupt, and wasteful government apparatus that is ever-expanding and insatiable.
What does "work" mean?
Any time someone suggests a tax that kind of, sort of, might be, correlated with energy efficiency, it is violating what should be the prime directive of climate change - every gram of CO2 emitted should be treated equally.
Doing studies on the environmental impact of Hummer EVs is missing the forest for the trees.
The minute you establish any category of energy usage that is more pure, more sanctified per unit mass of CO2 output, the invisible hand of the market will shift as much as possible into that loophole, until it is so obscene it can't be ignored. Hummer EVs are just one example.
Focusing on weight is just starting a new cycle of missing the point. My motorcycle is really light, so does that mean it's the most efficient method of transport? Are semi-trailers used because truckers like wasting money?
The counter argument remains: "we must do something...and this is something". I don't need to see that again, but if you have the urge - do you really believe it? Can we achieve any goal through lying about the fundamental criterion of success, by micromanaging out of ignorance?
Everything done to fight climate change is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to avoid thinking about the insurmountable political task of raising fuel taxes enough to make a difference.
If you have given up, then there is nothing left but social justice and mitigation for poor countries affected by climate change. So own it. Be clear about it.
Any time someone suggests a tax that kind of, sort of, might be, correlated with energy efficiency, it is violating what should be the prime directive of climate change - every gram of CO2 emitted should be treated equally.
Doing studies on the environmental impact of Hummer EVs is missing the forest for the trees.
The minute you establish any category of energy usage that is more pure, more sanctified per unit mass of CO2 output, the invisible hand of the market will shift as much as possible into that loophole, until it is so obscene it can't be ignored. Hummer EVs are just one example.
Focusing on weight is just starting a new cycle of missing the point. My motorcycle is really light, so does that mean it's the most efficient method of transport? Are semi-trailers used because truckers like wasting money?
The counter argument remains: "we must do something...and this is something". I don't need to see that again, but if you have the urge - do you really believe it? Can we achieve any goal through lying about the fundamental criterion of success, by micromanaging out of ignorance?
Everything done to fight climate change is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to avoid thinking about the insurmountable political task of raising fuel taxes enough to make a difference.
If you have given up, then there is nothing left but social justice and mitigation for poor countries affected by climate change. So own it. Be clear about it.
So, under this political hypothesis, how do you explain the many (popular) toll roads currently in the USA that charge higher prices for heavier vehicles? Does that not constitute acceptance of a similar type of taxation?
The tolls that I’ve seen have usually been by size/vehicle categories, not by weight. In particular, an empty flatbed 18-wheeler (~25k lbs) is usually tolled the same as an 80K lbs 18-wheeler.
Fair enough - by the same token a Miata and a Hummer EV almost always pay same price due to having same number of axles. But I think this is a technological limitation rather than a social one, it's a lot less expensive to count axles than to weigh in motion.
The problem is that the alternative isn’t working either. Americas infrastructure trajectory is highly unsustainable even without decimating the gas tax. Eventually something gives. Lately it’s been bridges.
I think that is a record for the fastest I have seen a comment get to -4, which means it cannot be salvaged. I think the prior record was about Elon Musk.
And make sure that it affects fuel delivery trucks in the same way that it affects other heavy vehicles.
Anything else would be plainly unfair.