Taxing mileage (and gas) also has the unfortunate property of being generally regressive. Roads benefit us all, but those who drive the furthest are often the poorest who live far from city centers.

In my (admittedly uneducated) opinion, road taxes should be overwhelmingly be paid by commercial vehicles since they contribute much more to road damage, their costs will be passed on to consumers, and the largest consumers are the wealthy. Mileage might make the most sense for that type of tax, and I think wouldn’t unfairly burden the poor. Maybe multiplied by the value of the cargo?

Progressiveness should happen elsewhere -- in income taxes and transfer payments. The road user charges can be regressive without making the whole system regressive.

If every part of the system needs to be progressive it's much more difficult to get the behavioural incentives you want.

This seems like a pretty good solution; the infrastructure is already in place for weighing trucks at borders. Raising taxes for trucks to replace gas taxes for cars would also incentivize the use of trains, which would be nice.

You could tax electricity at public EV charging stations. That would have the same desirable distribution properties as the existing gas tax.

Yes, I think this is the best way to do it. It may also make sense to tax residential power to fund roads, since many electric car owners will primarily be charging at home. Perhaps this electricity tax could be limited to people who are registered as owning electric cars. That would follow the same principle of applying the tax where the fueling/charging is performed.

It's likely most electricity for EVs will be consumed at home, though.

In Germany, water used for watering your lawn is taxed differently from water you use to fill your tub. I'm sure we could mandate a separate meter for recharging cars.

Just curious, are there 2 meters?

(I think we do it smarter for electricity: the first x kWh at one rate, then up from there, among other billing complexities).

AFAIK: If you want to claim cheaper rate for part of it, you need to install a second certified meter for that part. If you are willing to go by default rate (which at least in some places assumes some ratio) you don't.

Ah. I guess this is all because you don’t get charged for sewerage on the lawn watering.

That's how it's done everywhere I know of in the US. You do have to pay a bit more to have the second meter, but since sewage treatment is often more expensive than initial water treatment, you save quite a lot on balance.

Can confirm, I’ve seen a dual-meter setup for garden water in Germany.

But regardless of whether you charge your EV at home or at a supercharger, you will almost certainly be using it on public roads.

> Suppose I am driving from New York to Alaska; I fill up my car with gas then drive into Ontario. I have now paid New York a gas tax but I'm driving on Ontario roads; Ontario gets paid nothing for this wear and tear.. until I run out of gas inside Ontario. Then Ontario gets their cut. This continues all the way until I reach Alaska.

It works roughly like this for trucks through the “International Fuel Tax Agreement”. Like the “World Series”, its international because it applies to Canada and US:

https://www.google.com/search?q=international+fuel+tax+agree...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fuel_Tax_Agree...

I remember a comment on HN that said the authors city analyzed license plate reader data to find out who was driving on the cities roads. 80% of the drivers were from out of town. The annoying thing about that, unlike highways much of the funding for residential and commercial roads is paid for by local taxes.

When I think about transportation I think about a paper I read about development of rail. The US and UK's experience is you run into market failure with private rail. The broad based benefits and network effects are diffuse, too many people and businesses benefit indirectly. Which means you can't charge high enough fares to pay for a optimal system.

Pay as you go roads?

RFID tag for your car with roads reading your entrance and exit. Then a bill at the end of the month from a single body that then divides the tax back to the area that maintains the various roads you used. High traffic roads get proportional funding. You could even have seamless integration with private roads. If someone thinks they can make money out of an expensive by pass the government doesn't want to build they can.

That seems like an implementation of the 'mass surveillance' solution to distribution. That probably appeals to many politicians, but to me that is intolerable.

It would also require different governments to cooperate; New York would have to be able and willing to redistribute part of my milage tax to a foreign country when that country says my car has been there. I don't know if that's feasible, but cynically I assume it would be difficult at best to put into practice.

You know that's already happening right? For example, SunPass in FL will bill you by your license plate as you go through automatic readers, and mail you a bill to California if that is where your car is registered.

The 'mass' in 'mass surveillance' is a matter of degree. Most roads are not presently toll roads. Most are not presently tracking all cars that drive on them.

I don't find 'some surveillance happens already, so we may as well go all in' a compelling argument.

Mass surveillance is about indiscriminate surveillance(recording everyone that comes through in case a bad guy comes through), as opposed to specific surveillance(trailing a mobster to see where he goes). You can have mass surveillance on some roadways without most roads being surveilled.

You can have mass surveillance at a stadium and no surveillance outside the stadium. Likewise, you can have mass surveillance on a toll road and not on county roads.

Part of your point was the difficulty of inter-state cooperation in this regard, which is incorrect, or at least the difficulty has already been overcome, because this data has been shared with SunPass for ~20 years.

And no one made an argument that because we have a little we should have a lot. My point was that what you find intolerable of is already happening.

Is this a problem big enough to be worth solving?

There are places in the US where people live in no-income-tax states but shop across the border on no-sales-tax states. This is obviously an abuse, but it's never been enough of a problem to really crack down on.

If we can reduce our problems to known problems that aren't a big deal, that's good enough! Ship it!

They’ve cracked down on it online. eBay now collects sales taxes on all US sales.

As a Canadian, I can’t offer my items as “no tax” if I include US as a shipping destination.