Fuel taxes were designed to support our road system's infrastructure. The system worked well for decades using a fuel-based system. Typically, higher weight vehicles, which wear roads faster, also consume more fuel in operation. This created a fairly balanced system of taxation.

In today's world, a 4,000 lb. hybrid vehicle may consume less fuel than a 3,200 lb. non-hybrid vehicle while at the same time wearing the roads at an increased rate. How should we compensate for this discrepancy?

 

I drive 45 miles one way for commute, already paying for a toll road.

Thankfully, I don't see Texas ever passing this since so many people drive so far.

 

The people who can afford those hyper expensive 'economical' cars usually aren't strapped for cash. They're doing it for the image, not because they are actually helping anyone. And you are right, they are paying more for their cars.....however the taxes for that higher payment aren't going to road maintenance.

Although that might be true in some cases, that's a very communistic approach to say what everyone should be doing. Everyone should be doing this because I believe so. How wrong does that sound? As well you don't know the backstory to every family. You don't know if someone has a job that requires them to tow, has a family of 5 or 6 where a small car would be cramped, or lives out in the boonies. All those situations, an econobox would NOT make it through.

And people with gas guzzlers are already paying the price. They have to fill up more often than people with fuel efficient cars. But those people who use fuel efficient cars or electric vehicles circumvent having to pay the road taxes via fuel consumption as often or at all. So it is NOT fair that a new tax be applied to EVERYONE if only those people with the extremely fuel efficient cars or electric vehicles are the cause for the drop in taxes obtained for road maintenance. (Not including a slowing down economy as well).

 

Fascism is on the rise.

Well USA is the fatest country in the world maybe people should go back to riding bikes or walking more.

 

I think a system could be implemented where the owner is asked to self-identify the mileage when submitting for a new owner registration licence. I believe this is already asked as part of the process in Pennsylvania. A bill for the difference in mileage could be required to receive a new registration card. A multiplier could be added based on the amount of wear such a vehicle places on the road system. I'm sure there would be some concerns with this method. As the onus is on the owner to accurately identify the mileage it could be falsified, which could lead to decreased government income used to maintain the infrastructure. Also, driving on private property should not be taxed as no public facilities are being used. Alternately, this system avoids the high overhead costs required of an on-board tracking device. Which would actually "cost" more? Fraud or overhead? The self-reporting system would not raise as many concerns over government encroachment on individual freedom of movement as a tracking device would. Obviously, the existing gas tax should be abolished to compensate for this new system, but, historically, we know that a tax never really goes away.