www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2024/05/09/michigan-road-funding-road-usage-charge-mileage-based-revenue/73630456007/
Michigan to study usage-based tax for road funding instead of gas tax
NewsMichigan has the highest load laws as far as I am aware
I'm guessing because of the auto industry?
good guess, possibly contruction and mining companies too? basically all the rich guys with huge trucks made it happen.
We used to make the Abrams tank. I remember seeing tank parts on flatbeds on i275 in the 80s.
If you go back far enough (I have no idea when the weight law was established), they used to make bombers at Willow Run airport during WW2. Though I believe those took off from the airport next door.
Mhm, B-series. My grandfather helped restore one for Roush racing, and the amount of large-form components in those things is unreal. Especially now that they're all assembled and most parts are riveted during transport as opposed to during construction.
Yup
1000000000%
Literally. Let’s stop acting like cars cause any damage to the roads. 99% of the damage is due to trucks.
What about the weather? This is largely a solved problem, but yes if you didn’t have semi’s driving on the road, you’d still have to do some repairs and replace them. But at a TINy small fraction of the cost of what we do now.
Stop subsidizing commercial trucks by my car taxes! Tax the trucks and pass on the costs effectively.
Road damage scales to the fourth power of weight per axle. I just went to look up how bad the discrepancy is compared to other states, so I could do math to it, and go a surprising result.
Michigan sets a 18,000 lb/axle maximum limit, which is actually lower than other states. In fact, according to a handy chart I found from the Department of Transportation, Michigan is the lowest weight listed, with many states setting the limit at either 20,000 lb/axle, or 22,000 lb/axle.
This really disrupts the story I've heard my whole life.
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/app_b.htm
I came to do math, and math I will do. At 20,000 lb/axle, that's an 11% increase in weight, but a 52% increase in road damage. For 22,000 lb/axle, that's a 22% increase in weight, but 123% increase in road damage.
your math may be true. The reason why we have those "speed bumps" where the road folds over or under its self is when those big heavy trucks hit the brakes or accellerate hard. It makes it worse when the roads are saturated with water and freeze overnight then thaw during daytime. Also the summers here are just as hot as any state ive lived in and im from Alabama.
Moderator removed comment
9d
Removed. See rule #2 in the r/Michigan subreddit rules.
Any solution that doesn't increase the mileage costs exponentially as vehicle weight increases should be a non starter.
The difference in damage is enough that it's not worth charging anything other than the base registration fees for personal vehicles.
100% this. The next thing is they need to hit farmers too. Years ago their equipment was significantly smaller and less weight. A lot of farming is now large commercial farms with extremely large equipment that damages the roads at our expense. Gas tax is a tax on the poor for those of us that need to drive daily for work.
To be fair, where most people live in Michigan they probably aren’t having their roads torn up by farm equipment.
20+% of Michigan's population live in rural that still a lot of people. That's if you only consider rural areas as areas that will have farm ground.
BS.
I've driven behind monster farm equipment. It has balloon like tires taller than a person. They drive 10mph. They are rarely on an actual public road.. They damage next to nothing. That is my food. Yours too. Want to pay more for it?
I have driven the tractor you have driven behind and yes they do cause road damage. There are different types of tires for different applications. For example a John Deere 9630 alone weighs 40k pounds just the tractor. Pending the application it's used for it could have wide tires if it's used for tilling. Now you take that same tractor and put narrow tall tires used to stay in between rows and it can cause damage. Check out what the roads look like in front of some of the large dairy and hog farms we have in Michigan that run tractors on the road 24 hours after day. We are not talking about the mom and pop farms these are commercial farms that profit off tax subsidies and little over-site.
Lol, the family farm dairies around here are multi-thousand cow operations. All their roads are in great shape. I drive on them. They and every other non-corporate farm north of US10 are decent stewards of their communities. Also, agricultural vehicles would be exempt anyway..
Now, if YOU mismanage the roads, I would understand your viewpoint, but that's not true, is it?
More than the subsidies they already get for the corn? Subsidies which enables food processors to make high fructose corn syrup? The same high fructose corn syrup that has made obesity the number one cause of death for Americans?
Nah, they definitely deserve to drive their combine harvesters down the road. We can just pay more for construction.
Could we move more oil and gas through pipelines to reduce the amount of trucks?
oil and gas arent that heavy, concrete and construction materials and other stuff are heavy. The main point is to reduce the weight limit at the expense of the companies that damage roads.
Let's be real, we'll have the gas tax and this tax if it comes to fruition
Only new taxes. That's how it goes.
Read my lips. Only. New. Taxes.
You are exactly right, motor capital of the world and the most expensive state to own a car.
MI (all states for that matter) should look at taxing vehicles based on weight, and size (measured in cubic inches or CM.). Heavier vehicles typically tear up the roads more than lighter vehicles. Larger vehicles take up more space. For those reasons, it seems reasonable that those vehicles should bear more of the costs. I would make cost adjustments for vehicles used for certain types of businesses.
Fun fact, the big 3 lobbied Michigan to allow heavier load limits. Heavier loads fuck up roads and we all get to pay the bill. Maybe just start by properly taxing capital.
True. Road damage caused is determined by axle weight. In the case of trucks, it's axle weight to the fourth power! And let's not forget just how many axles trucks have.
Also also, the money for the overweight tickets doesn’t even go back to fixing the roads 😭
Not to mention that farm vehicles get even more leaniancy.
Stop making sense!! :/
Road damage, yes
But capacity strain is determined by vehicle miles traveled
We should do both, VMT x mass
Yup.
When you get to this kind of specificity, then you start debating surface streets vs. interstate, then funding by jurisdiction and roadway type.
The garbage trucks on the dirt road that never leave the county, vs. the crosscountry through-drivers on the interstate that never make a stop in MI, vs. EVs.
Not really, that’s purposely getting lost in the weeds to make it sound more complicated than it is
Going off of VMT... doesn't mean the miles were travelled in the state or county the vehicle is registered in, so the funding doesn't go to where the wear and tear is.
Example: many trailers (the part of the semi where the load is carried) are often registered in Maine (like Delaware corporations) so... ???
Are you suggesting every highway/interstate becomes a toll road? That just pushes traffic onto other surfaces.
Are you suggesting (for counting VMT) that every vehicle has a mileage declaration at annual plate renewal, and variable price based on mileage? Yeah, like that will be accurate. Just asking for people to lie.
I guess what I'm saying is that gas tax has been the simplest way to manage it because it's the closest thing to a use tax (also since higher vehicle weight correlates to lower mpg, resulting in paying more)...
And that any different way to fund roads will be really complicated, and likely controversial af.
What are the concerns about "capacity strain"?
People who drive more require more infrastructure. As it stands, our highway budget is subsidized by non-drivers AND has a multi-billion maintenance backlog. Increased road size increases our future maintenance bill by creating more pavement to maintain. Each additional lane is less efficient for car throughput (lane changes are inefficient), decreases the efficiency of every other mode of transportation which induces demand for an even greater percentage of drivers, and removes land from the community's tax base decreasing tax revenue.
This doesn't even include local roads, which are subsidized by non-drivers by an even larger amount (granted non-drivers can actually use these ones but not safely).
"People who drive more require more infrastructure." They don't. If you drive from your house to a grocery store a block away, it requires the same amount of infrastructure if you do that 5 times per year, or 1000.
My suggestion for taxing vehicles would be minimal to non-drivers, because it wouldn't make much sense for non-drivers to own a vehicle. Especially a big heavy one.
"Increased road size increases our future maintenance bill by creating more pavement to maintain." I agree with this statement, but then I don't understand how we got to making this statement afterward. "Each additional lane is less efficient for car throughput (lane changes are inefficient), decreases the efficiency of every other mode of transportation which induces demand for an even greater percentage of drivers, and removes land from the community's tax base decreasing tax revenue." What am I missing?
They don't. If you drive from your house to a grocery store a block away, it requires the same amount of infrastructure if you do that 5 times per year, or 1000.
You're assuming population is static. It's not. 92% of people drive in America, so when an area grows by 100 people, there are 92 more drivers, all using the same grocery store.
Each additional lane is less efficient for car throughput (lane changes are inefficient), decreases the efficiency of every other mode of transportation
Requirements for a car driving on a road are:
A. Space for the car itself (plus a little buffer)
B. Stopping distance
If everyone is perfectly spaced and moving like a train on a single lane road, then we are at max capacity. When you add a lane to the left, you add an additional requirement:
C. Space to merge
That additional space requirement means less cars can actually occupy that lane at max capacity.
Each additional lane ... decreases the efficiency of every other mode of transportation
Wider streets means longer distances to cross for pedestrians. Wider streets means stuff is further apart, reducing density, making transit less cost effective (Federal highway administration found that people will walk a half mile to a bus stop). This encourages more people
Each additional lane ... induces demand for an even greater percentage of drivers
Demand for transportation is inelastic. But transportation mode share is determined by time and cost. Because our wide roads between large blocks that are half parking lots spread things out, demand for walking, biking, and bussing goes down. People still need to get to the grocery store, so they'll drive, adding more cars to the road.
With these additional drivers, we'll need more road space.
Each additional lane ... removes land from the community's tax base decreasing tax revenue.
Look at the 131 in Grand Rapids. To expand it by one lane, you'd have to tear down a bunch of buildings. Property is taxed based off of the appraised value of the improvements like buildings (it shouldn't be, we should have Land Value Tax - google Georgism) so adding that hypothetical lane didn't just add pavement to maintain but also took away from the tax revenue.
I'm lost. Are you just supporting less and smaller lanes? If so, I'm with you.
It’s typically commercial vehicles that are doing the real damage. Major roads, highways, and interstates are designed for the cyclic loading of a commercial truck and trailer. Regular vehicles, even EVs and full sized trucks, don’t even come close. So unless Michigan starts getting more aggressive with their weigh stations, I don’t think one solution is correct. Look at the other states around us with better roads they do two things we don’t: they don’t allow as heavy trucks and they have tolls. We allow 164k lb trucks on surfaces roads while other states keep their limit to the federal of 80k.
I think the type of road and budget used to pave it is a large factor as well. I live by a few gravel pits, and I couldn’t even tell you the last time the road was repaved (asphalt) even with constant gravel truck traffic. They only leave fully loaded headed towards the highway, and come back to the pit empty from the highway. The wear on both sides of the road is the same.
I think we have a very cheap budget for most roads, because even “no truck” roads can also be horrific in terms of drivability. But even “no truck” roads have to be built for school buses and garbage trucks.
Why cubic inches or cm? Shouldn’t it just be footprint (track x wheelbase)? Taller by itself doesn’t increase damage and you got the heavier main driver isolated separate?
I could be down for some kind of incentive to not have such behemoths like half and full ton pick ups becoming light duty daily drivers with hoods so high you can’t see over them. But I’d make it something like gas guzzler penalty not ongoing road use penalty.
Contrary to your idea the exact opposite legislation exists in CAFE regulations. The bigger and heavier a vehicle is, the less restrictions it has for safety, efficiency, etc. This is why they don’t make small cars anymore, because a car under 3000 lbs would have to get 50 mpg and still be robust enough to pass safety in collisions with other large vehicles. The system is broken.
In my opinion it was an unintended consequence of poorly designed regulation that incentivized bigger footprints. If a road use tax could create an incentive to reduce footprint I am all for it.I wasn’t talking about CAFE or NHTSA rules I was only commenting on the proposed calculation for road wear and tear. The volume of vehicle isn’t a particular indicator of road wear and tear. I even called out that weight would be. I only suggest footprint because that would physically occupy more space on the road. I agree it has become extremely difficult to pass NHTSA with a small car since you have to carry a bunch of stuff you didn’t have to before.
Won't heavier vehicles also use more gas? So the gas tax would hit them harder?
User deleted comment
10d
the largest vehicles are semi's and tractors. They use diesel, so if thats the case just put a larger gas tax on diesel than gasoline.
How do you charge the trucks that aren't registered here? A scale at the pump? Are you buying all those scales?
I don't think that is very fair to residents at all.
How do I charge trucks that aren't registered? You don't. You charge taxes when vehicles get new tags. I'd suggest you could allow the payment to be made on a per month basis for a set period of time.
So, do you want residents to pay for tourist and interstate usage? They won't have Michigan tags.
You don't seem to be grasping that not charging those vehicles puts the entire burden on just the ethical residents of the state. Every trucker will register in another state, and you and I will get even higher license costs. You can't charge them to enter the state.
"You don't seem to be grasping that not charging those vehicles puts the entire burden on just the ethical residents of the state." I hadn't notice you make that statement prior to this (maybe I missed it). Interesting point. That doesn't change my position on the plan, but it sounds like we could have a separate idea for non-resident vehicles. Maybe a combination of plans. Maybe we toll people crossing the border (just an idea, not married to it). We know vehicles registered in Michigan will be used in Michigan. That would cover a lot, probably the majority of road use in our current circumstances. If we had far more public transit, biking infrastructure, and walkable areas that might shift a bit. As it stands personal vehicles with MI license plates are what I see far and away the most of in Southeast MI. If I go to other states, I see the same thing, just different plates.
Set a threshold weight.
If you're driving any vehicle above that weight on Michigan roads, you need a permit sticker for the vehicle, renewed every year.
Maybe there are 2-3 classifications based on hauling capacity so that you can tell at a glance which type of a sticker a vehicle should have without weighing it.
Make the fine for driving in the state without one 10x higher than the cost of a sticker.
If you get caught you're paying both the fine and the cost of the sticker.
If you can't pay, the vehicle get impounded, with a 30 day deadline before it's sold at auction.
You can not charge to enter the state. It's literally unconstitutional.
What your thought process is leading towards is a national vehicle registration system. While it would solve the problem, the states will never agree to give up that authority.
Our likely only fair and affordable option is to absorb the cost as a population and discontinue trying to create a complicated and costly, busy body administrative process that doesn't actually improve anything.
States do it all the time via toll roads.
That is to enter a road, not the state. Use your critical thinking skills.
And if all the highways big enough for large trucks entering the state have a toll, where's the difference?
All? Are you inept?
Think that through.
You just charge a road toll on the interstates. You install them at the borders. People can take a longer route, but it's more likely they will just pay the toll most of the time.
I think some of this already exists but yeah moving forward if it went to usage instead of fuel tax the heavier the vehicle the higher the rate of usage
I work from home now and only drive maybe 2000 miles a year. If I own a heavy vehicle, I'm going to be taxed much more despite driving very little.
There is no perfect solution. I drive about 140 miles a day for work, I drive a very good car with MPG, I get probably 35-45MPG, I would almost certainly have to find a job closer to home, which right now is impossible.
You'd be taxed more per mile, but you'd probably end up paying a lot less taxes per year than everyone else, even with a big vehicle
I mean you might still be causing a lot more road wear still when you do drive. The wear done by the vehicles scales exponentially with the weight.
Here's a chart with some basic examples.
A nice thought, but feels unlikely with automaker lobbyists—and automakers who want to sell everyone a truck or SUV—around to influence otherwise.
Not just trucks, EV’s are heavier. A Tesla Model X weighs approximately 5,100-5,200/lbs compared to a F150 which is in the 4,000-5,700/lbs range.
Aka a gas tax. Heavier vehicles take more fuel.
Not exponentially more, though.
The damage scales much less linearly than fuel consumption.
That would hurt big business that uses big trucks to haul and that would drive them out of Michigan hurting their tax dollars. I agree they should pay their share but it’s easier for the state to force citizens to pay more taxes than it is multi million dollar companies….
But to promote new jobs the state will give rebates of up to 150% of tax to those companies that move to Michigan and then companies here will threaten to leave unless they too get tax break. Eventually all commercial vehicles will leave the state or all trucking companies will move headquarters out-of-state or at least register their vehicles out of state. Odometers will get rolled back or reset to lower value and GPS will be covered up with shielding. There may be lawsuits regarding privacy violation with GPS. In the end I am concerned that the burden will be place on individuals with passenger vehicles and not heavy commercial vehicle or corporations.
But if a small vehicle drives every day and a large vehicle drives once a week or once a month, that smaller vehicle is still doing more damage and thus ought be taxed more.
I'm pretty sure weight is much more significant than frequency. An 80k lbs truck at a max 17k lbs per axle is over a 11x the axle weight of a focus. I could walk across my floors until the day I die and only cause minor wear. If I stacked two thousand pounds on my back, it'd give out on my first step.
Heavy’s are taxed up the wazoo already. Do you not think about how much each of those stupid little stickers cost? Tax the hell out of the out of state heavy’s.
Simply tax the rich 90% like the 50's boomtimes USA.
They can pay for trashing the world we live in.
It does sound simple, doesn’t it?
It is. They have the money and power to exploit and wreak havoc. The average person doesn't have luxury yatchs and private jets puking large volumes of pollution for whimsy trips. We skrimp and save for little luxuries that we often feel guilty and still pay a higher effective tax rate than them. Make. Them. Pay.
They have the money and power to exploit and wreak havoc
And they have the money and power to just avoid the taxes as well.
If the gov't can use KYC checks to chase down our money, they can do same for them and their shell corporations. We have to elect people that will hold them accountable. These people in Congress making millions off of trades they're do too dumb to understand and would get us buried by the SEC. Looking at you Virginia Foxx. KYC for us - panama papers for them. We know what happened to that guy.
They’ll just relocate their primary residence to Florida.
Federally.
The rich have never had a 90% effective tax rate.
The economy was booming in the 50s because ours was one of the only economies not destroyed in World War II.
Sure champ. No changes in the tax code since Reagan, the Bush deregulation years. GOP rain a train on the tax and inheritance code since the 50s.
Sure champ.
Whats the difference between marginal and effective tax rates? How do tax brackets work?
No ones have ever paid am effective tax rate of 90%
Period.
Edit - deregulation started under Carter, tax rates fluctuated quite a bit under Reagan (who ended a significant number of loopholes and exemptions), Bush, and Clinton.
The US was going gang busters until Europe and Japan reindustrialized in the 60s, Bretton-Woods collapsed in the 70s, automation started decorating manufacture jobs in the 80s, and etc. The world’s far more complicated than I think you give it credit for.
You keep harping on that 90% percent figure. I never made that claim. We corporations like Blackrock bleeding citizens dry and buying single families home to rent out. Billionaires have more wealth than they'll need for hundreds of lifetimes, but yeah they don't need to pay more in taxes. We pay a higher effective tax than them, Virginia. Get the shoe polish out of your mouth.
No. You’re the one who claimed “it is that simple”
It is not.
Or, to put it another way, simple minds think there are simple solutions.
yOu LiCk BoOtS.
Just stop.
FFS
Since there are budget concerns I’m okay with it but taxes on gas should only apply to out of state residents because paying a tax for gas and a tax for my mileage is a big fuck you.
Not only that a majority of residents have to travel for work because of housing costs and such. I work 37 minutes from where I live because it pays more than anything flint has to offer.
This seems more like a shitty bandaid with no other possible solutions thought up it was just the what idea puts more money in the states pocket.
The roads also wouldn’t cost so much if you’d reduce the amount the semi trucks can carry in line with the rest of the states in America. We have had the highest weight allowed out of any state for a really long time.
The weight limit needs to be addressed as the reason our roads get fucked up so fast.
Set a minimum weight threshold - all vehicles over that get charged by mile, all vehicles under are exempt.
Instead of raising the unleaded gas tax, increase the diesel gas tax.
I bet the working poor are not driving diesel vehicles. The highest consumers of diesel fuel are those responsible for most of the road degradation.
Good point. It might curb rollin coal a little, also.
Literally everything we buy and a lot of services we pay for in Michigan is distributed on a truck that runs on diesel, you are just asking for the price of everything to go up.
If only we could convince companies that profit margins do not need to increase every quarter...
Ha. Good luck with that
Most commercial vehicles use diesel, could drive up costs for goods
It would also put the cost of maintenance on the people causing the most damage.
It could also encourage more efficient distribution of goods.
Oooo an exemption to the gas tax for residents would be really interesting. I have no idea how that could be implemented, but I feel like that would be a winner with Michiganders.
Michiganders pay a road usage tax, are exempt from gas taxes, and out of staters (including commercial trucking) pay a gas tax. If commercial trucking wants an exemption to the gas tax, they have to be based in Michigan and still pay a significant usage tax.
Just set a minimum vehicle weight for the mileage based charges that excludes most personal vehicles.
Average resident doesn't have anything to worry about and the burden goes onto heavy commercial trucks that do most of the damage.
The way to do it is with State IDs that we already carry around and by scanning the back to confirm it’s a state issued ID like they do at meijers and other establishments.
I would say we just make a property tax, that way the rich actually have to participate. They're everybody's roads, We all use them, the entire economy does, and we don't want to discourage out of state people from visiting us by charging them more for fuel. I feel like we should own our roads.
This will do wonders for lower income people that can only afford to live further away from city/urban areas where they work.
This would be what pushes us out of Michigan. We have a 45 minute commute each to work. We already struggle some months.
Milage Tax sounds like a bad time. If you're from out of state the tax won't affect you at all whereas a gas tax affects anyone who has to buy gas in Michigan so out of state or not. If you drive less in Michigan then you pay less tax for doing so.
A decline in tax revenue from electric vehicles is going to force something.
The milage of those being tracked for tax purpose is the only way I see that being addressed fairly let alone successfully moving forward. Tolls that stop us to collect them and/or electronic tracking. Relying on per gallon fuel sales as a substitute for a per use tax can't be done if the fuel source changes.
Why couldn't they just add a tax at EV charging station though? Essentially keeping a "gas" tax on cars.
If only people had the ability to charge at home for most of their daily driving... Oh wait.
Put smart metering technology in the home charging stations. You would receive a bill for electricity used, just like I do from my Consumers Power smart meter on my house.
This assumes the grid is used to do the charging.
I think it has to be on the vehicle. People will bend over backwards to avoid the tax on the recharge. Plus it stops a lot of private innovation possibilities there too.
Tire tax almost works, but the poor people and those nearest the poorest quality roads foot an unfair brunt of costs and further road neglect only benefits those better off even more.
I’d rather have toll roads on major highways than have the state government tracking my everyday movements
Yeah I just won't comply with any kind of tracking. Sorry good luck.
What's funny is you don't think they are tracking you on toll roads. They could track your road usage while granting you a higher level of privacy than toll roads.
The gas tax is literally usage tax
Not for EVs. They are trying to find a common ground between the two and that's distance traveled.
But more and more vehicles are hitting the road that don't use gasoline. Battery electrics are on the rise, and policy must be made to deal with that eventuality.
GPS options
How about screw that?
MDOT has lost the thread. We have seen no appreciable increase in state population in decades, every projection says we're staying the same size or shrinking, with the budget staying the same size as a result.
MDOT has access to this information and continues to widen highways and build bigger and more expensive; they build out liabilities without regard for future cost of of maintenance, burning through the gas tax dipping into the general fund and surprised Pikachu needs additional funding sources.
This would be super privacy invasive. Are they going to require a state GPS in my car by law then?
That's no better than an apple airtag on the bottom of my car, but instead of a stalker who is just one individual, its the government trying to tax, and possibly open up "For other uses while we're at it cases".
Also, if I work in an office in Michigan and my office forced RTO, I would be paying more than someone who can WFH. WFH people wouldn't contribute much to the tax while it's unjustly shouldered upon a few.
This is a terrible idea. I understand there is a need to raise taxes for public services but tracking my every move on my car is a serious no go for me. That is not the governments business at all.
In combination with already high taxes on gas and insurance on cars being through the roof in Michigan, I think this would drive people out of the state and further deplete the tax resources that the state needs.
Not to mention they may raise taxes on this and be successful, but then state parks suffer because people will just stay at home forever. Why go out and be tracked AND have to pay people tracking you?
It's a nightmare.
Overall this is an unfair and privacy invasive way to collect taxes, and want to see the people running the study to have the government track them first hand so they understand what it is like.
Also, if I work in an office in Michigan and my office forced RTO, I would be paying more than someone who can WFH. WFH people wouldn't contribute much to the tax while it's unjustly shouldered upon a few.
If you're using the roads more, you should pay more for road maintenance. That's not unjust.
At that point we should just privatize the roads.
If you return to an office and drive every day while I WFH, you should absolutely pay for the road more than me — that’s the whole point. If you’re charged more and it affects your take home pay perhaps that’s a discussion for your employer — but the whole point is to charge those that use the roads. Me working from my home office means I’m not using the roads as much. That’s not “unjust.”
I also wfh but I disagree. I think a usage based scheme will disproportionately burden the working poor who don't have the opportunity to work from home, live near their place of employment, or afford the kind of vehicle that is being used to justify the usage-based model in the first place. I think a weight-based tax, or limiting the usage tax to electric and hybrid vehicles makes more sense.
If you have a phone they already can get data.
If people WFH then they don’t use the roads as much. They use less gas and pay less already. Why is not paying for something you use and they don’t considered unjust?
It would be the most fair. Consider Amazon. They would pay fees to transport everything and pass it on to the consumer. If I order 1000 items from Amazon per year and you order 10, why should you pay the same for roads as I do? That’s cool if you want to, but not really fair that you help pay for my stuff by under taxing trucks and overtaxing individuals.
You can disable location services on your phone or just simply turn it off to halt it pinging towers. Why should I have to bear the burden of this tax, driving 140 miles a day for work in a very gas friendly sedan? I already live paycheck to paycheck, not to mention I can think of plenty of jobs in logistics and courier services that this would drive away.
Disabling location services does not mean you're not tracked. Your location and app use are still discernable, data mined, and sold.
Why should I have to pay for your degradation of the roads when I maybe drive 140 miles every 2 weeks? Everything you wrote wants someone else to pay for you.
This won’t drive away any logistics services. They will pass it on to the customer. People can learn to pay for what they use.
Degradation? You should look up the difference between a regular sedan and a 88400lb loaded truck. Clearly you seem uninformed.
You should look up fuel taxes and rates and how roads are currently funded. Then tell me how that’s an equitable system and how I’m uninformed.
Don't you already bear the burden by driving more than WFH people?
You have no expectation of privacy while operating on public roads.
Just tack an extra percent on a few other things and spread it out or set up tolls on some larger highways. No reason to even mumble 'gps options ..'
LOWER THE DAMN WEIGHT LIMITS
Leave them the same and just charge in proportion to the damage done.
Want to drive a vehicle that does 2000x the damage to the roads?
Great, you can pay 2000x as much as someone with a lighter vehicle.
Time to register my vehicles in another state.
Would much rather eat the gas tax than a usage based tax. Loads of concerns for usage based such as privacy and how it would affect logistics/courier companies in Michigan, would almost certainly drive those jobs away.
Also, maybe our legislatures should look at other states and see what they're doing because no state has a usage tax and most of them aren't doing too bad. For starters I dont trust the state using the funds properly. As others have stated, look into a weight based system.
A usage tax should be applied for any vehicle that doesn't use gasoline (battery electric, hydrogen) to pay their fair share for road usage.
Just another financial attack on the residents of the state. How about properly managing tax dollars?
From another article a couple of days ago: $5 million for a study, to include a 19-member panel (of experts?) to do a 1-year study. It would be voluntary and the last three places that tried it lost revenue.
How about distance times weight?
Better:
Distance * (weight per axle ^ 4) * (number of axles)
With the base vehicle registration fee being an alternative minimum for personal vehicles under a threshold weight.
That makes the costs actually in line with damages and the average resident doesn't need to deal with any tracking.
That’s what we have now. The more you drive the more you pay in fuel tax.
They'll just give us both taxes and call it a day.
If you drive an EV or PHEV, the extra money imposed on you when you buy tabs is roughly the same gas tax as an f150. I would like to see use tax, but I don't know how to do it well...
That'll last about a year and then they'll go back to the gas tax so we'll have both road tax and gas tax
usage-based tax
Haven't they ever heard of toll roads?
Wow can’t wait to have both gas tax and more taxes. 🙄🙄🙄
All the gas tax paid in and the Damn roads are still not fixed
This is nothing more than a cash grab.
Stop wasteful tax spending and there wouldn’t be a shortage of funds!
"GPS options that do not track the specifics of where or when a person drives, but simply how much, he said, or an odometer reading done by a mechanic a few times a year." The GPS option could be deducted continually from an account in the way that E-ZPass works. A mileage fee is just a type of toll that applies to all roads. You can pay in small amounts or by the year. Quick lube and send in the mileage or appointment at the Secretary of State. Tourist would benefit with more money to spend but would more people think let's go to Michigan and enjoy the cheap gas? Gasoline tax $.30 per gallon. diesel fuel would still have to be taxed. Interstate freight trucking mileage by state already is monitored and reported, which is used to allocate fuel tax revenue among states based on usage. So until more electric trucks are on the road it works fine the way it is. Hybrids and EV the mileage varies too much. gas tax is not related to road use.
Yeah, the tourist who fills his 15 gallon tank twice while visiting isn’t going to care at all about the $9 they saved on gas while here.
I agree that something will need to change as more electric vehicles hit our roads and less gas is consumed annually. I hate the idea of GPS trackers. I hate the idea of having to do something special to have my odometer read annually by someone authorized to do it. But they’re going to need to do something to keep the same level of funding they currently receive. I’m just not sure what the best answer is going to be
Sure, raise the use tax after they remove the sales tax. And you know, set weight limits that are in line with the rest of the country.
That can’t remove the sales tax because it is tied to the School Aid Fund which requires voter approval.
in 2015 Republicans tried removing sales tax from gas, raising the sales tax by .5% to offset them SAF losses, and then doubling the gas tax. Voters rejected it because “it shouldn’t be that hard to raise the gas tax” -Democrats
Weight times distance times income of owner. Would be even better.
The unintended side effect of an owner income multiplier:
It would likely be to break up any unionized transport (like UPS) and encourage companies to contract with "owner operators" (like people delivering Amazon packages with their personal vehicles).
1 missing reply
instead of blaming cars and pickup trucks, blame the 164,000 lb semi trucks our state allows on the roads. We are like the only state that allows that most have 80,000 lb limit.