Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

Yes, the average car in the US gets about 25MPG, while the average tractor trailer is 6MPG, so about 4x the fuel per mile. Accounting for the higher tax rate, they’re paying maybe 5x the tax per mile, while causing maybe 5,000x the damage.

View on HN

You could tax trucks like 1000 times more. But don't expect the butter and milk to stay the same price.

Butter and milk that don't have to travel as far by road would be cheaper. So much of our national Walmartification is possible because of roads are subsidized.

No, it would not be cheaper. It is not cheaper today and making food today is profitable (and possible) only thanks to economy of scale. Automation on this level is not here yet.

> don't have to travel as far by road

It doesn't have to. It can (and it does because it's better).

The point may be that they should not be this price to begin with.

Externalities that aren't properly accounted for (and paid for) end up causing inefficiency.

The milk would cost more, but we'd save even more money on road maintenance.

Then many trucks could be adjusted to have more axles and lighter loads, saving money on both ends.

The end result is a better system.

Maybe eventually the cost will go down for milk because we chosen more efficient ways of transporting milk?

Is this some kind of joke? If the taxes already cover 25% of the expenses then adding 1000x on top means you would tax 249 times more than you need. To make it fair you first have to give truck fuel an adequate tax (so it covers 100%) and then divide this tax by 1000 for light vehicles.

If you think it's a joke you're taking the words far too literally.

"like 1000 times more" is not a full proposal. Yes you would reduce car taxes appropriately. Yes you would figure out the actual amount to balance the budget.

> The milk would cost more, but we'd save even more money on road maintenance.

This would adversely affect the poor as they drive less and still need milk.

There are much better ways to help the poor than by subsidizing trucking.

My point is you can't just look at something and not take into account where else it may impact.

Also, we need to get much better at helping the poor.

My point is that “it will hurt the poor” is a very old and very tired response to proposals that externalities should be accounted for in the cost of goods.

Part of getting better at helping the poor is helping them directly rather than using extremely inefficient and indirect subsidies on various industries to do so.

literally anything that has any negative effect will affect the poor more because the rich have more resources to mitigate the negative effects.

so unless you have a solution with no drawbacks, there's nothing you can do to not 'affect the poors'

The reduction in sales taxes would more than make up for it.

We’re paying for it either way. I’d rather the payment be apportioned by the extent to which you use products that have to be transported that way; it gets the incentives right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com