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.
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).
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.
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.
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.