this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
228 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
84807 readers
5710 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I heard that some countries charge a vehicle tax based on the weight of the vehicle. Some based on the number of cylinders.
One of the problems with removing the fuel tax is that affluent people will be able to avoid the additional registration tax by registering their vehicle in another state, such as where their summer home is. Having a gas tax allows taxes to go where the fuel is purchased and indirectly where the vehicle is using the roads. This doesn't work for electric vehicles.
I'm surprised no politician suggested toll booths all over.
Rich people with summer homes in another state are likely not a major percentage of drivers, I'm guessing.
You don't have to be rich to register your vehicle in Montanna. It happens all the time in California to avoid smog and taxes.
Also, just because the rich are a small percentage of the population obviously doesn't mean they should be taxed less, that's a wild statement.
California is actually going after people registering in Montana when their primary residence is California.
Just like NYC does for people who claim they don't live in the city to avoid taxes
That wasn't his statement, though. He was saying that the super-rich are a tiny outlier group, so even an infrastructure personal tax that they manage to avoid will have minimal impact on the system at large, because they are so small that even heavy abuse in this scenario is a rounding error.
I think he is insinuating that a system that works but allows tiny groups to fall through the cracks would still be acceptable for this, which I tend to agree with.
It is much like in the past when welfare recipients were vilified because a tiny number of its users found a way to qualify even though they made a bit too much money for it, or managed to double dip somehow to get more than was intended. The system still fills a need and more or less works (its grievous underfunding and paperwork hell notwithstanding) and is far better than nothing, so the statistically insignificant amount of fraud or evasion is an acceptable cost to people that understand statistics and are speaking in good faith.