In abstract? Sure. In specifics? Wellllll, that's much harder to say.
For example, I think most people agree that we do not want people to pay for their healthcare usage directly. Similarly, since the _need_ to use car for travel for work tends to be inversely proportional with your socioeconomic class, simple direct usage taxes on roads end up regressive.
Since this is in the US under the current administration, I assume that the proposal is hilariously stupid anyway, but it really isn't that easy.
(And that's before even going into what you use to calculate the taxes. Direct CO2 emissions? Well, that incentivizes electric cars so good, right? But now you argue that the stupid >4 ton electric humvee uses roads less than our 1 ton >40 mpg gas car.
Curb weight? Has the reverse problem. Simple distance? Then you have no incentive for efficiency.)
@horenmar It's a proposal to replace the federal gas tax with a vehicle registration tax based on weight.
> Simple distance? Then you have no incentive for efficiency.
I don't think road infrastructure *needs* to be funded in a way that incentivizes efficiency. But I do think it should be as proportional as possible to one's use of the system.
> But I do think it should be as proportional as possible to one's use of the system.
Then weight has to be an important part of the formula, because it is the dominant factor of wear & tear, and almost hilariously so.
@malwareminigun But that semi has both more axles and wider tires. Also over here that semi pays its own road tax category, which scales up quickly with weight (and scales down with axle count).
In "personal" vehicles, that Silverado causes roughly order of magnitude more road damage than our family car, and IMO that should be reflected somehow. (Apart from it not being personal vehicle over here as it doesn't fit within B class 🙃)