What's Wrong with Weight/Distance Tax?
 |
|
*Weight/distance tax is inherently unfair. According to 2005 data¹, trucks already pay their full share of taxes based on our current two-structure tax system-registration fees and fuel taxes. The trucking industry in Nevada pays 37% of all state and federal highway taxes and user fees and only accounts for 8% of all vehicle miles traveled in Nevada. For a vehicle that gets 6 miles per gallon a 15 cent per mile weight/distance tax amounts to a cost increase of 90 cents per gallon. *Weight/distance tax is expensive for a state to administer. Nevada would need to build numerous ports of entry both internal and at its borders.² Then the state must staff not only the ports, but the management, audit, maintenance and enforcement staff needed to administer the tax. *Weight/distance tax is open to massive evasion. Since the weight/distance tax mainly relies on self reporting it is wide open to evasion. In the states where a weight distance tax exists, evasion rates are upwards of 30%. Even using technology does not fix the voluntary reporting problem. *Weight/distance tax places an unacceptable burden on the trucking industry. Trucking companies are currently required to complete a variety of reports. Adding an additional report creates one more paperwork burden. *Weight/distance tax has a negative impact on economic development and competition. The cumulative effects of this inequitable tax on trucking will have to be passed on to shippers, customers and consumers; or small carriers will be driven out of business. *Weight/distance tax is computed on registered gross vehicle weight, or number of axles. Registered gross vehicle weight is a maximum figure and often has no correlation to the actual weight of a commercial vehicle. ¹ American Transportation Research Institute-Nevada Fast Facts updated 3/23/07 ² Fiscal Note on A.B. 374 of the 2007 Legislative Session showed ports of entry cost $63.6 million per facility. |