California and Massachusetts are advancing policies to impose mileage-based fees on drivers, targeting both commuters and commercial trucking. While proponents frame these proposals as solutions to declining gas tax revenues and climate goals, they represent fundamentally regressive taxes that would disproportionately harm low-income drivers and devastate the trucking industry.

For ordinary commuters, mileage taxes function as a flat-rate tax on transportation needs. Unlike income taxes that scale with ability to pay or gas taxes that correlate with fuel efficiency, mileage taxes impose identical per-mile costs regardless of income. Most working-class households cannot easily reduce their driving—their jobs, childcare, and essential errands require regular travel. With California's proposed rates of 6-9 cents per mile, a family driving 15,000 miles annually would face $900-1,350 in new taxes—a significant burden for those already struggling with high living costs.

For trucking companies, these proposals represent an existential threat. Commercial trucks drive exponentially more miles than passenger vehicles—often 100,000+ miles annually per truck. Applying similar mileage rates without exception would add thousands in operating costs per vehicle weekly. The American Transportation Research Institute reports that non-fuel operating costs already reached a record $1.779 per mile in 2024. A mileage tax would further squeeze razor-thin profit margins, potentially driving smaller carriers out of business and reducing competition in the industry.

These taxes would ultimately manifest as higher consumer prices for virtually every product moved by truck—essentially a hidden inflationary tax on all residents. While policymakers claim these changes promote sustainability through reduced driving, they instead create transportation inequity, forcing essential workers and commercial operators to absorb disproportionate costs while more affluent drivers barely notice the expense. A truly equitable approach would provide exemptions for commercial trucking and offer low-income drivers alternatives rather than imposing regressive per-mile charges on those who can least afford them.

Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer