By:  Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

As proposed, Senate Bill 368  seeks to charge a 12-cents per-mile tax for all miles traveled in Nevada by vehicles with a declared gross weight in excess of 55,000 pounds.  The expectation is that there will be a last minute amendment to change the approach, charging an additional 12-cents per-gallon tax on diesel fuel, used in transportation on roadways.

At the heart of this effort to zero in on the trucking industry is the belief that they do not pay their fair share for damages to Nevada roadways.  This purpose was highlighted in this Las Vegas Sun article, detailing the efforts of the Chairman of the Senate Taxation Committee, Senator Bob Coffin.

It’s worth noting that the article also identifies that the study paid for by the Nevada Transportation Department has been acknowledged to have a “discrepancy” (also known as a mistake) which if “recalibrated” (that is bureaucratic speak for corrected) would show that the tax amounts paid by truckers is very close to the tax amounts paid by other vehicles using the roads.

Beyond the notion of an inappropriate target being placed on a single user type of Nevada roads, we are hoping to gain an understanding with legislators that the actual people who would be hit include farmers and ranchers.  Increased costs on truckers are passed on to those who are paying the freight charges.

Nevada farmers and ranchers pay the freight going both ways, paying for the input goods they need for their operations and the output of their farms and ranches.

While the 12-cents per-mile would have been the equivalent of a 72-cents per-gallon fuel tax and a 12-cents per-gallon tax is less than that, it is still entirely placed on those who purchase diesel fuel, ignoring the persons who use the roads, using gasoline to power their vehicles.

It is also important to emphasize that a good deal of the money being spent on Nevada roads is more oriented on construction to address congestion (Las Vegas and Reno areas) than fixing roads that might be damaged by whatever traffic is using the roads. 

Pointing the tax “stickem-up” pistol at truckers under the guise that they aren’t paying their fair share is not only misplaced from the perspective of the faulty study, but also from the vantage point that the funds raised (from the pocketbooks of people actually paying the freight) aren’t going to be spent for the most part on fixing roads anyway.

SB 368 needs to be set aside entirely or rewritten further (and we’re not suggesting this is a very good either) to reduce the overall fuel tax rate increase and then levied against gasoline sales as well.