07-16-2017, 11:01 PM
(07-16-2017, 09:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(07-16-2017, 08:40 PM)sevenman Wrote: Dan,
I do understand the point you'e trying to create, no disrespect. My question, I guess would be, why we would need "road use fees" when as you state, roads are already built and maintained with tax dollars. I think fees or taxes, as long as they are directed to the government are really one and the same and the fees and taxes generated from manufacturing, purchase and ownership of an automobile ( whether good or bad ) more than cover the costs associated to the roads upon which they are driven.
[…]
Of course, things in the real world are murkier, we use fees to fund transit, when it isn't really a limited resource (mostly because it's sucks compared with the very cheap driving situation).
But the real issue under discussion comes from people objecting to "subsidizing" transit because they see a fee which doesn't cover the costs of running it, but ignore the enormous subsidy paid to drivers in the form of effectively free and unlimited roads.
At the end of the day, there is a very fundamental difference between taxes and fees, they are very nearly opposites.
I wonder what would happen if we suggested free electricity for everybody? Would people understand the difference between “pay for use” and “free to use, paid for by taxes” in that market?