Last time I checked the figures, at a Federal level at least, fuel taxes did cover the costs of maintaining the highway system. If the highway system needs more maintenance, increasing the fuel tax by a relatively small amount would likely cover it.
I'm generally not one to argue in favor of taxation, but fuel taxes are essentially user fees for the road system. Unless and until most cars use something as an energy source that's hard to tax in this way, it's a viable, and mostly fair way to pay for roads. There's even a significant correlation between a vehicle's fuel economy and how much damage it does to the road, as both are closely related to weight.
No, I don't. That strikes me as an opinion that's honestly debatable and strongly influenced by one's value system, especially with regard to what roles a government should and should not play in a society rather than an objective fact.
That said, I wasn't necessarily arguing that fuel taxes should only be used to pay for roads nor that roads should only be paid for using fuel taxes. Several people quoted in the article do make claims that are more or less equivalent to "driving should be taxed enough to pay for the roads" then go on to claim that mileage-based rather than fuel-based taxes are a better way to do so. I'm saying that claim is dubious.
Well the argument goes why as a single person should my taxes go to support your kids also it makes supporting the less popular elements of government spending harder.
Slippery slope. Assuming, for the moment that it is a good idea to fund the highway system primarily or exclusively with taxes that approximate user fees, that does not imply that it necessarily makes sense to pay for education the same way.
Nearly everyone who derives benefit from the highway system, directly or indirectly helps pay the tax, directly or indirectly. Higher fuel taxes would translate directly to higher prices for goods and services that use the highway system. Other things supported by taxation may be different - education, for example. There's reason to believe that having a well educated population is good for everyone who lives in the society, even people who are not, at that time receiving education. User fees are contrary to the goal of educating as many people to a certain level as possible, so a different model probably works better.
it makes supporting the less popular elements of government spending harder
Well, in a government that's more or less democratic, implementing less popular policies should be harder than implementing popular ones. That's kind of the point.
The tyranny of the majority is the implementation of policy that is popular and tyrannical toward some unpopular minority. It's generally used as a justification for limits on government power, separation of powers and enumeration of specific rights in a constitution that is difficult to amend.
Are you arguing that a policy's popularity should have no bearing on how difficult it is to enact and implement? That seems fundamentally incompatible with the idea of democratic government. Do you disagree, or would you like to advocate another form of government?
As a side note, John Adams was anything but a hardcore libertarian.
I'm generally not one to argue in favor of taxation, but fuel taxes are essentially user fees for the road system. Unless and until most cars use something as an energy source that's hard to tax in this way, it's a viable, and mostly fair way to pay for roads. There's even a significant correlation between a vehicle's fuel economy and how much damage it does to the road, as both are closely related to weight.
reply