ijmorlan, the problem with your phrasing "Nor do motorists pay to use local streets, or in this backward country of ours, even superhighways" is that its blatantly untrue. The interesting discussions can't be discussed reasonably, because you're not starting from reality.
You need to acknowledge that if we shift the burden to a more usage based model - tax revenue should fall accordingly. It's absolutely unrealistic to pretend/assume that all the money that taxpayers are currently paying for roads would be available for other things, while at the same time the vast majority of people would have to spend a lot more for roads. It would be a massive tax increase for the majority of people.
If you want to advocate that we should have a more usage based model - that's fine. But its much closer to a shifting of funds than creation of new funds and I don't know how we have that discussion when you won't acknowledge that the money that's currently funding roads is already mostly coming from people using (and benefiting from) the roads and isn't coming from some magical source.
Edit: For the rest of your points, I don't think they're unreasonable. But my main complaint has always been the way you phrase the initial problem. It's not accurate and its something I expect from zealots/idealogues and not something I expect from reasonable people like yourself. It's a phrasing that is used to trick people / elicit an emotional response rather than an actual intellectual argument.
Edit2: Because I feel like this part isn't clear... Saying "Motorists don't pay to use roads" is not equivalent to saying "Roads aren't funded purely by usage fees". Those are two VERY different things.
You need to acknowledge that if we shift the burden to a more usage based model - tax revenue should fall accordingly. It's absolutely unrealistic to pretend/assume that all the money that taxpayers are currently paying for roads would be available for other things, while at the same time the vast majority of people would have to spend a lot more for roads. It would be a massive tax increase for the majority of people.
If you want to advocate that we should have a more usage based model - that's fine. But its much closer to a shifting of funds than creation of new funds and I don't know how we have that discussion when you won't acknowledge that the money that's currently funding roads is already mostly coming from people using (and benefiting from) the roads and isn't coming from some magical source.
Edit: For the rest of your points, I don't think they're unreasonable. But my main complaint has always been the way you phrase the initial problem. It's not accurate and its something I expect from zealots/idealogues and not something I expect from reasonable people like yourself. It's a phrasing that is used to trick people / elicit an emotional response rather than an actual intellectual argument.
Edit2: Because I feel like this part isn't clear... Saying "Motorists don't pay to use roads" is not equivalent to saying "Roads aren't funded purely by usage fees". Those are two VERY different things.