[abtinf]

Car ownership is extremely broad across all income groups in the United States, see http://www.newgeography.com/content/002666-how-lower-income-.... The overwhelming majority of income taxes are paid by high earners, with the the top 10% paying close to 70% of all income taxes. If roads are subsidized by income taxes in addition to gas taxes, they are being paid for in an extremely progressive way. Effectively, roads are provided for free to over half the population.

Or maybe I misunderstood and you are trying to make a different point?

[aljones]

Half the population doesn't pay gas taxes? You're aware that they do. That was a silly thing to say. Gas taxes may be trivial to the portion of the population that pays most of the income taxes, but I doubt the bottom half thinks of them that way.

You need to show what portion of the road cost is paid for by income taxes before you can claim the rest.

I don't understand why you brought any of this up. A subsidy is a subsidy no matter who pays.

[abtinf]

You are correct that I made an error in my calculation, but my point still largely stands.

I took the parent at face value for the claim that 50% of roads are funded by use fees. That means the other 50% are paid for with general income taxes. Nearly all income taxes are paid for by the top half of earners. If we assume that everyone drives about the same amount, then the bottom half of the country gets the full value and use of roads while only paying for 25% of the total cost.

I bring this up because the parents point seemed to be that road subsidies are an implicit subsidy to oil companies. But people need to get around somehow, and the current way of funding roads should be perfectly compatible to conventional morality.

At the same time, I oppose all subsidies and can only imagine the amazing methods of transport that would exist if the government did not actively interfere and manage this market.