Kubez,
It can do both, but it's number one priority should be to support the
infrastructure. The numbnuts who started this thread is a LiberalTrash Borg
who scans for any headline he thinks we portray his enemy in a negative
light. The problem is this cut and paste'r does not have the intelligence
to understand what he is reading.


"Kubez" wrote in message
...
wrote in
oups.com:

Typical for the pigs at the trough. They want to punish people who save
fuel by taxing them more.

I doubt you can provide any historical evidence that the gas tax was
initiated to encourage fuel economy. The clear and stated purpose of the
tariff was to support infrastructure. And in fact a wholly separate tax -
the "gas guzzler" levy - was implemented specifically to discourage the
purchase of fuel-hungry vehicles.

Now, let's assume two new, young drivers begin using the nation's roads,
one in a Prius hybrid and one in an Excursion SUV. As each driver
marries, purchases a home, commutes, drives to the grocery and to the
doctor's office, they will make EXACTLY THE SAME demands on increased road
construction, and similar demands on road maintenance.

It is true that the additional weight of the SUV will exact more wear per
mile on the infrastructure. But if the SUV gets 15 MPG and the Prius 45
MPG, it's obvious that the SUV driver is subsidizing the Prius driver,
since the SUV can't possibly cause three times the wear on the road that
the Prius does.

So the question is distilled to this: Should taxation be a method of
financing services by those who use them, or should taxation be a method
of punishing certain manners of legal behavior?