[Lessismore]

Further no credit is given to the highways in savings of lives and injury, dropping the cost of good and services which would have to be paid or cost more with out them and thus those savings should be attributed to the road system.

Why would those benefits not also happen for a system where the users paid for the cost of the roads directly through, instead of through taxes?

Is their some particular advantage to taxing the public and government spending on roads?

[Leisler]

Why would those benefits not also happen

The physical benefits happen, more or less, regardless of the method of pay for the roads. In fairness to the highways, the writer failed to full account. Regardless of subject, I just hate it when fair and full accounting of costs and benefits are manipulated for persuasive purposes.

To get even deeper into the 'costs' of these roads is to not so much look at the tax/income finance side as the cost side. Hack politicians with their pay off construction buddies and over priced under performing union workers. Let's accept the notion that only 30 percent of the road cost are covered by user fees. How much do you think the roads are over priced? For instance the Big Dig in Boston started at under 3 billion dollars. Now it is near 15 billion, and falling apart.

Government, the high cost, low quality provider.

Anyways, the core of this article is about how we must pay more, no matter how it is wasted. Not buying it. Let the roads collapse.

"Is their some particular advantage to taxing the public and government spending on roads?"

That is a matter of finance, and not so much cost, although finance cost can exceed the origional cost of anything. One other 'hole' in the authors statement, even if only 30% of the highways is paid for, they are still in use, so he should of factored in the amount of gas tax money that will be taken in over the life time of these roads. Seeing how Roman roads are still used in Italy today, I think the government will get it's money back.