Jim Yanik
Since your logic ability s really messed up, I'll help you:
1.) Direct fees and taxes do not cover the costs of automobile transport in this state.
2.) Non-auto taxes must cover the difference (balanced budget is required.)
3.) Bicycle users pay these taxes.
4.) Bicycle users pay for the roads in part.
You may attack this logic if you are able, but it's pretty straight-forward.
No, we get peeed about your stupid semantics game.
Ooops, that's where you goof. See, it's not a fee for road use. In this state, we must licence our vehicles every year, even if they are not used on the public roads. It's not called a road tax, but a licensing fee. In addition, I can use roads where I haven't paid such a fee, like in neighboring states where I don't pay anything to use their roads.
While I understand completely that you want to believe it's a use tax, it isn't called that, so it isn't that.
Separate how? Even non-drivers pay both of those fees.
News flash - in this state, even if the car isn't being used on public roads, it still must be registered!
And all states require you to pay some form of tax, somewhere. If the state doesn't fund all of the roadwayus 100% with auto-related taxes, non-motor-vehicle-operators still get to pay for roads.
The distinction is one you made up.
The irony is hilarious.
E.P.
