Bill O'Olberman
Active Member
Let me get this straight, roads, highways and bridges, which are entirely subsizdized by tax payers..has a requirement that you purchase a vehicle from a private corporation, which must be fueled by a product that is also partially funded by taxpayers but sold to you by a private organization and has a requirement that you purchase insurance from a private organization...is somehow "not the same"?
Well you got me there..it's worse.
Its payed for by the tax payer in the form of the gas tax which is essentially a user fee. The more you drive the more you pay in. Also, if I dont want to drive I can choose not to and go without paying for car insurance and all the other associated government fees. However, its seems the main concern with the mandatory health insurance is Im forced to pay by simply because Im alive. I have to choice in the matter.
Crudely speaking..the gas tax is basically for maintenance of roads. Although there are several revenue streams for that. Initial cost of construction doesn't come from a "gas tax".
And if you factor in the cost of maintaining a military presence (as well as "bribes" to countries in that region) close to nations producing oil..and you've got a wealth of "forced" funding of our transportation industry. No..you don't have a choice.
Well even if i didnt drive I benefit from a functioning transportation system that allows for the transportation of the stuff I buy. But still I do not HAVE TO drive a car and pay auto insurance. Youre being purposefully inane. A more appropriate comparison would be a hypothetical law that requires everyone regardless of if they own a car or not to pay for auto insurance.