[snip]

> In other words, another tax that favors the rich. I don't know how it is
> in England, but a similar road use taxing scheme in the U.S. would hit the
> poor and middle-class HARD, while the rich would hardly pay anything at
> all.
>
> In the U.S., most people can't afford to LIVE anywhere near where they
> WORK. That's because the employers are in areas where housing prices are
> sky-high. The rich will have condos or houses near enough to work that
> they can walk or ride a bicycle. Everbody else (the middle class and
> down) have to commute to work, most driving a half hour or longer one way.
>
> Result: Almost all road maintenance paid by the poor and middle class,
> and almost NOTHING paid by the rich for maintaining the roads. Great
> ystem. -Dave
I don't know if I agree with you; I don't think that it's that clear-cut.
Depends on the metro area. Take Holyoke, MA, where most of the poor lives
right near the center of the city and take other forms of transportation
than cars to work (not necessarily public), but at least a significant
percentage of them do own cars; the rich live up the hill from the downtown,
and it's doubtful they actually work in Holyoke. What about Albany, NY,
where you can pick up a studio apartment for around $400 right by the
capital buildings, and the rich actually live out in Loudonville and other
surrounding areas mostly? Of course, with Boston and New York, you do have
concentrations of the rich near the center. Still, I'm not convinced that
the situation is as black and white as you make it, given modern, irrational
transportation patterns (i.e. instead of simply commuting in and out of a
central city, people head in all sorts of directions from their homes,
wherever they may be). I wouldn't be surprised if there was a study out
there that supports what you've said; it's just that such a study would
provide more data than what you've offered to support the assertion that a
tax would fall more heavily on the rich.