[Grampa Dave]

Unfortunately, if this was set up so the money that we would pay, this would be the fairest way to pay for road use.

My wife’s Lexus is 10+ years old and just turned 50K miles, and my medium size pickup is 6 years old with 40k miles.

If it was fair, our road upkeep tax cost per year per vehicle would be less than someone pounding the pavement over 40,000 miles per year with each vehicle.

Probably the biggest road wear and damage comes from the big trucks and in our state, many trucks are from out of state. Most of these trucks have some sort of GPS system, to tally a road use tax.

Vehicle weight is another factor re tearing/wearing down roads.

Before people go ballistic on paying your fair cost on road use.

What if restaurants charged the same for a couple who splits a meal, has one glass of house wine each and shares a salad, and a dessert versus a couple demanding several name brand drinks before dinner, ordering two of the most expensive entrees, salads, ordering the most expensive wine in the restaurant, having two of the most expensive desserts in the restaurant with an expensive after dinner drink and a expensive coffee combo. Time wise the first couple is an out of the restaurant in about 45 minutes, and the second couple could claim squatters rights.

How often would you have dinner with the second couple if they asked for a single bill and divided the cost by 2?

[SoCal Pubbie]

“What if restaurants charged the same for a couple who splits a meal, has one glass of house wine each and shares a salad, and a dessert versus a couple demanding several name brand drinks before dinner, ordering two of the most expensive entrees, salads, ordering the most expensive wine in the restaurant, having two of the most expensive desserts in the restaurant with an expensive after dinner drink and a expensive coffee combo. “

In some cases, such as with a salad bar, restaurants already do charge two people if one item is ordered. Now, if a restaurant did that all the time, I would have many choices. I could patronize other restaurants. I could quit dining out altogether. Though I can cut back on driving, I cannot stop driving completely.

In addition, I do not need to worry about a restaurant tracking my eating habits and raising prices “for my own good.” I don't have to worry about the restaurant using the data to convict me of crimes, or a hacker to steal info from the database. I don't have to worry about low income people or other groups getting waivers.

Your analogy fails.