[Be Free]

You might consider also that red-states with relatively higher fuel taxes have a few motivations for structuring their taxes that way. The first is that they’re often massive states, with the ratio of miles of State-maintained roads to population being very high. Another is that they don’t want to have a broad tax on the general population to support their road building, but extract those funds from the folks that actually use the roads, and somewhat proportionate to their use. Finally, charging taxes on fuel rather than income allows them to pull in revenue from people that aren’t necessarily State residents - particularly if tourism is a major component of their economies.

[Alberta's Child]

All good points. It's also worth noting that small states operate in a competitive environment with fuel taxes in a way that large states don't. You can probably drive through a dozen states in the Northeast in the same distance it takes to drive across Montana, so motorists have a lot of flexibility about where they stop to refuel.

I'm sure one reason New Jersey keeps their fuel taxes low is that they generate a lot more revenue when there's a big gap between their taxes and those of their neighbors (mainly New York and Pennsylvania).

[Straight Vermonter]

You might consider also that red-states with relatively higher fuel taxes have a few motivations for structuring their taxes that way.

Correct. A fuel tax that pays for roads, bridges, etc. is the proper way of taxing. Those who use the infrastructure pay for the infrastructure. I wish more of our taxes were implemented in this way.

My state, however, has the unpleasant habit of taking money from the highway fund to pay for some legislator's pet project.