I call you a planned economy socialist because that is what you are. The progressive tax system is a system of theft by the state to interfere with the distribution of resources, and yes, that is socialist. The argument of funding the state has little to do with the argument behind the progressive tax system and you shouldn't confuse the two.Also, I am not sure I understood your "argument for taxes made by those like youself" statement when you referenced my Marxism comment. It was a bit lacking in specificity but am I to take it that you mean by my supporting a progressive tax system I am a Marxist?
1) You have a problem with your president.
2) You are mentally incapable of basic logical thought.
3) You have not actually studied Economics, Civics, or history and are simply commenting on things you should not.
No matter, as any of the three excuse you from being relevant to this debate.
But as to the bigger issue, it's still a tax, no matter how you cut it. The only difference is, I contend, that user fee taxes can actually harm the economy because people will actually become less likely to use our highways if they know that everytime they motor down the highway it will cost them. User fees, because of their immediacy, impact consumer behavior in ways that income taxes don't. I guess the question would be: Does the negative impact that user fees has on the economy as a result of altered consumer behavior(more likely to stay home instead of travelling and stimulating the economy) outweigh the loss of inefficiancy we endure as the result of government bureaucracy that manages our roads?
But, then again, no matter how the monies are raised, someone has to manage and distribute them to the private contractors that build the roads. I hope you're not suggesting that we allow a profit-driven private company manage these contracts that are given out to other private companies?!! Sounds like you would just replace one set of problems, government inefficiency, with another, private sector corruption. Take your pick.