I think we should have pay to use parks. And schools.
What's the point of having government funded infrastructure if not to make it equally available to all regardless of means?
What I object to is that the tax for blind road users is several orders of magnitude higher than driver-users. And that comes with the caveat you can access maybe 5% of areas in Australia by PT and P2P.
At least my kids can use schools without an orders-of-magnitude higher tax. They can only use parks accessible by PT and P2P (which - in Australia - is a very small fraction).
So I get we all should pay for shared resources. But its less fair to ask someone who isn't permitted to access these shared resources an orders-of-magnitude higher tax to access a tiny fraction of those resources.
(Yes I know bicycles and buses use the road too, but if that's all we built roads for we wouldn't need so many!)
Well, besides not being blind or otherwise barred from driving through no fault of your own... :-)
Also, there’s a difference between the government funding infrastructure or protecting monopolies that develop and maintain infrastructure, and government providing total end-to-end funding of something. We generally pay for usage of electricity, water, and postage, for example.
I'm a blind Aussie taxpayer.
Consider my tax situation. If I take an Uber to my local pub, that's about A$10. Of that $10:
$0.90 in Goods and Services Tax $1 to the taxi compensation scheme
That's 19% tax - or $1.90/$10.
In Australia, public transport and P2P services get to a tiny fraction of all available road destinations. It easier (and sometimes cheaper) for someone like me to get from Sydney to Singapore than to Sydney to Kangaroo Valley (about 350km from Sydney).
So, for my 19% tax rate to get to the pub, the equivalent journey someone who can drive a car on their own may pay $0.25 in fuel excise duty.
They can pay the road users tax. They already get enough of a subsidy from me.