It can be hard to tease out since, contrary to belief, gas taxes end up mixed with the general fund in most cases. If you look at total road expenditures against gas tax revenues, drivers don’t come close to paying for the road infrastructure they use.
Note: This isn’t a comment on whether drivers should fully fund roads, or if it is perfectly fine given the external benefits of a robust road network. It is simply a comment about real numbers vs perception.
Either way, the point is that there's a conflict between the demands of "never charge me an extra cent" versus "don't poke your nose into my business."
My point is that gas taxes don’t even cover a majority of it. US roads are paid for out general funds, and pretending that they are paid for out of gas taxes exclusively, or even in a majority is dishonest.
Any argument that argues that gas taxes are a use tax for the road is dead in the water.
1. It's philosophically acceptable since it's not the government doing it, even if I don't like the deal.
2. I shouldn't be forced to have insurance in the first place.
3. That wouldn't happen since I could buy insurance from another competitor that doesn't require it.
A tangent here, but: Gas taxes paying for roads. There is a relationship between inefficiency and privacy.
I often encounter some libertarian-types complaining about this, that they should only be taxed for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure they personally drive upon. Indirect benefits aside, I try to point out that the billing-system they're asking for requires a creepy surveillance panopticon, something far more ripe for abuse than any gas tax.