Well, I can give you both the economist's answer and the common sense
The economist understands that it makes sense to charge people for the
services they use- so if you use more sewer, or water, or electricity,
you pay for it, not everyone else. That seems equitable in terms of
distributing costs and fair in terms of discouraging people from using
The common sense answer is threefold:
1. Where does this lead? The guy who is frequently robbed more pays a
higher police tax? You see who smokes and charge them a higher fire
protection premium? If your kid requires special ed we charge you
more? How about the fat kid who weighs down the school bus and uses
2. The guy who is robbed doesn't call the police- so there's more
robbery of everyone, and we catch fewer criminals. People lie about
smoking to keep their taxes down...
3. At some point it's nuts to nickel-and-dime everyone because the
cost of keeping track of all this is a significant percentage of
what's collected. I just paid $80 to renew my driver's license for
eight years. I understand I pay for the right to drive, but isn't
collecting this money and keeping track of it (and paying credit card
fees) a waste of resources?
I'm a former economist and I say that the common sense argument wins.