Roads and bridges makes everyone a taker - analysis

Someone made this comment on FB, and the point being made is a fairly common position among Leftists:

"If someone uses roads, bridges, dams, sewer, the fire department, the police department, the grid, etc., etc., then you're a "taker." Your bill doesn't even come close to what the collective did to make sure you have accessibility to first world needs. So, I would really like to see the rhetoric stop with those that supposedly pay and those that don't. If someone is silly enough to think that only the rich pay for it, it's time to pull your head out of the illusion your living under."

Point 1): Every single dollar spent on roads, bridges, dams, sewer, the fire department, the police department, and the grid was sourced from the private sector. The government must first take money from someone before it can build a road.

Point 2): Generally speaking, roads and bridges are paid for by gasoline taxes, which means anyone driving a car is, in principle, paying for the road. But the alignment isn't perfect, because someone might have a fuel efficient car and drive a lot of miles, thereby gaining usage beyond the funding they supplied.

But once we have a road, anyone can drive on it. The benefit derived is unequal and obtained without regard to the funding provided on an individual basis. Since this is the case, it is clear that some people are being subsidized while others are paying a greater share than the benefit they derive.

But does this make some drivers "takers?" No, because no one is forced to pay for another's benefit. No tax has been levied against some so that others are subsidized. No equalization effort by government has been undertaken. No allocation of access has been implemented. Therefore, the average driver on a public road is not a taker.

Point 3): Sewers, fire and police are not federal programs. Their existence is not funded according to benefit derived. There is no distribution of wealth being accomplished.

Point 4): There is no collective.

Point 5): The statement "Your bill doesn't even come close to what the collective did to make sure you have accessibility to first world needs" contradicts "If someone is silly enough to think that only the rich pay for it." If one group's bill is lower than the cost, someone else is paying more than the cost. One must conclude that someone who has more money is paying more than their share in order for someone who has less money to not pay the actual cost of the service.