That isn't necessarily a robust analysis of cost trade offs. A good example of how this can be inaccurate is Texas which has a reputation as a relatively low tax state, but in order to fund its considerable road network levies extremely high property taxes which in turn trigger higher rents than might be expected. New Hampshire has a similar situation with low taxes being made up for with high property taxes which pay the cost of rebuilding the roads which are ripped up seasonally by frost heaves and geologic activity.

Ultimately people demand basic services which have to be paid for. Eliminating one source of funding may reduce the overall burden but more likely simply shifts funding.