3 ms·

> You'd be destroying a culture of independence in the US punishing car drivers so much, and I don't think it would be nearly worth it. Is it really independen

> You'd be destroying a culture of independence in the US punishing car drivers so much, and I don't think it would be nearly worth it. Is it really independence if you can't cover the costs you impose? Sounds an awful lot like the "oppression" felt by angsty teenagers without jobs when they're told they have to empty a dishwasher. > I greatly appreciate being able to just go where I want without having to be beholden to public transit schedules and share the space with a bunch of strangers, and have my own temperature controls etc. I'm sure you do. I'd greatly appreciate being able to fly private, for all of the same reasons, but unfortunately I can't afford it. If you want it, you should pay the cost to get it. And that cost is gonna be about $6/gallon in extra taxes. > The "cost" cars have to society and how "subsidized" they are is ridiculously overblown around here. [...] Still not enough. As long as cities, states, and the federal government are taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the general fund to build and maintain roads, you aren't even close to covering your costs. And that would be before congestion charges, carbon taxes, appropriately priced bridge tolls, etc. What is overblown is the independence and financial responsibility of the average person who merely pays their bills for actions that are heavily subsidized.

jimmaswell 9y ago
It's fine for things to be subsidized and taxes collected so that a way of life is more attainable, that's how societies work. In all likelihood I'm subsidizing the people around here who use NJ transit in place of driving - I hardly have my car on for more than 10 minutes a day and it's around 30mpg. It's just part of a larger give-and-take that we all participate in, I pay for trains I don't use today and they pay for state parks they don't use tomorrow. Are you opposed to all government subsidies? It's not tenable for everybody to pay the full cost of everything they do. A prime example is healthcare.
- darksaints 9y ago
  It's not okay to subsidize things in general, and especially things with massive negative externalities (like cars), when the person using that subsidy can easily afford it. And let's face it, the middle class can easily afford $8/gallon. Nobody wants to pay that, but they can afford it. As a proof that people can afford it, we have dozens of first world counties with strong middle classes that correctly price their road taxes. They do just fine. I've never understood the idea that we should just cross subsidize every single thing we can. It's absurd. Prices affect decisions, and when artificially low prices induce people to collectively make decisions that are bad for society, we should stop fucking subsidizing it. Imagine how much better our government would be if we took all of the taxes we take in, and stopped spending it all on things that are bad for society on behalf of people that can afford it or don't need it, and started spending it all on things that are good for society on behalf of people that need it but can't afford it.
  - LitFan 9y ago
    Replying to the lowest level comment because this is the one where you call it out specifically. These subsidies aren't driven by an outcry from the population, they're driven by groups of companies lobbying the government. Car companies would almost certainly lobby against reducing gas subsidies - it would cause people to reconsider buying a car. Lobbyists will also be on the lookout for services like waze carpool because it has the potential to cut in on their business (transit and taxis).
    - jimmaswell 9y ago
      I prefer a society with car subsidies and the freedom it brings to one with the alleged externalities more compensated for where people are priced into having to settle for transit. Freedom isn't free, as they say. More investment in infrastructure for electric vehicles, like charging stations, and incentives to use them (like NJ already does with waived inspections for example) are a fine compromise. Additionally, with such taxes on car use, I'm sure a lot of people would just go places less and thus participate in the economy less, rather than take transit. A direct comparison to another country with prohibitive gas taxes isn't perfectly predictive of what would happen here because of cultural and infrastructural differences.

jimmaswell 9y ago

It's fine for things to be subsidized and taxes collected so that a way of life is more attainable, that's how societies work. In all likelihood I'm subsidizing the people around here who use NJ transit in place of driving - I hardly have my car on for more than 10 minutes a day and it's around 30mpg. It's just part of a larger give-and-take that we all participate in, I pay for trains I don't use today and they pay for state parks they don't use tomorrow. Are you opposed to all government subsidies? It's not tenable for everybody to pay the full cost of everything they do. A prime example is healthcare.

darksaints 9y ago
It's not okay to subsidize things in general, and especially things with massive negative externalities (like cars), when the person using that subsidy can easily afford it. And let's face it, the middle class can easily afford $8/gallon. Nobody wants to pay that, but they can afford it. As a proof that people can afford it, we have dozens of first world counties with strong middle classes that correctly price their road taxes. They do just fine. I've never understood the idea that we should just cross subsidize every single thing we can. It's absurd. Prices affect decisions, and when artificially low prices induce people to collectively make decisions that are bad for society, we should stop fucking subsidizing it. Imagine how much better our government would be if we took all of the taxes we take in, and stopped spending it all on things that are bad for society on behalf of people that can afford it or don't need it, and started spending it all on things that are good for society on behalf of people that need it but can't afford it.
- LitFan 9y ago
  Replying to the lowest level comment because this is the one where you call it out specifically. These subsidies aren't driven by an outcry from the population, they're driven by groups of companies lobbying the government. Car companies would almost certainly lobby against reducing gas subsidies - it would cause people to reconsider buying a car. Lobbyists will also be on the lookout for services like waze carpool because it has the potential to cut in on their business (transit and taxis).
  - jimmaswell 9y ago
    I prefer a society with car subsidies and the freedom it brings to one with the alleged externalities more compensated for where people are priced into having to settle for transit. Freedom isn't free, as they say. More investment in infrastructure for electric vehicles, like charging stations, and incentives to use them (like NJ already does with waived inspections for example) are a fine compromise. Additionally, with such taxes on car use, I'm sure a lot of people would just go places less and thus participate in the economy less, rather than take transit. A direct comparison to another country with prohibitive gas taxes isn't perfectly predictive of what would happen here because of cultural and infrastructural differences.