3 ms·

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 easi

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.

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.