4 ms·

It’s not free though. So figure out how much of your tax goes towards public transportation and _then_ compare.

• cletus 8y ago
  It's nothing out of pocket though. And that's the point. Also your argument cuts both ways. The US as a whole subsidizes car ownership to a huge degree. Do you want to factor that in too?
  • xienze 8y ago
    > It's nothing out of pocket though. And that's the point. No wonder politicians can so easily manipulate the public. “I don’t pay money at the time the service is rendered, therefore it’s free!” It is coming out of your pocket, just at a different time. > The US as a whole subsidizes car ownership to a huge degree. Are you making hand wavy arguments about wars for oil or something? Last I checked roads are paid for by various taxes, including gas tax, which I pay.
    • cma 8y ago
      How are oil wars hand wavy?
      • xienze 8y ago
        Because it’s a nonsensical argument that first and foremost presumed the US actually engages in wars for the purpose of securing oil.
        • cma 8y ago
          Securing our "economic interests" is one of the primary roles of the US military, and our main interest in the middle east is certainly oil.
    • vkou 8y ago
      Gas tax pays for less then a third of highway maintenance. The rest of it comes from the general tax pool. As a non-driver, I get to subsidise your 'free' roads. When you combine the total cost of ownership, subsidies, and infrastructure, you'll find that cars are far more expensive, privately and publically, at moving people than buses.
      • xienze 8y ago
        > The rest of it comes from the general tax pool. As a non-driver, I get to subsidise your 'free' roads. Unless you happen to use a bus. Then you benefit from it. And as a non-public transport user, I subsidize your public transit. It’s a wash. > When you combine the total cost of ownership, subsidies, and infrastructure, you'll find that cars are far more expensive, privately and publically, at moving people than buses. I never said otherwise. I objected to the argument that there is such a thing as a “free” bus service. The OP was comparing said “free” service to paying for a bus ticket. It’s not a fair comparison to make.
        • vkou 8y ago
          > Unless you happen to use a bus. Then you benefit from it. And as a non-public transport user, I subsidize your public transit. It’s a wash. If we go to a restaurant, and go halvesies on the bill, but I order a salad, and you order a steak dinner with a bottle of champagne, it's not a wash. Subsidies to public transit vs subsidies to personal automobiles is more similar to that situation. But yes, nothing is free. However, plenty of services are 'free', in that there is no cost to the user, as opposed to a non-user.
• zrobotics 8y ago
  OK, but what does that change? Ride public transport and fund it through taxes, or drive a car and still pay for public transit? You don't have a choice, so it is effectively free.
  • xienze 8y ago
    The OP was comparing out of pocket transport expenses versus “free” public transport, attempting to make an argument that us dumb Americans have to pay for something that someone else can get for “free”. It’s not a valid argument. They both cost money, figure out what that amount actually is before making arguments about relative cost.
• tinus_hn 8y ago
  As opposed to those free roads that appear magically out of thin air!