3 ms·
The problem with these "progressive" modifications is that they complicate a simple idea, add points of contention and ultimately kill the whole thing. Just pa
by econ4all 8y ago
The problem with these "progressive" modifications is that they complicate a simple idea, add points of contention and ultimately kill the whole thing.
Just pass the tax in it's simplest form and then see if further adjustment is needed, the perfect being the enemy of the good and what not.
- jacobmoe 8y agoI agree in general, but think you might have it backwards in this particular case. Simple is better, but if the only way to ensure it gets through is to make it more complicated, then let's add the modifications.
- econ4all 8y agoGotcha.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoMaking the tax different based on the type of car is not the kind of 'complexity' that risks the nature of the tax. In fact, that's pretty easy. Getting 'right of way', building permits, hiring firms, planning massive construction projects involving 'new technology' etc. etc - this is 'complicated' beyond the threshold that I would trust the NYC government. But some kind of tax on cars is within feasibility.
- bilbo0s 8y agoThere really can be no points of contention here. I mean, everyone is paying the same tax as you, providing they drive the same car. You own a stretch limo, fine, so long as you want to pay the tax. And everyone else owning that limo would pay the same tax as you. You own a tiny Civic or Corolla, fine, you pay the same tax as everyone else who owns that tiny car of yours. I mean really, what's to argue? You could argue whether there should be a tax at all I suppose. But not much else.