5 ms·

What externalities? I pay carbon tax, ecological tax, consumption tax on fuel, income tax, VAT, municipal tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, property tax, pr

What externalities? I pay carbon tax, ecological tax, consumption tax on fuel, income tax, VAT, municipal tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, property tax, property transfer tax, and many other taxes - solely because the system says "you pay and we will maintain the infrastructure, clean the environment etc". There are no unexpected externalities that I would incur on anyone and most definitely no externalities that I did not pay my fair share for, since I pay much more in taxes than most people do (meaning larger percentage of my income as well as in absolute units). Now the government is trying to pull out of this social contract but isn't giving any of the tax money back.

varjag 8y ago
If you need the parking spot, that's not an "extra", period. Your car has to go somewhere, either congesting the scarce street/sidewalk space, or to your private parking spot.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  And I'm paying taxes because the government has promised to solve the infrastructure problem for me - and that definitely includes parking, not only at home, but also at all possible destinations. What's the point of a government-ran infrastructure otherwise? I could've built my own parking space by myself without any laws if I needed it, the point of having a government monopoly in this business is that we have roads and parking spaces that everyone can use. If I'm forced to pay for something then I should be able to use it. I shouldn't be told to suck it just because I came too late.
  - varjag 8y ago
    Because physical space of the public property is constrained by the laws of the Universe with blatant disregard for our libertarian ideals.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      They took our money to build road infrastructure - they should provide the infrastructure or return the money, instead now they demand citizens should do their job and they don't even offer any money back, instead taxes are rising. I don't care much about any constraints the government (not citizens) is facing, if it's impossible they shouldn't have promised it to the voters (and get voted because of it) and definitely shouldn't have taken money for that purpose (from state budget). Yeah, I know, there is not infinite space on Earth. That doesn't mean the government has any right to shift their responsibilities to the citizens and keep demanding money for the service they've ceased to provide.
      - danaris 8y ago
        Sure, they collect tax money to (among other things) build road infrastructure. That doesn't mean that a) they're going to build it in the smartest, most optimal way, or b) they're going to build it in whatever way you would most prefer. None of this is hypocritical or contradictory, it's merely annoying in case a, and something that sensible, non-narcissistic human beings who want a functional society accept and expect in case b.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        Eh, not really. There are so many things that could've been done to a) prevent unfairness and b) prevent the situation altogether. This is like calling firefighters only after the whole building is on fire, and I'm not going to accept that as good, great nor even sufficient. The government is supposed to care about their citizens, all citizens are supposed to be equal, the government should be fair and money should not be thrown away - these principles are cut in stone for me.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Needing that parking spot is an extra - you don't have to have a car in many cities, and the explicit intended goal of city designers is to ensure that having a car is inconvenient and expensive, so that more people would choose not to have a car, as that is the solution to "your car has to go somewhere, either congesting the scarce street/sidewalk space, or to your private parking spot". It does not have to go somewhere if it does not exist.
  - varjag 8y ago
    The city centres of Europe were built largely in pre-car times without any explicit concern for parking. Now the explicit intended goal of city planners is to ensure that the vehicles don't bog down the city. Which means both reducing the through traffic and making homeowners arrange their parking on private property. The latter part apparently is very disturbing to many here.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Actually the disturbing part is that some people are forced to pay 50k USD more per apartment while other people not (and that's in a city where they're supposedly "solving the housing bubble") and on top of that get a parking space next to their building paid by the state - where can I get that?
    - bluGill 8y ago
      You are not looking at unintended consequences. By forcing people to have parking for cars - weather or not they otherwise want it - you are forcing them to use land for parking. For those who don't want parking that space could instead be used for more living space. We can estimate that in the space 5 empty parking spots use you could instead have another apartment which can house a 6th person. This increases density which actually ensures vehicles don't bog down the city. By artificially enforcing lower density than some people desire we force some less density and less density forces people to drive thus bogging down the city in traffic - the very thing you wanted to prevent by enforcing parking minimums causes the problem. Note that above I'm only talking about people who don't want a car. Most people are on the fence - a car is a useful tool to get around but if they could get by without it they would consider it. There are a few people who love cars who will want extra space. There are some jobs that require cars (or more likely vans/trucks), but most people are on the fence where they have a car only because it is the best solution to their current transport needs but they could live without in a different situation (they probably can't see the other situation as possible)
shaki-dora 8y ago
Someone living on a farm would also pay all those taxes, except “municipal”, which isn’t a universal concept. Considering they cause less external cost by parking their car on private property, either they are currently getting a raw deal, or you are not actually paying for all of what you are consuming. Also: you’re just making stuff up when you claim the government has ever promised you universal free parking.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  You're missing my point. These taxes contribute to state budget and then the government passes a law about the state budget for the next year (I'm european). There they specify purpose of various amounts of money - and a significant percentage of that is road maintenance, construction, etc. If I pay all these taxes (thus contribute to the state budget as I should) I shouldn't pay for a parking space because the government is supposed to build that from my taxes. And no, I'm not making anything up. There is zero reason why the government should build roads if not for sharing the whole infrastructure and providing everyone with the opportunity to use their car to go where they need (and, of course, park there - it'd be useless otherwise). There is huge precedent with public parking spaces literally everywhere, because European cities simply don't allow people to have their own parking places. Of course that backfires now because this made sense in the 80's but not today. I'm not saying I'm against car regulation etc, that's another discussion. My point is that the government definitely should not take my money for what they don't do.
  - shaki-dora 8y ago
    Road usage is taxed proportionally by gas taxes (and sometimes even tolls), Parking is not, because some people park on private property. The rail network is also supported by taxes, yet train tickets still cost money. Cultural events are also often supported by taxes, yet they charge admission.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      As I said, every year the state budget is separated to different purposes; in Europe here is no connection between what the tax is and what budget it will fill - everything is put to one money "bucket" (of course except for local taxes, similar process is used at local governments) and then the budget is created and that budget specifically includes public parking. According to our constitution every person is equal, so why am I forced to pay 1 million CZK (45k USD, cost of building a parking spot - needs to be underground because of space constraints) more for an apartment just because I live in Prague? The government has simply decided that they don't want to do their job in this city while they happily do it literally all around the rest of the country, that is fair? Why other cities or happier people in the rest of Prague can get public parking spaces with no further payments (in very few places there is a yearly fee, but that is okay, I would pay), and why calling it unfair is wrong? I'm perfectly happy with people being forced to build their spaces on their property and I'm even completely fine with people not being able to have a car - but I'm definitely not going to pay for parking and then be happy with not getting any.

varjag 8y ago

If you need the parking spot, that's not an "extra", period. Your car has to go somewhere, either congesting the scarce street/sidewalk space, or to your private parking spot.

TomMarius 8y ago
And I'm paying taxes because the government has promised to solve the infrastructure problem for me - and that definitely includes parking, not only at home, but also at all possible destinations. What's the point of a government-ran infrastructure otherwise? I could've built my own parking space by myself without any laws if I needed it, the point of having a government monopoly in this business is that we have roads and parking spaces that everyone can use. If I'm forced to pay for something then I should be able to use it. I shouldn't be told to suck it just because I came too late.
- varjag 8y ago
  Because physical space of the public property is constrained by the laws of the Universe with blatant disregard for our libertarian ideals.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    They took our money to build road infrastructure - they should provide the infrastructure or return the money, instead now they demand citizens should do their job and they don't even offer any money back, instead taxes are rising. I don't care much about any constraints the government (not citizens) is facing, if it's impossible they shouldn't have promised it to the voters (and get voted because of it) and definitely shouldn't have taken money for that purpose (from state budget). Yeah, I know, there is not infinite space on Earth. That doesn't mean the government has any right to shift their responsibilities to the citizens and keep demanding money for the service they've ceased to provide.
    - danaris 8y ago
      Sure, they collect tax money to (among other things) build road infrastructure. That doesn't mean that a) they're going to build it in the smartest, most optimal way, or b) they're going to build it in whatever way you would most prefer. None of this is hypocritical or contradictory, it's merely annoying in case a, and something that sensible, non-narcissistic human beings who want a functional society accept and expect in case b.
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        Eh, not really. There are so many things that could've been done to a) prevent unfairness and b) prevent the situation altogether. This is like calling firefighters only after the whole building is on fire, and I'm not going to accept that as good, great nor even sufficient. The government is supposed to care about their citizens, all citizens are supposed to be equal, the government should be fair and money should not be thrown away - these principles are cut in stone for me.
PeterisP 8y ago
Needing that parking spot is an extra - you don't have to have a car in many cities, and the explicit intended goal of city designers is to ensure that having a car is inconvenient and expensive, so that more people would choose not to have a car, as that is the solution to "your car has to go somewhere, either congesting the scarce street/sidewalk space, or to your private parking spot". It does not have to go somewhere if it does not exist.
- varjag 8y ago
  The city centres of Europe were built largely in pre-car times without any explicit concern for parking. Now the explicit intended goal of city planners is to ensure that the vehicles don't bog down the city. Which means both reducing the through traffic and making homeowners arrange their parking on private property. The latter part apparently is very disturbing to many here.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Actually the disturbing part is that some people are forced to pay 50k USD more per apartment while other people not (and that's in a city where they're supposedly "solving the housing bubble") and on top of that get a parking space next to their building paid by the state - where can I get that?
  - bluGill 8y ago
    You are not looking at unintended consequences. By forcing people to have parking for cars - weather or not they otherwise want it - you are forcing them to use land for parking. For those who don't want parking that space could instead be used for more living space. We can estimate that in the space 5 empty parking spots use you could instead have another apartment which can house a 6th person. This increases density which actually ensures vehicles don't bog down the city. By artificially enforcing lower density than some people desire we force some less density and less density forces people to drive thus bogging down the city in traffic - the very thing you wanted to prevent by enforcing parking minimums causes the problem. Note that above I'm only talking about people who don't want a car. Most people are on the fence - a car is a useful tool to get around but if they could get by without it they would consider it. There are a few people who love cars who will want extra space. There are some jobs that require cars (or more likely vans/trucks), but most people are on the fence where they have a car only because it is the best solution to their current transport needs but they could live without in a different situation (they probably can't see the other situation as possible)

shaki-dora 8y ago

Someone living on a farm would also pay all those taxes, except “municipal”, which isn’t a universal concept. Considering they cause less external cost by parking their car on private property, either they are currently getting a raw deal, or you are not actually paying for all of what you are consuming. Also: you’re just making stuff up when you claim the government has ever promised you universal free parking.

TomMarius 8y ago
You're missing my point. These taxes contribute to state budget and then the government passes a law about the state budget for the next year (I'm european). There they specify purpose of various amounts of money - and a significant percentage of that is road maintenance, construction, etc. If I pay all these taxes (thus contribute to the state budget as I should) I shouldn't pay for a parking space because the government is supposed to build that from my taxes. And no, I'm not making anything up. There is zero reason why the government should build roads if not for sharing the whole infrastructure and providing everyone with the opportunity to use their car to go where they need (and, of course, park there - it'd be useless otherwise). There is huge precedent with public parking spaces literally everywhere, because European cities simply don't allow people to have their own parking places. Of course that backfires now because this made sense in the 80's but not today. I'm not saying I'm against car regulation etc, that's another discussion. My point is that the government definitely should not take my money for what they don't do.
- shaki-dora 8y ago
  Road usage is taxed proportionally by gas taxes (and sometimes even tolls), Parking is not, because some people park on private property. The rail network is also supported by taxes, yet train tickets still cost money. Cultural events are also often supported by taxes, yet they charge admission.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    As I said, every year the state budget is separated to different purposes; in Europe here is no connection between what the tax is and what budget it will fill - everything is put to one money "bucket" (of course except for local taxes, similar process is used at local governments) and then the budget is created and that budget specifically includes public parking. According to our constitution every person is equal, so why am I forced to pay 1 million CZK (45k USD, cost of building a parking spot - needs to be underground because of space constraints) more for an apartment just because I live in Prague? The government has simply decided that they don't want to do their job in this city while they happily do it literally all around the rest of the country, that is fair? Why other cities or happier people in the rest of Prague can get public parking spaces with no further payments (in very few places there is a yearly fee, but that is okay, I would pay), and why calling it unfair is wrong? I'm perfectly happy with people being forced to build their spaces on their property and I'm even completely fine with people not being able to have a car - but I'm definitely not going to pay for parking and then be happy with not getting any.