4 ms·

Why not aim for 0% profit, and keep public transit self sustaining? Everything has a cost, and making something (virtually) cost 0 only transfers the cost else

Why not aim for 0% profit, and keep public transit self sustaining? Everything has a cost, and making something (virtually) cost 0 only transfers the cost elsewhere

dorfsmay 8y ago
I agree. Let's start charging cars every time they use streets and highway based on their mass and space used.
- DamnYuppie 8y ago
  How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes?
  - mcny 8y ago
    > How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes? The taxes are too low. > The report documents that the amount that road users pay through gas taxes now accounts for less than half of what’s spent to maintain and expand the road system. The resulting shortfall is made up from other sources of tax revenue at the state and local levels, generated by drivers and non-drivers alike. This subsidizing of car ownership costs the typical household about $1,100 per year—over and above the costs of gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees. https://outline.com/6A63aM https://outline.com/6A63aM I feel like this is the same story that repeats itself all over the place. Another one is when our northern neighbors in Canada complain about the Chinese elite buying up homes AND keeping them vacant. They want higher taxes on empty homes and homes owned by Chinese nationals. I say such a scheme is racist. The real solution is to increase real estate and property taxes on EVERYONE so each unoccupied house is a net positive return for the community. Nobody likes this idea. They don't want to pay higher taxes themselves. They just want to charge people who aren't there and don't have a voice. Another example, when I brought up the idea of taxing revenues instead of profits, people said that retail grocery stores would fail instantly because they run on very slim margins. If we said taxes apply on total revenue, anyone operating on razor thin margins would pretty much instantly go out of business. (I usually don't like to admit my ideas are horrible but this one was pretty bad in hindsight. However, the point is taxes on businesses are too low as a percentage of revenue. As an individual, I am also able to spend all the money I earn. I don't claim I should pay no income tax.)
    - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
      Trucks are the ones damaging the roads. They could pay their fair share and you can enjoy increased prices on all the goods you use delivered by their service.
      - dorfsmay 8y ago
        Which would be in line with the GP's argument of self-sustain systems and not passing any cost anywhere else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18956248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18956248
  - dorfsmay 8y ago
    Do you think those cover the cost of building and maintaining the roads? Do local/property/state/federal taxes not contribute to roads?
ekianjo 8y ago
0 percent means you cant invest in transports anymore? Or do you include investment before the profit calculation?
- masonic 8y ago
  "0 percent" meaning break-even -- fares and ads cover all (variable, at least) costs. No transit agency in the USA accomplishes that, to my knowledge.
arcticbull 8y ago
That would dramatically increase prices to the end user; some of the lowest firebox recovery rates in the world are here in the Bay Area. The VTA only takes in 10% of it's operating expenses from ridership, so we'd have to raise a one-way adult fare on the VTA to $22.50 (neglecting the demand curve). bart, though, would go up "only" 30% -- while Muni rides would go up to $6.50 [1] Like highways, these are infrastructure. The goal isn't to recover 100% of revenue from the farebox because it generates revenue indirectly. Without roads you wouldn't have trucks. With a $6.50 Muni ride you wouldn't have much of a downtown core. There are some notable examples like Hong Kong MTR which generates 125% of operating expenses from the farebox, though their density helps and their creative business model (allowing MTR to own surface rights above stations it constructs [2]) help that out an awful lot. I'm sure if Muni/Bart/Caltrain were gifted the land on top of each station we'd see fares come down real quick. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio [2] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2154424/dont-give-rail-giant-mtr-corp-property-development-rights https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2154424...

Why not aim for 0% profit, and keep public transit self sustaining? Everything has a cost, and making something (virtually) cost 0 only transfers the cost elsewhere

dorfsmay 8y ago

I agree. Let's start charging cars every time they use streets and highway based on their mass and space used.

DamnYuppie 8y ago
How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes?
- mcny 8y ago
  > How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes? The taxes are too low. > The report documents that the amount that road users pay through gas taxes now accounts for less than half of what’s spent to maintain and expand the road system. The resulting shortfall is made up from other sources of tax revenue at the state and local levels, generated by drivers and non-drivers alike. This subsidizing of car ownership costs the typical household about $1,100 per year—over and above the costs of gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees. https://outline.com/6A63aM https://outline.com/6A63aM I feel like this is the same story that repeats itself all over the place. Another one is when our northern neighbors in Canada complain about the Chinese elite buying up homes AND keeping them vacant. They want higher taxes on empty homes and homes owned by Chinese nationals. I say such a scheme is racist. The real solution is to increase real estate and property taxes on EVERYONE so each unoccupied house is a net positive return for the community. Nobody likes this idea. They don't want to pay higher taxes themselves. They just want to charge people who aren't there and don't have a voice. Another example, when I brought up the idea of taxing revenues instead of profits, people said that retail grocery stores would fail instantly because they run on very slim margins. If we said taxes apply on total revenue, anyone operating on razor thin margins would pretty much instantly go out of business. (I usually don't like to admit my ideas are horrible but this one was pretty bad in hindsight. However, the point is taxes on businesses are too low as a percentage of revenue. As an individual, I am also able to spend all the money I earn. I don't claim I should pay no income tax.)
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    Trucks are the ones damaging the roads. They could pay their fair share and you can enjoy increased prices on all the goods you use delivered by their service.
    - dorfsmay 8y ago
      Which would be in line with the GP's argument of self-sustain systems and not passing any cost anywhere else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18956248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18956248
- dorfsmay 8y ago
  Do you think those cover the cost of building and maintaining the roads? Do local/property/state/federal taxes not contribute to roads?

ekianjo 8y ago

0 percent means you cant invest in transports anymore? Or do you include investment before the profit calculation?

masonic 8y ago
"0 percent" meaning break-even -- fares and ads cover all (variable, at least) costs. No transit agency in the USA accomplishes that, to my knowledge.

arcticbull 8y ago

That would dramatically increase prices to the end user; some of the lowest firebox recovery rates in the world are here in the Bay Area. The VTA only takes in 10% of it's operating expenses from ridership, so we'd have to raise a one-way adult fare on the VTA to $22.50 (neglecting the demand curve). bart, though, would go up "only" 30% -- while Muni rides would go up to $6.50 [1] Like highways, these are infrastructure. The goal isn't to recover 100% of revenue from the farebox because it generates revenue indirectly. Without roads you wouldn't have trucks. With a $6.50 Muni ride you wouldn't have much of a downtown core. There are some notable examples like Hong Kong MTR which generates 125% of operating expenses from the farebox, though their density helps and their creative business model (allowing MTR to own surface rights above stations it constructs [2]) help that out an awful lot. I'm sure if Muni/Bart/Caltrain were gifted the land on top of each station we'd see fares come down real quick. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio [2] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2154424/dont-give-rail-giant-mtr-corp-property-development-rights https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2154424...