4 ms·

I don't think that is fair to taxpayers that don't use public transport because they walk, bike or use a car.

nolok 8y ago
I believe the opposite, it's just as fair as when I pay for public healthcare despite being "never sick", when I pay for unemployment compensation despite not needing it, or when I pay for public school despite not having kids. It makes society better because it means less congestions on the street and less pollution, it makes it fairer for those that don't have a choice (because they're too far from work to bike or walk, because their city does not have have the right bike lanes, etc ...), it's the definition of what taxes should be for in a developped society, imho. I'm happy to pay higher taxes for it, despite not needing it since I work remotely and have most place I go to within walking distance by living in city center.
- shrewduser 8y ago
  Healthcare and unemployment act more like insurance than a service though I don't entirely disagree I just think they're not great comparisons.
  - nolok 8y ago
    Ability to move around to (possible/prospective) jobs locations is a big factor in unemployment. Free public transport means losing my ability to pay for my car doesn't mean I lose the ability to go more than a couple of miles away from my house. Not that the article here is for kids (and in particular for Paris) so my comparisons is not that great I admit but still, living in a rural area I've spent my entire teenage decade dependant on public transport to go to the school my parent wanted for me, to go to "the city" see my friends/visit places/go to the mediatheque where they had computers (!!!), and along with the food cost at school it was a major expense for my parents, that they would have had to cut on if one of them was unlucky and lost his or her job. So it still rings very true to me. But again, given it's about Paris, my exemple is not that great. You probably realized I would probably be ok for it country wide though.
    - systemtest 8y ago
      In a pure economy, a job that is located in a place that is expensive to reach will cease to exist or pay enough to make the commute worth it.
      - nolok 8y ago
        If there any country where that actually works properly though ? We might approach it in some localised places but we're not reaching it overall. And then add that France is a democracy that's centralized like a dictatorship ...
mxuribe 8y ago
I live and work in a suburb of NYC...and effectively MUST drive everywhere...and that sucks. I would happily pay more taxes IF they were devoted to supporting and upgrading and growing any/all public transit; and of course bringing any cost down to users/citizens. (I would much rather be able to take public transit myself to work instead of driving.)
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, why can't you use the existing transit system? I travel often to NYC and it doesn't seem much different to those of many major European cities, at least in terms of reach.
- systemtest 8y ago
  Why do you prefer paying for public transport through taxes instead of paying a fair price for your ticket? Why does your retired neighbor need to pay for your commute too?
flamingbuffalo 8y ago
This argument is really flawed. How is it different from: "I only take one road to and from work, why should I pay for roads other people take?"
- systemtest 8y ago
  The roads are funded by road-tax. You only pay for the roads if you use them. They are not funded from income-tax. That is a fair system.
  - switch007 8y ago
    Are we still talking about France? Wasn't the vignette abolished some time ago and now, I guess, funding comes from tolls? (Which I guess you can call "road tax", just confused by the vernacular)
st1ck 8y ago
Sorry, but that's pretty pedestrian way of thinking. All of these categories (esp. cyclists) will benefit from reduced traffic and less air and noise pollution. As long as you're ok with government taxing you, making public transport free seems to me one of the best uses for these funds. Also, there must be plenty of less obvious effects. E.g. Uber Eats or other kinds of delivery services can get cheaper, if couriers can travel across the city all day for free.
- systemtest 8y ago
  There will be more traffic and more air pollution. People will take the bus more often instead of walking or cycling. The bus companies in most Western European countries use diesel engines. And Uber Eats wont use public transport, it is very slow compared to an e-bike or scooter.

I believe the opposite, it's just as fair as when I pay for public healthcare despite being "never sick", when I pay for unemployment compensation despite not needing it, or when I pay for public school despite not having kids. It makes society better because it means less congestions on the street and less pollution, it makes it fairer for those that don't have a choice (because they're too far from work to bike or walk, because their city does not have have the right bike lanes, etc ...), it's the definition of what taxes should be for in a developped society, imho. I'm happy to pay higher taxes for it, despite not needing it since I work remotely and have most place I go to within walking distance by living in city center.

shrewduser 8y ago
Healthcare and unemployment act more like insurance than a service though I don't entirely disagree I just think they're not great comparisons.
- nolok 8y ago
  Ability to move around to (possible/prospective) jobs locations is a big factor in unemployment. Free public transport means losing my ability to pay for my car doesn't mean I lose the ability to go more than a couple of miles away from my house. Not that the article here is for kids (and in particular for Paris) so my comparisons is not that great I admit but still, living in a rural area I've spent my entire teenage decade dependant on public transport to go to the school my parent wanted for me, to go to "the city" see my friends/visit places/go to the mediatheque where they had computers (!!!), and along with the food cost at school it was a major expense for my parents, that they would have had to cut on if one of them was unlucky and lost his or her job. So it still rings very true to me. But again, given it's about Paris, my exemple is not that great. You probably realized I would probably be ok for it country wide though.
  - systemtest 8y ago
    In a pure economy, a job that is located in a place that is expensive to reach will cease to exist or pay enough to make the commute worth it.
    - nolok 8y ago
      If there any country where that actually works properly though ? We might approach it in some localised places but we're not reaching it overall. And then add that France is a democracy that's centralized like a dictatorship ...

mxuribe 8y ago

I live and work in a suburb of NYC...and effectively MUST drive everywhere...and that sucks. I would happily pay more taxes IF they were devoted to supporting and upgrading and growing any/all public transit; and of course bringing any cost down to users/citizens. (I would much rather be able to take public transit myself to work instead of driving.)

Kurtz79 8y ago
Out of curiosity, why can't you use the existing transit system? I travel often to NYC and it doesn't seem much different to those of many major European cities, at least in terms of reach.
systemtest 8y ago
Why do you prefer paying for public transport through taxes instead of paying a fair price for your ticket? Why does your retired neighbor need to pay for your commute too?

flamingbuffalo 8y ago

This argument is really flawed. How is it different from: "I only take one road to and from work, why should I pay for roads other people take?"

systemtest 8y ago
The roads are funded by road-tax. You only pay for the roads if you use them. They are not funded from income-tax. That is a fair system.
- switch007 8y ago
  Are we still talking about France? Wasn't the vignette abolished some time ago and now, I guess, funding comes from tolls? (Which I guess you can call "road tax", just confused by the vernacular)

st1ck 8y ago

Sorry, but that's pretty pedestrian way of thinking. All of these categories (esp. cyclists) will benefit from reduced traffic and less air and noise pollution. As long as you're ok with government taxing you, making public transport free seems to me one of the best uses for these funds. Also, there must be plenty of less obvious effects. E.g. Uber Eats or other kinds of delivery services can get cheaper, if couriers can travel across the city all day for free.

systemtest 8y ago
There will be more traffic and more air pollution. People will take the bus more often instead of walking or cycling. The bus companies in most Western European countries use diesel engines. And Uber Eats wont use public transport, it is very slow compared to an e-bike or scooter.