11 ms·

> parking meters don’t charge different rates to users based on their income; you have to pay the same amount to park your used Jetta as you do your new Mercede

by rocgf 8y ago

> parking meters don’t charge different rates to users based on their income; you have to pay the same amount to park your used Jetta as you do your new Mercedes [...] That’s inequitable. I guess it depends on which end of the political spectrum you are, but this sounds absolutely obscene to me.

devereaux 8y ago
It sounds obscene to me too. A car uses a parking spot. The spot is no longer available for someone else- regardless of your income. Incomes is orthogonal to the problem. Flat taxes are the fairest taxes. Take trash taxes for example: you produce 100 lbs of trash, you pay for 100 lbs of trash because disposing of 100 lbs of trash in a landfill or a recycling facility won't be affected by the income of the person having produced said trash. Want to pay less taxes? Produce less trash.
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  Now do water.
- praptak 8y ago
  The point of the article is that the same arguments work in favour of congestion pricing.
- voisin 8y ago
  The argument isn’t about whether the quantum of taxes is appropriate. It is how a fixed quantum turns a disincentive for some into an irrelevancy to others. If the purpose of the cost is to discourage use (peak period congestion charges), then it should vary with income so as to be a equally discouraging to all to whom it applies. For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater incentive among the poor to reduce their trash production, whereas the rich aren’t affected and can produce far more before they feel the incentive to reduce waste. I think the parking spot item is more like a meal at a fine restaurant - there is no incentive or disincentive from a social standpoint that should justify variable pricing on income. But to the extend there is, say via congestion, pollution, etc, it is reasonable to vary pricing in order to equally apply the disincentive.
  - ramblerouser 8y ago
    A poor person's car takes up the same number of parking spaces as a rich person's car, and a rich person has already paid a huge amount of their income to the poor person in the form of income taxes and welfare.
    - pas 8y ago
      poor might mean lower middle-class. no welfare income.
  - devereaux 8y ago
    > it is reasonable to vary pricing in order to equally apply the disincentive. No, it's not reasonable. The goal is not to discourage use, but to price in the negative externality. > For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater incentive among the poor to reduce their trash production, And that's good, even if we suppose your argument is right. Bear with me: what's the percentage of the population in your country that you would call "rich"? Let's say 20%. Do you think that 20% of the population can create more bags of trash than 80% of the population? I don't think so. In the parking example, do you think 20% of the population can park more cars than 80% of the population? I don't think so either. Someone rich may have more than one car, but I strongly doubt they are able to drive 2 cars at once.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure 5% of the population can create more of whatever negative externality you'd like to tax than the lower 95%. Someone rich might not drive a car at all and instead take a private jet. An average person from the US produces fifty times as much CO2 as an average person from Kenya.
      - devereaux 8y ago
        If we were talking about CO2, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about parking spaces, and production of trash within a country.
- skh 8y ago
  There are lots of people who don’t think a flat tax on income is the fairest tax. Presumably a person whose income is very large has a lot more to lose if society collapses so they should pay more to maintain society. I tend to believe progressive taxation on income/wealth is the most fair. But I’m someone who believes that there should be a ceiling and a floor on how much a person can have. The distribution of resources and wealth in the world is grossly unfair in my opinion.
- sametmax 8y ago
  I don't agree with the fact we should tax more expensive cars for parking. But I don't think your reasoning hold either. If you have more money, it's easier to take less parking space, and produce less trash. I can certainly attest that it's easier for me now: I can afford a private parking lot and taxis, I can buy food in expensive organic shops that have less packaging, I can pay people to do things for me, that would result in more work, but less waste. Basically, when you have money, you can optimize for way more things than when you are constrained financially.
- barrkel 8y ago
  Flat taxes are not the fairest taxes for a very simple reason: the decreasing marginal utility of money. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingutility.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingutility... If you're poor, a tax - no matter how small - affects things like food expenditure. If you're income rich, the difference tax makes affects things like what kind of car you buy or what quality of hotel you stay at when you're on vacation. These are not like for like tradeoffs, they're qualitatively different.
  - devereaux 8y ago
    Decreasing marginal utility of money is just a theory, and there are many flaws in the theory - including measuring happiness with a discrete scale of questionable boundaries (5=very happy, etc.), considering self administered questions at face value, etc. Another theory is hedonic adaptation- you adapt to whatever and regress to a baseline. Finally, there seems to be proof that some people do not spent their money on what will make them happier, the typical example being buying an object instead of an experience.
    - barrkel 8y ago
      If you are seriously suggesting that a penny is worth the same to a wealthy man as a child, we cannot have a serious conversation.
chatmasta 8y ago
Presumably the owner of the Mercedes is already taxed more than owner of the Jetta, when paying to register the vehicle, and also likely on the original income. Should the owner also be charged for its use? Should toll booths be more expensive too?
ajkjk 8y ago
The point of the article is that that would be ridiculous, right? I think most people people anywhere on the political spectrum would agree; that's why it was used as an example.
- Ericson2314 8y ago
  No, not all people would agree. It's coherent to think that a) government punishment should be the same for each recipient, b) we measure punishment (and thus it's "sameness") in terms of pain, and c) financial penalties need to be indexed against wealth/income to inflict the same amount of pain. Sweden (I believe it is) in fact does this. ------ Regardless, yes as the OP says if you think it's fair to charge a flat fine, then surely it's fair to charge a flat fee. The point is relative and thus holds whether you define fine equitability in terms of amount paid or difficulty in making the payment.
mikeash 8y ago
I don’t understand why this example is there at all. This is just a product being sold for a price. Is it unfair that a banana costs the same for Jeff Bezos as it does for the homeless guy he walked past on his way to the store? I mean, you certainly could argue that this is unfair, but at that point you’re basically arguing for a different concept of money and commerce, which is a rather bigger subject than the unfairness of tolls.
- kd0amg 8y ago
  The "product for a price" idea is a little weird when talking about some service typically provided by a government who deliberately prices it below market equilibrium. If we're going to effectively subsidize this, it's fair to open debate on how that subsidy should be apportioned.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    Depends on the city. There's a lot of paid private parking out there. I agree with you that the price of government-owned parking is generally too low, and that it should be increased to a level to which available spaces nearby are reliably guaranteed.
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  In the past we solved the problem on the supply side by reducing the difference between Bezos and Homeless Guy. However ideas like that have been made unpalatable to the people who most benefit from them - in a quite frankly brilliant campaign of social engineering - so we're left discussing unworkable "solutions" like this.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    The real difference between Very Rich Guy and Homeless Guy is plausibly lower today than during any other previous era of history, including the mid-20th century. When he isn't working at Amazon or playing with his rockets, Jeff Bezos is, by and large, buying the very same kind of goods and services you or I buy-- his consumption may be larger than mine by some factor, say 3x or whatever, he might pick slightly higher quality stuff, but that's about it. This was very much not the case historically.
howard941 8y ago
Near a federal building in Tampa I usually see the Mercedes SUV with a handicapped tag parking at the meter for free and the used Jetta in a $10/day parking lot.

by rocgf 8y ago

devereaux 8y ago

It sounds obscene to me too. A car uses a parking spot. The spot is no longer available for someone else- regardless of your income. Incomes is orthogonal to the problem. Flat taxes are the fairest taxes. Take trash taxes for example: you produce 100 lbs of trash, you pay for 100 lbs of trash because disposing of 100 lbs of trash in a landfill or a recycling facility won't be affected by the income of the person having produced said trash. Want to pay less taxes? Produce less trash.

kasey_junk 8y ago
Now do water.
praptak 8y ago
The point of the article is that the same arguments work in favour of congestion pricing.
voisin 8y ago
The argument isn’t about whether the quantum of taxes is appropriate. It is how a fixed quantum turns a disincentive for some into an irrelevancy to others. If the purpose of the cost is to discourage use (peak period congestion charges), then it should vary with income so as to be a equally discouraging to all to whom it applies. For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater incentive among the poor to reduce their trash production, whereas the rich aren’t affected and can produce far more before they feel the incentive to reduce waste. I think the parking spot item is more like a meal at a fine restaurant - there is no incentive or disincentive from a social standpoint that should justify variable pricing on income. But to the extend there is, say via congestion, pollution, etc, it is reasonable to vary pricing in order to equally apply the disincentive.
- ramblerouser 8y ago
  A poor person's car takes up the same number of parking spaces as a rich person's car, and a rich person has already paid a huge amount of their income to the poor person in the form of income taxes and welfare.
  - pas 8y ago
    poor might mean lower middle-class. no welfare income.
- devereaux 8y ago
  > it is reasonable to vary pricing in order to equally apply the disincentive. No, it's not reasonable. The goal is not to discourage use, but to price in the negative externality. > For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater incentive among the poor to reduce their trash production, And that's good, even if we suppose your argument is right. Bear with me: what's the percentage of the population in your country that you would call "rich"? Let's say 20%. Do you think that 20% of the population can create more bags of trash than 80% of the population? I don't think so. In the parking example, do you think 20% of the population can park more cars than 80% of the population? I don't think so either. Someone rich may have more than one car, but I strongly doubt they are able to drive 2 cars at once.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure 5% of the population can create more of whatever negative externality you'd like to tax than the lower 95%. Someone rich might not drive a car at all and instead take a private jet. An average person from the US produces fifty times as much CO2 as an average person from Kenya.
    - devereaux 8y ago
      If we were talking about CO2, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about parking spaces, and production of trash within a country.
skh 8y ago
There are lots of people who don’t think a flat tax on income is the fairest tax. Presumably a person whose income is very large has a lot more to lose if society collapses so they should pay more to maintain society. I tend to believe progressive taxation on income/wealth is the most fair. But I’m someone who believes that there should be a ceiling and a floor on how much a person can have. The distribution of resources and wealth in the world is grossly unfair in my opinion.
sametmax 8y ago
I don't agree with the fact we should tax more expensive cars for parking. But I don't think your reasoning hold either. If you have more money, it's easier to take less parking space, and produce less trash. I can certainly attest that it's easier for me now: I can afford a private parking lot and taxis, I can buy food in expensive organic shops that have less packaging, I can pay people to do things for me, that would result in more work, but less waste. Basically, when you have money, you can optimize for way more things than when you are constrained financially.
barrkel 8y ago
Flat taxes are not the fairest taxes for a very simple reason: the decreasing marginal utility of money. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingutility.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofdiminishingutility... If you're poor, a tax - no matter how small - affects things like food expenditure. If you're income rich, the difference tax makes affects things like what kind of car you buy or what quality of hotel you stay at when you're on vacation. These are not like for like tradeoffs, they're qualitatively different.
- devereaux 8y ago
  Decreasing marginal utility of money is just a theory, and there are many flaws in the theory - including measuring happiness with a discrete scale of questionable boundaries (5=very happy, etc.), considering self administered questions at face value, etc. Another theory is hedonic adaptation- you adapt to whatever and regress to a baseline. Finally, there seems to be proof that some people do not spent their money on what will make them happier, the typical example being buying an object instead of an experience.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    If you are seriously suggesting that a penny is worth the same to a wealthy man as a child, we cannot have a serious conversation.

chatmasta 8y ago

Presumably the owner of the Mercedes is already taxed more than owner of the Jetta, when paying to register the vehicle, and also likely on the original income. Should the owner also be charged for its use? Should toll booths be more expensive too?

ajkjk 8y ago

The point of the article is that that would be ridiculous, right? I think most people people anywhere on the political spectrum would agree; that's why it was used as an example.

Ericson2314 8y ago
No, not all people would agree. It's coherent to think that a) government punishment should be the same for each recipient, b) we measure punishment (and thus it's "sameness") in terms of pain, and c) financial penalties need to be indexed against wealth/income to inflict the same amount of pain. Sweden (I believe it is) in fact does this. ------ Regardless, yes as the OP says if you think it's fair to charge a flat fine, then surely it's fair to charge a flat fee. The point is relative and thus holds whether you define fine equitability in terms of amount paid or difficulty in making the payment.

mikeash 8y ago

I don’t understand why this example is there at all. This is just a product being sold for a price. Is it unfair that a banana costs the same for Jeff Bezos as it does for the homeless guy he walked past on his way to the store? I mean, you certainly could argue that this is unfair, but at that point you’re basically arguing for a different concept of money and commerce, which is a rather bigger subject than the unfairness of tolls.

kd0amg 8y ago
The "product for a price" idea is a little weird when talking about some service typically provided by a government who deliberately prices it below market equilibrium. If we're going to effectively subsidize this, it's fair to open debate on how that subsidy should be apportioned.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  Depends on the city. There's a lot of paid private parking out there. I agree with you that the price of government-owned parking is generally too low, and that it should be increased to a level to which available spaces nearby are reliably guaranteed.
radicalbyte 8y ago
In the past we solved the problem on the supply side by reducing the difference between Bezos and Homeless Guy. However ideas like that have been made unpalatable to the people who most benefit from them - in a quite frankly brilliant campaign of social engineering - so we're left discussing unworkable "solutions" like this.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  The real difference between Very Rich Guy and Homeless Guy is plausibly lower today than during any other previous era of history, including the mid-20th century. When he isn't working at Amazon or playing with his rockets, Jeff Bezos is, by and large, buying the very same kind of goods and services you or I buy-- his consumption may be larger than mine by some factor, say 3x or whatever, he might pick slightly higher quality stuff, but that's about it. This was very much not the case historically.

howard941 8y ago

Near a federal building in Tampa I usually see the Mercedes SUV with a handicapped tag parking at the meter for free and the used Jetta in a $10/day parking lot.