4 ms·
The carve-outs are precisely the problem with the congestion pricing. If everyone in mid-town just had to pay a flat fee, fine, that seems somewhat fair. But no
by mruts 8y ago
The carve-outs are precisely the problem with the congestion pricing. If everyone in mid-town just had to pay a flat fee, fine, that seems somewhat fair. But now every interest group is rent-seeking and going to lobby to be exempt. That's the unfair and corrupt part, not the fee.
NYC having congestion pricing isn't the most unreasonable thing in the world. Some might say it's long overdue. But the legislature doesn't have the political will or want to actually implement a fair, flat fee. Instead, the people who don't fit into a easily defined interest group will have to pay, and everyone else will get to drive for free.
If I have to pay to drive, then everyone else should to, regardless if they are poor, disabled, rich, taxis, ubers, or whatever.
- azernik 8y ago"Rent-seeking" is not a very descriptive label. This (like most other flat consumption taxes) is a regressive tax. It is a stated policy goal of the ruling party to reduce income inequality, not increase it. The disabled are a group with very inflexible transportation demand, in that they are very unlikely to change their behavior in response to higher prices (because they can't); we already make a whole ton of legal accommodations for them like handicapped parking, and this fits into that overall policy.
- mruts 8y agoIt's not like having carve outs makes it any less regressive. It just allows the government to paper over a very complex problem with a naive and simple "solution". Unfortunately, this sort of thinking has been the dominant mode in politics and legislation since, I dunno, the Roman empire? Riddle your laws and regulations and tax-codes with exemptions and deductions and carve-outs so you can please the people who put you in power and who will keep your in power. And since almost everyone is part of some random interest group (and many, part of a lot interests groups like married home-owning couples with kids), it usually works.
- azernik 8y agoIf "poor people" is your interest group, then by definition it makes the tax less regressive!
- fzeroracer 8y agoCan you explain how a flat fee is fair to someone making minimum wage versus someone making 90k+ per year? A flat fee would be a larger portion of their income which would be decidedly unfair. There's also that not all vehicles are going to tear up roads in the same way. Why would it be fair for trucks and what not to pay the same flat fee despite causing far more wear and tear on the roads? Your argument would result in the poor and disabled being priced out of driving on the road.
- mruts 8y agoTo be clear, I don't think there should be a congestion tax in the first place. But flat prices are how everything else works in a free market, so it seems fairer than carve-outs or god-forbid, a progressive congestion tax. Which sounds fairer to you: a movie theater that charges $5 for a ticket, or one that charges a percentage of your income?
- fzeroracer 8y agoRoads are not a free market and attempting to apply free market logic to roads is a flawed argument. People can choose whether or not to purchase a ticket. Many people cannot choose whether or not to drive. Which is why again, a flat tax would not be fair. How would it be fair to expect someone on minimum wage or disability to pay the same amount to access a required service as someone far better off?
- SilasX 8y ago"Ugh, man, my trip length has ballooned three times because of all these drivers that want to use the same road. Wait -- ohhhh, they're all minimum wage workers! I guess my trip isn't actually delayed like it would be if they made $90k!" Congestion dynamics don't care about your income. Same imposition on society, same scarce good consumed, same price to get the incentives right.