4 ms·

This is, logistically, a superior solution. The trouble is collecting taxes: we're pretty bad at it. Even in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, transit is perenn

by rexpop 8y ago

This is, logistically, a superior solution. The trouble is collecting taxes: we're pretty bad at it. Even in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, transit is perennially under-funded by wealthy tech firms' taxes and over-utilized by their employees.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
"This is the superior solution but we haven't done it yet" seems like a pretty good argument for doing it. It's not as if the problem is that the government doesn't actually know how to collect taxes. What you're really identifying is a different problem -- the government keeps not funding transit. But that's a completely independent problem. Look at what they do with fuel tax revenues. They're generally supposed to go to transportation but half the states spend the money trying to fill the hole in their unfunded pensions and then complain that they have no money for transportation. The real question is, would people accept a small increase in sales or income tax in exchange for an elimination of transit fares? To which the answer is probably yes. Because even if you can't use mass transit for whatever reason, everybody loves getting other drivers off the road, which is exactly what making mass transit free would do. If the legislature subsequently diverts the new money that was supposed to go to transit, that problem is independent and preexisting. And once mass transit is free, more people would use it, creating a larger lobby for making it better.
- rexpop 8y ago
  Penny pinching on a government level seems to be symptomatic of local wealth not paying its fair share. No one ever got wealthy collecting a government pension. Where is the money going? It's going into offshore accounts, and corporate tax shelters.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    That doesn't mesh with taxes being approximately the same percentage of GDP as they've been since 1950, and spending being even higher than that, meanwhile GDP per capita has been growing the whole time. The only remaining conclusion is that we're spending it wrong.
    - rexpop 8y ago
      > taxes being approximately the same percentage of GDP This would astound me. I wonder how you square this belief with, e.g. reports like these: https://itep.org/notadime/ https://itep.org/notadime/
      - rexpop 8y ago
        Or these: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-cut-business-taxes-more-than-you-think-124252603.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-cut-business-taxes-more...
- nofunsir 8y ago
  I will not pay for your transportation. Believe it or not, it is ludicrous to many to imagine such a tax.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Are you fine with taxes paying for roads just not trains and buses, or do you not even want roads? The first is inconsistent and the second is a very small minority position. Because this kind of infrastructure is heavy on fixed costs. It takes money to build or operate it, but once you do, the cost of the incremental car or the incremental passenger is so close to zero that collecting a fare equal to the actual marginal cost would cost more to collect than the amount of the fare. But charging more than that would unduly discourage productive use of the infrastructure that is already being paid for. Which means the most efficient pricing strategy is flat rate. And since ~0% of the population consists of hermits who never use any form of transportation, that makes it one of the most appropriate things to fund with taxes.
  - rexpop 8y ago
    You should pay for _your_ society. Public education improves your standard of living: do you want illiterate neighbors? Public transit similarly improves the quality of your neighbors, enabling them to take better jobs, live in less expensive housing, contribute less to traffic, pollution, auto deaths. They have more free time to read books (can't do that while driving!) and work on hobbies, or side-businesses. Public transit raises all boats. So, really, you're buying something _for yourself_ that's not available at any store: happier, healthier, and more competent friends, family, neighbors, teachers, clerks, politicians, mechanics, etc.

by rexpop 8y ago

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

"This is the superior solution but we haven't done it yet" seems like a pretty good argument for doing it. It's not as if the problem is that the government doesn't actually know how to collect taxes. What you're really identifying is a different problem -- the government keeps not funding transit. But that's a completely independent problem. Look at what they do with fuel tax revenues. They're generally supposed to go to transportation but half the states spend the money trying to fill the hole in their unfunded pensions and then complain that they have no money for transportation. The real question is, would people accept a small increase in sales or income tax in exchange for an elimination of transit fares? To which the answer is probably yes. Because even if you can't use mass transit for whatever reason, everybody loves getting other drivers off the road, which is exactly what making mass transit free would do. If the legislature subsequently diverts the new money that was supposed to go to transit, that problem is independent and preexisting. And once mass transit is free, more people would use it, creating a larger lobby for making it better.

rexpop 8y ago
Penny pinching on a government level seems to be symptomatic of local wealth not paying its fair share. No one ever got wealthy collecting a government pension. Where is the money going? It's going into offshore accounts, and corporate tax shelters.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  That doesn't mesh with taxes being approximately the same percentage of GDP as they've been since 1950, and spending being even higher than that, meanwhile GDP per capita has been growing the whole time. The only remaining conclusion is that we're spending it wrong.
  - rexpop 8y ago
    > taxes being approximately the same percentage of GDP This would astound me. I wonder how you square this belief with, e.g. reports like these: https://itep.org/notadime/ https://itep.org/notadime/
    - rexpop 8y ago
      Or these: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-cut-business-taxes-more-than-you-think-124252603.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-cut-business-taxes-more...
nofunsir 8y ago
I will not pay for your transportation. Believe it or not, it is ludicrous to many to imagine such a tax.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Are you fine with taxes paying for roads just not trains and buses, or do you not even want roads? The first is inconsistent and the second is a very small minority position. Because this kind of infrastructure is heavy on fixed costs. It takes money to build or operate it, but once you do, the cost of the incremental car or the incremental passenger is so close to zero that collecting a fare equal to the actual marginal cost would cost more to collect than the amount of the fare. But charging more than that would unduly discourage productive use of the infrastructure that is already being paid for. Which means the most efficient pricing strategy is flat rate. And since ~0% of the population consists of hermits who never use any form of transportation, that makes it one of the most appropriate things to fund with taxes.
- rexpop 8y ago
  You should pay for _your_ society. Public education improves your standard of living: do you want illiterate neighbors? Public transit similarly improves the quality of your neighbors, enabling them to take better jobs, live in less expensive housing, contribute less to traffic, pollution, auto deaths. They have more free time to read books (can't do that while driving!) and work on hobbies, or side-businesses. Public transit raises all boats. So, really, you're buying something _for yourself_ that's not available at any store: happier, healthier, and more competent friends, family, neighbors, teachers, clerks, politicians, mechanics, etc.