2 ms·
> They aren't subsidizing trucking, but saying they are instead of 'our roads get worn faster' makes it easier to lobby for changes or money to improve the road
by danans 7y ago
> They aren't subsidizing trucking, but saying they are instead of 'our roads get worn faster' makes it easier to lobby for changes or money to improve the road.
That money they are lobbying for comes from their taxes, especially if it's local roads, so yes, if the trucking company isn't paying for the damage, the taxpayer is indirectly subsidizing them.
- vonmoltke 7y agoBy that logic, everything tax revenue is spent on is a subsidy for someone. It makes the definition so broad as to be useless.
- danans 7y agoNot all unaccounted externalities (if you prefer that term) are of the same magnitude, though. It's the magnitude relative to others that matters. If say 10% of a city's budget goes to fixing truck damage to roads without at least commensurate benefit, then it's a more important issue than whether .05% went to cleaning up cotton candy after the town fair. It also doesn't even have to be about tax expenditure. The healthcare cost of using fossil fuels is realized in private spending on treatment for pollution triggered respiratory illnesses, and the economic cost of climate change effect mitigation, which is already being accounted for in business planning.
- tapland 7y agoYes. But there is a reason we don't call that a subsidy. That's the entire point of the comment thread.