“Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation,” the supervisor contended, meaning they hit low-income people as hard as wealthier residents. “This is a

“Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation,” the supervisor contended, meaning they hit low-income people as hard as wealthier residents. “This is a railroad that, while it is an extremely valuable public transportation resource, serves a very affluent clientele.” In an interview later, Peskin pitched an alternate idea: Why not impose a regional tax on “the wealthiest people in society who are more likely to use the railroad?” To claim that a rail service in car-first United States only serves "the wealthy" is a bald-faced lie. The idea that it is only the "wealthy" who use CalTrain runs totally contrary to my experience on the train system - what I've noticed is that the "wealthy" pay their fare (overpriced - $20 just to go from SF to Palo Alto and back!), while the "less affluent" clientele often hop on and off without payment. I do see people of all incomes use the train, especially when I sit in the bike section - less affluent people need the CalTrain especially because it enables them to bring their bicycle with them (not reliably so with buses that only have space for two bicycles), and a bike is a must for anyone not fortunate enough to have a car in the southern part of the Peninsula. So I think this next bit is on point: Such arguments rankled Adina Levin, executive director of the grassroots advocacy group Friends of Caltrain. “This is a circular argument,” Levin said. “Caltrain does not have stable funding, and so it’s raised fares. And that means the riders are higher income.” She pointed out that a share of the projected $100 million-a-year revenue from the sales tax was supposed to fund discounts for low-income riders.