5 ms·

If you pay for maintenance from the general budget, you are allowing shipping companies (for example) to externalize cost that they incur on society. This is g

If you pay for maintenance from the general budget, you are allowing shipping companies (for example) to externalize cost that they incur on society. This is generally a bad thing, but very concretely it led to road traffic growing much faster than rail traffic (or canal ship traffic) even in countries with a very dense rail network.

hnick 6y ago
Trade and economy are vital for a modern society though. If costs were instead born by the shipping companies they'd be put into the price of goods sold. I can't help but see this as a regressive use tax in many ways, since it'll likely apply to lower value items at a higher proportion which is what poorer people would be buying. The end user pays in either case, but doing it through taxation policy allows for a measured approach.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  It’s a little bit regressive as you mention, but forcing the users to pay also encourages businesses to find ways to economize and thus minimize the impact of the tax on their customers. It’s also less regressive to pass along a small amount of tax in the cost of items (the portion of the cost of most things we buy made up by transportation costs is very small, and the tax is a small portion of that), than it is to burden car-less poor people with the cost of building roads that they don’t drive on.
  - hnick 6y ago
    That actually sounds sensible so maybe you're right. Here in Sydney we just opened a tolled tunnel, and to ease congestion up above on the older commuter road all trucks must use this tunnel. I don't know all the factors but it sounds like the best option for the people, they have a choice and trucks pay their way.
URSpider94 6y ago
This, and it also subsidizes people’s decisions to live far away from where they work and commute by car every day. There was a time when I think that would have been seen as a public good, and thus people were ok with that. Now is not that time. Comparing this with free public education, by not charging user fees to attend school, we are subsidizing (a) having children, and (b) educating them at the expense of the childless and I guess people who don’t want to educate their kids. We subsidize those because we believe they are truly public goods that are better for everyone in the long run. Encouraging people to drive more and ship more things by truck is not necessarily better for everyone.
- peterwoerner 6y ago
  Most public schools I have been a part of charge "optional" fees. There seems to be constant fund-raising for both extracurricular activities and general school funds as well as requests from students for classroom supplies. The bulk of the funding comes from the school taxes.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    Definitely, the first thing we heard when our kid started in pubic school was “public school is not free,” meaning that the parent committee expects lots of donations to offer enrichment. That said, you should listen to the podcast “Nice White Parents.” It points out that this model of underfunding the schools and making up for it with donations is essentially letting wealthy families buy their way out of the problem while leaving disadvantaged students behind.
- vl 6y ago
  Public education is not “free”, we pay for it with out taxes. And right now we are paying, and our children are not getting an education...
- FpUser 6y ago
  >"This, and it also subsidizes people’s decisions to live far away from where they work and commute by car every day." Hence greatly increasing chances of finding better or any employment and at least partially reducing pressure employers can come up with. ... You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store ...
Aerroon 6y ago
In a sense, every company externalizes some costs to society. At the same time, society tends to benefit from their existence more than just the service they provide. It would be very difficult to try to balance out those numbers.
refurb 6y ago
Externalizing the cost of using a national transportation network. I don’t think there is any citizen who doesn’t benefit from a national transportation network. How else do they get the food they buy, clothes they wear, etc?

hnick 6y ago

Trade and economy are vital for a modern society though. If costs were instead born by the shipping companies they'd be put into the price of goods sold. I can't help but see this as a regressive use tax in many ways, since it'll likely apply to lower value items at a higher proportion which is what poorer people would be buying. The end user pays in either case, but doing it through taxation policy allows for a measured approach.

URSpider94 6y ago
It’s a little bit regressive as you mention, but forcing the users to pay also encourages businesses to find ways to economize and thus minimize the impact of the tax on their customers. It’s also less regressive to pass along a small amount of tax in the cost of items (the portion of the cost of most things we buy made up by transportation costs is very small, and the tax is a small portion of that), than it is to burden car-less poor people with the cost of building roads that they don’t drive on.
- hnick 6y ago
  That actually sounds sensible so maybe you're right. Here in Sydney we just opened a tolled tunnel, and to ease congestion up above on the older commuter road all trucks must use this tunnel. I don't know all the factors but it sounds like the best option for the people, they have a choice and trucks pay their way.

URSpider94 6y ago

This, and it also subsidizes people’s decisions to live far away from where they work and commute by car every day. There was a time when I think that would have been seen as a public good, and thus people were ok with that. Now is not that time. Comparing this with free public education, by not charging user fees to attend school, we are subsidizing (a) having children, and (b) educating them at the expense of the childless and I guess people who don’t want to educate their kids. We subsidize those because we believe they are truly public goods that are better for everyone in the long run. Encouraging people to drive more and ship more things by truck is not necessarily better for everyone.

peterwoerner 6y ago
Most public schools I have been a part of charge "optional" fees. There seems to be constant fund-raising for both extracurricular activities and general school funds as well as requests from students for classroom supplies. The bulk of the funding comes from the school taxes.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  Definitely, the first thing we heard when our kid started in pubic school was “public school is not free,” meaning that the parent committee expects lots of donations to offer enrichment. That said, you should listen to the podcast “Nice White Parents.” It points out that this model of underfunding the schools and making up for it with donations is essentially letting wealthy families buy their way out of the problem while leaving disadvantaged students behind.
vl 6y ago
Public education is not “free”, we pay for it with out taxes. And right now we are paying, and our children are not getting an education...
FpUser 6y ago
>"This, and it also subsidizes people’s decisions to live far away from where they work and commute by car every day." Hence greatly increasing chances of finding better or any employment and at least partially reducing pressure employers can come up with. ... You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store ...

Aerroon 6y ago

In a sense, every company externalizes some costs to society. At the same time, society tends to benefit from their existence more than just the service they provide. It would be very difficult to try to balance out those numbers.

refurb 6y ago

Externalizing the cost of using a national transportation network. I don’t think there is any citizen who doesn’t benefit from a national transportation network. How else do they get the food they buy, clothes they wear, etc?