5 ms·

> It should simply be expected a public transit should be paid from state in one form or another. Unfortunately, that often means it becomes a subsidy for the

> It should simply be expected a public transit should be paid from state in one form or another. Unfortunately, that often means it becomes a subsidy for the already wealthy. Not only are mass-transit systems more likely to be built in already wealthy areas, commercial and residential, (at least before other areas) it also increases land value. This leads to the true problem of non-state supplied transit, if a transit system truly has to bear its own cost then people - even wealthy ones - are far less likely to use it and will move to cheaper forms of transport like car, or you end up with a transit system for those who can afford it. Then you'll have the circular argument begin again about the need for affordable mass-transit, and so the only way to get it built is to get the state to pay for it and we end up with a better system overall but also an inequity in the system. You could say it was verging on corruption. This is why I would advocate a land value tax, as it attacks both parts of the problem, not just one favoured by statists. As someone of a more libertarian bent (and an admirer of Georgism), I do rankle somewhat at the implication exposed via the non-payment of tax, that the state in truth owns your land because they can kick you off, but everything has a trade off. Edit: typo

CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
>Unfortunately, that often means it becomes a subsidy for the already wealthy. Not only are mass-transit systems more likely to be built in already wealthy areas, commercial and residential, (at least before other areas) it also increases land value. Not necessary. I know of several examples where wealthy areas actively blocked mass transit because they only see it as a way to introduce poor people into their neighborhood. >This leads to the true problem of non-state supplied transit, if a transit system truly has to bear its own cost then people - even wealthy ones - are far less likely to use it and will move to cheaper forms of transport like car, or you end up with a transit system for those who can afford it If every transit system has to pay for all externalities then cars will not end up being cheaper than mass transit. Subsidy of mass transit is a way to correct for that. >As someone of a more libertarian bent (and an admirer of Georgism), I do rankle somewhat at the implication exposed via the non-payment of tax, that the state in truth owns your land because they can kick you off I really don't see the link between the state being able kick you off and paying taxes, nor do I see the relevance. The state being able to kick you of your land is a necessity for an effective government. How else would they be able to get anything build?
- brigandish 6y ago
  > Not necessary. I know of several examples where wealthy areas actively blocked mass transit because they only see it as a way to introduce poor people into their neighborhood. I don't disagree, which is why I wrote "often" and not "always". > If every transit system has to pay for all externalities then cars will not end up being cheaper than mass transit. It would be interesting to know where all these externalities are currently paid for, who pays them, and how they got them to be paid, because as far as I know there is nowhere this is case and that means we're comparing an ideal - a possibly unobtainable ideal - against other things like land value tax that have been implemented. > Subsidy of mass transit is a way to correct for that. Or - and it would seem more consistent with the argument you just gave - not subsidising the other transit systems such as cars. > I really don't see the link between the state being able kick you off and paying taxes Because under other systems of tax the government does not have nearly as direct a say in whether you get to stay on your land. LVT makes them a kind of landlord. > How else would they be able to get anything build? They could purchase the land off you like anyone else, and you could refuse them as you might to anyone else. Why are you making government a special case when buying land?
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    In the US, one common type of externality that cars impose on society is mandatory parking space. Restaurants, shops, apartment buildings, etc. are often required to provide parking space. If you're in the US, just look around and notice how much area within cities is devoted to parking. What's the value of all that real estate?
  - CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
    > Or - and it would seem more consistent with the argument you just gave - not subsidising the other transit systems such as cars. That is also possible, but probably impossible to get through in any country. Subsidy of other transit systems is a lot easier. > They could purchase the land off you like anyone else, and you could refuse them as you might to anyone else. Why are you making government a special case when buying land? Because the government is not just a person but represents everyone. You could never build a railway, airport, subway, etc. if all it takes is one person refusing to budge.

CorrectHorseBat 6y ago

>Unfortunately, that often means it becomes a subsidy for the already wealthy. Not only are mass-transit systems more likely to be built in already wealthy areas, commercial and residential, (at least before other areas) it also increases land value. Not necessary. I know of several examples where wealthy areas actively blocked mass transit because they only see it as a way to introduce poor people into their neighborhood. >This leads to the true problem of non-state supplied transit, if a transit system truly has to bear its own cost then people - even wealthy ones - are far less likely to use it and will move to cheaper forms of transport like car, or you end up with a transit system for those who can afford it If every transit system has to pay for all externalities then cars will not end up being cheaper than mass transit. Subsidy of mass transit is a way to correct for that. >As someone of a more libertarian bent (and an admirer of Georgism), I do rankle somewhat at the implication exposed via the non-payment of tax, that the state in truth owns your land because they can kick you off I really don't see the link between the state being able kick you off and paying taxes, nor do I see the relevance. The state being able to kick you of your land is a necessity for an effective government. How else would they be able to get anything build?

brigandish 6y ago
> Not necessary. I know of several examples where wealthy areas actively blocked mass transit because they only see it as a way to introduce poor people into their neighborhood. I don't disagree, which is why I wrote "often" and not "always". > If every transit system has to pay for all externalities then cars will not end up being cheaper than mass transit. It would be interesting to know where all these externalities are currently paid for, who pays them, and how they got them to be paid, because as far as I know there is nowhere this is case and that means we're comparing an ideal - a possibly unobtainable ideal - against other things like land value tax that have been implemented. > Subsidy of mass transit is a way to correct for that. Or - and it would seem more consistent with the argument you just gave - not subsidising the other transit systems such as cars. > I really don't see the link between the state being able kick you off and paying taxes Because under other systems of tax the government does not have nearly as direct a say in whether you get to stay on your land. LVT makes them a kind of landlord. > How else would they be able to get anything build? They could purchase the land off you like anyone else, and you could refuse them as you might to anyone else. Why are you making government a special case when buying land?
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  In the US, one common type of externality that cars impose on society is mandatory parking space. Restaurants, shops, apartment buildings, etc. are often required to provide parking space. If you're in the US, just look around and notice how much area within cities is devoted to parking. What's the value of all that real estate?
- CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
  > Or - and it would seem more consistent with the argument you just gave - not subsidising the other transit systems such as cars. That is also possible, but probably impossible to get through in any country. Subsidy of other transit systems is a lot easier. > They could purchase the land off you like anyone else, and you could refuse them as you might to anyone else. Why are you making government a special case when buying land? Because the government is not just a person but represents everyone. You could never build a railway, airport, subway, etc. if all it takes is one person refusing to budge.