4 ms·

>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 area

>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.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > Because the government is not just a person but represents everyone. Forgive me for giving a slight chuckle that, as a cynic and (somewhat) libertarian, and simply as someone who's been around a while. More seriously, government has been shown repeatedly not to represent everyone, and certainly not everyone equally. Is evidence required for a statement like that? No, we don't need it because you have already provided it: > That is also possible, but probably impossible to get through in any country. Subsidy of other transit systems is a lot easier. It's a lot easier because of the nature of government. I assume you're in tech - is the better system the one where you do less or the one where allocate resources because one system got too many so you add more to another to balance them out? There are companies doing that, I'd call them dysfunctional. It's also a sign they're wasteful and have too much money. Again, I'm not going to be convinced of the "government is good" argument if that's the pill I need to swallow. > You could never build a railway, airport, subway, etc. if all it takes is one person refusing to budge. This is not true. Even if we take NIMBYism as a perjorative, there's plenty of it about and yet things still get built. There are even NIMBYs in China[0][1]. Are you really going to claim that things don't get built quickly there? When you talk about getting things done via government and steamrollering over the property rights of people, I tend to think of China's government but I could take where I'm from as an example. In the UK, the government wants to build a new high speed rail network[2] - no one, aside from them and the people who will make money from it, seems to want it. Still they press ahead, destroying ancient woodland[3], graves[4], and people[5] as they go. > All is being cast aside to make way for HS2’s new railway terminal at Euston to be designed by Fitzrovia firm Arup who along with other mega corporations will do very nicely from the multi-million pound contracts. But hey, who cares about property rights and the environment, right? Who cares that this mass-transit system is being used to prop up property prices in London (along with other subsidies[6]) and will displace lower paid workers even further from their place of work? I have an alternative idea: - no housing benefit - no high speed rail because then low paid workers can't afford London. Bad for them right? No, bad for them and the businesses that require them. They'll either have to pay more - which is good for the workers - or move to cheaper areas, thus creating better paid jobs or jobs where they're needed more - again, good for the workers. And, since government is "for everyone", all of us could enjoy a tax cut, more income equality, and better land use (i.e. lower density housing, less crime, easier commute, closer to countryside…) [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-houses/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-h... "China's 'nail houses': The homeowners who refused to budge" [1] https://chinadialogue.net/en/pollution/6051-china-s-nimby-protests-sign-of-unequal-society/ https://chinadialogue.net/en/pollution/6051-china-s-nimby-pr... "China’s ‘nimby’ protests sign of unequal society" [2] https://apnews.com/5712b97df48434446dbf0fc3048a3f5c https://apnews.com/5712b97df48434446dbf0fc3048a3f5c "UK’s Johnson backs high speed railway despite opposition" [3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10654758/HS2-50-ancient-woods-under-threat.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transp... "HS2: 50 ancient woods 'under threat'" [4] https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/50000-dead-londoners-moved-new-18953741 https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/50000-dead-london... "50,000 dead Londoners to be moved to a new graveyard in Surrey because of HS2" [5] https://fitzrovianews.com/2019/05/07/demolition-theatre-how-hs2-is-displacing-the-living-and-disturbing-the-dead/ https://fitzrovianews.com/2019/05/07/demolition-theatre-how-... "Demolition theatre: how HS2 is displacing the living and disturbing the dead" [6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06bnbpx https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06bnbpx "What's Housing Benefit For?"

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.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > Because the government is not just a person but represents everyone. Forgive me for giving a slight chuckle that, as a cynic and (somewhat) libertarian, and simply as someone who's been around a while. More seriously, government has been shown repeatedly not to represent everyone, and certainly not everyone equally. Is evidence required for a statement like that? No, we don't need it because you have already provided it: > That is also possible, but probably impossible to get through in any country. Subsidy of other transit systems is a lot easier. It's a lot easier because of the nature of government. I assume you're in tech - is the better system the one where you do less or the one where allocate resources because one system got too many so you add more to another to balance them out? There are companies doing that, I'd call them dysfunctional. It's also a sign they're wasteful and have too much money. Again, I'm not going to be convinced of the "government is good" argument if that's the pill I need to swallow. > You could never build a railway, airport, subway, etc. if all it takes is one person refusing to budge. This is not true. Even if we take NIMBYism as a perjorative, there's plenty of it about and yet things still get built. There are even NIMBYs in China[0][1]. Are you really going to claim that things don't get built quickly there? When you talk about getting things done via government and steamrollering over the property rights of people, I tend to think of China's government but I could take where I'm from as an example. In the UK, the government wants to build a new high speed rail network[2] - no one, aside from them and the people who will make money from it, seems to want it. Still they press ahead, destroying ancient woodland[3], graves[4], and people[5] as they go. > All is being cast aside to make way for HS2’s new railway terminal at Euston to be designed by Fitzrovia firm Arup who along with other mega corporations will do very nicely from the multi-million pound contracts. But hey, who cares about property rights and the environment, right? Who cares that this mass-transit system is being used to prop up property prices in London (along with other subsidies[6]) and will displace lower paid workers even further from their place of work? I have an alternative idea: - no housing benefit - no high speed rail because then low paid workers can't afford London. Bad for them right? No, bad for them and the businesses that require them. They'll either have to pay more - which is good for the workers - or move to cheaper areas, thus creating better paid jobs or jobs where they're needed more - again, good for the workers. And, since government is "for everyone", all of us could enjoy a tax cut, more income equality, and better land use (i.e. lower density housing, less crime, easier commute, closer to countryside…) [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-houses/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-h... "China's 'nail houses': The homeowners who refused to budge" [1] https://chinadialogue.net/en/pollution/6051-china-s-nimby-protests-sign-of-unequal-society/ https://chinadialogue.net/en/pollution/6051-china-s-nimby-pr... "China’s ‘nimby’ protests sign of unequal society" [2] https://apnews.com/5712b97df48434446dbf0fc3048a3f5c https://apnews.com/5712b97df48434446dbf0fc3048a3f5c "UK’s Johnson backs high speed railway despite opposition" [3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10654758/HS2-50-ancient-woods-under-threat.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transp... "HS2: 50 ancient woods 'under threat'" [4] https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/50000-dead-londoners-moved-new-18953741 https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/50000-dead-london... "50,000 dead Londoners to be moved to a new graveyard in Surrey because of HS2" [5] https://fitzrovianews.com/2019/05/07/demolition-theatre-how-hs2-is-displacing-the-living-and-disturbing-the-dead/ https://fitzrovianews.com/2019/05/07/demolition-theatre-how-... "Demolition theatre: how HS2 is displacing the living and disturbing the dead" [6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06bnbpx https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06bnbpx "What's Housing Benefit For?"