4 ms·

Note that most tolls are regressive taxes. Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls. Also transport costs - or, more specif

Note that most tolls are regressive taxes. Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls. Also transport costs - or, more specifically, commute times - interact with house prices. Poor people often have to travel longer and further for work, increasing the tax they have to pay even on an absolute basis.

katbyte 6y ago
Not to mention it can cost quite a bit of money to collect these tolls/taxes!
- jackson1442 6y ago
  In places like Texas it’s mostly a solved problem, everyone either has a toll transponder on their windshield or uses Pay By Mail, which just reads your plates as you drive through the gate. No stopping, no slowing down at all. You can go through these gates at 120mph and it’ll still catch you (and won’t even write you a speeding ticket). Paying cash isn’t even an option anymore.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    It’s solved even better in Canada. All toll plazas are reading license plates, regardless of a transponder. Just send a bill to the owner of the license plate. No need for a transponder.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      That’s... worse. Why should the person who gets the toll bill be locked to the license plate registration?
    - jackson1442 6y ago
      I think most technically do that here, the transponder is more as a backup. With one exception— the DFW airport will only read NTTA tolltags for some reason last I heard. There’s also some interoperability- my Texas TollTag works in Oklahoma and one or two other states so it’s all consolidated with the lower rate. Those with TollTag accounts pay a lower rate on toll roads as it acts more like a gift card than a bill, it just autoreloads each time your balance gets low. Another cool thing is that some parking garages can read your TollTag if you let them to open the gate for you. It doesn’t bill you, it just acts as an access card if you have a standing agreement with the garage owner (you can see this at UT Austin for permit holders).
cwyers 6y ago
There really isn't a way around that. There are vastly more poor people than rich people, and the difference between emissions of cars typically owned by rich people and poor people is marginal if anything. If you want to make an impact on emissions and congestion, you are going to have to change the behavior of large numbers of people. If you want to ameliorate the effects of this on poor people, you can invest the money into decent public transit options.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pharmakom 6y ago
I don’t think we should expect road policy to also solve inequality. Equally, we shouldn’t let an unequal society prevent us from solving congestion. Agreed, the negative effects of air pollution, noise pollution and car dependency are mostly borne by the poor.
- tnzm 6y ago
  We should definitely expect road policy to not introduce extra inequality.
  - pharmakom 6y ago
    This sounds reasonable on the face of it, but actually it’s not. I can’t think of many policies that might not introduce some inequality somewhere in society. That’s an unrealistic standard. Increasingly inequality is of course something we should be mindful of when designing policy though.
    - tnzm 6y ago
      I beg to differ. I see ensuring a level playing field while preventing abuse, as pretty much the only valid reason for any (internal) policy at all. Everything else is just history being written by the winners.
oftenwrong 6y ago
This is not always the case, especially in urban areas, as was shown during the recent debates over congestion pricing in New York. Car commuters into the central business districts are a much smaller, wealthier group. Free roads act more as a subsidy for this group, while the masses, including almost all poor people, cram onto insufficient public transport. A bus carrying 240 people being stuck behind a line of wealthy car commuters alone in their vehicles is not a picture of equity. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/10/24/de-blasios-wrong-poor-new-yorkers-stand-to-gain-a-lot-from-congestion-pricing/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/10/24/de-blasios-wrong-poor...
trashtester 6y ago
Taxes on car use is not at all regressive, but actually very progressive. At least here in Norway. "True" progressives here would prefer to ban cars in the inner cites completely (or at least the non-electric ones), but most of the moderately progressive and liberal are content to put a high tax on roads and petrol (and new cars too). Cars fueled by fossils are seen as symbols of anti-environmentalism, pro americanized consumerism and an unnecessary luxery (for the non-disabled), and particularily so in the cities. Car lovers are almost as bad as Trump supporters, in the eyes of progressives here. Here is one of the most iconic progressives in the country posing with her electic cargo bicycle (with the kid inside), in a news story promoting massive increases in parking taxes in Oslo: https://e24.no/privatoekonomi/i/X8w2zg/mdg-lan-og-oslobyraadet-innfoerer-nytt-kjempehopp-for-p-avgifter https://e24.no/privatoekonomi/i/X8w2zg/mdg-lan-og-oslobyraad... People are expected to take the train/tram/subway/bus when they can, and if necessary, park at the train station after delivering the kids to school/daycare. (If they cannot use an electric bike, as in the story above). In order to ensure there is no regressive aspect, disabled (including many elderly) are subsidised. Also, electric cars are not taxed, and 53% of new cars sold last year were electric. (Teslas are everywhere). So if you want to show everyone you are a good progressive, you should support toll roads, and if you can, take the bus. :)
kortilla 6y ago
Every tax that isn’t based on income is regressive (sales being the major one). > Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls And every other basic good. This doesn’t mean much. > Also transport costs - or, more specifically, commute times - interact with house prices. Yes, but as it stands the cheap road use is subsidizing mega commutes, which is broken. > Poor people often have to travel longer and further for work, increasing the tax they have to pay even on an absolute basis. And they often don’t too. We don’t need to be subsidizing mega commutes as a society. It shouldn’t make sense to travel for 90 minutes each way for a $20/hr job. Making these jobs more expensive for the employer is a good thing. Either they will raise the wage because they lost all employees or they will just hire locals instead which is better for the environment.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
>> Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls. If you want to charge for use of a resource, to discourage over-use, and only to raise enough to fund production of more of that resource, it's entirely irrelevant that it's "regressive" (which is a very loaded term), because it is not the main source of government revenue, and people benefit from the expenditure of the funds raised by the tax directly in proportion to how much they are taxed. If the objective is to use the tax as a proxy to tax general utilization of public infrastructure and services, then yes, it would be inappropriate to choose a tax on an activity that is a poor proxy, e.g. an activity that the poor engage in out of proportion to their general use of public infrastructure and services.

katbyte 6y ago

Not to mention it can cost quite a bit of money to collect these tolls/taxes!

jackson1442 6y ago
In places like Texas it’s mostly a solved problem, everyone either has a toll transponder on their windshield or uses Pay By Mail, which just reads your plates as you drive through the gate. No stopping, no slowing down at all. You can go through these gates at 120mph and it’ll still catch you (and won’t even write you a speeding ticket). Paying cash isn’t even an option anymore.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  It’s solved even better in Canada. All toll plazas are reading license plates, regardless of a transponder. Just send a bill to the owner of the license plate. No need for a transponder.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    That’s... worse. Why should the person who gets the toll bill be locked to the license plate registration?
  - jackson1442 6y ago
    I think most technically do that here, the transponder is more as a backup. With one exception— the DFW airport will only read NTTA tolltags for some reason last I heard. There’s also some interoperability- my Texas TollTag works in Oklahoma and one or two other states so it’s all consolidated with the lower rate. Those with TollTag accounts pay a lower rate on toll roads as it acts more like a gift card than a bill, it just autoreloads each time your balance gets low. Another cool thing is that some parking garages can read your TollTag if you let them to open the gate for you. It doesn’t bill you, it just acts as an access card if you have a standing agreement with the garage owner (you can see this at UT Austin for permit holders).

cwyers 6y ago

There really isn't a way around that. There are vastly more poor people than rich people, and the difference between emissions of cars typically owned by rich people and poor people is marginal if anything. If you want to make an impact on emissions and congestion, you are going to have to change the behavior of large numbers of people. If you want to ameliorate the effects of this on poor people, you can invest the money into decent public transit options.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

pharmakom 6y ago

I don’t think we should expect road policy to also solve inequality. Equally, we shouldn’t let an unequal society prevent us from solving congestion. Agreed, the negative effects of air pollution, noise pollution and car dependency are mostly borne by the poor.

tnzm 6y ago
We should definitely expect road policy to not introduce extra inequality.
- pharmakom 6y ago
  This sounds reasonable on the face of it, but actually it’s not. I can’t think of many policies that might not introduce some inequality somewhere in society. That’s an unrealistic standard. Increasingly inequality is of course something we should be mindful of when designing policy though.
  - tnzm 6y ago
    I beg to differ. I see ensuring a level playing field while preventing abuse, as pretty much the only valid reason for any (internal) policy at all. Everything else is just history being written by the winners.

oftenwrong 6y ago

This is not always the case, especially in urban areas, as was shown during the recent debates over congestion pricing in New York. Car commuters into the central business districts are a much smaller, wealthier group. Free roads act more as a subsidy for this group, while the masses, including almost all poor people, cram onto insufficient public transport. A bus carrying 240 people being stuck behind a line of wealthy car commuters alone in their vehicles is not a picture of equity. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/10/24/de-blasios-wrong-poor-new-yorkers-stand-to-gain-a-lot-from-congestion-pricing/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/10/24/de-blasios-wrong-poor...

trashtester 6y ago

Taxes on car use is not at all regressive, but actually very progressive. At least here in Norway. "True" progressives here would prefer to ban cars in the inner cites completely (or at least the non-electric ones), but most of the moderately progressive and liberal are content to put a high tax on roads and petrol (and new cars too). Cars fueled by fossils are seen as symbols of anti-environmentalism, pro americanized consumerism and an unnecessary luxery (for the non-disabled), and particularily so in the cities. Car lovers are almost as bad as Trump supporters, in the eyes of progressives here. Here is one of the most iconic progressives in the country posing with her electic cargo bicycle (with the kid inside), in a news story promoting massive increases in parking taxes in Oslo: https://e24.no/privatoekonomi/i/X8w2zg/mdg-lan-og-oslobyraadet-innfoerer-nytt-kjempehopp-for-p-avgifter https://e24.no/privatoekonomi/i/X8w2zg/mdg-lan-og-oslobyraad... People are expected to take the train/tram/subway/bus when they can, and if necessary, park at the train station after delivering the kids to school/daycare. (If they cannot use an electric bike, as in the story above). In order to ensure there is no regressive aspect, disabled (including many elderly) are subsidised. Also, electric cars are not taxed, and 53% of new cars sold last year were electric. (Teslas are everywhere). So if you want to show everyone you are a good progressive, you should support toll roads, and if you can, take the bus. :)

kortilla 6y ago

Every tax that isn’t based on income is regressive (sales being the major one). > Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls And every other basic good. This doesn’t mean much. > Also transport costs - or, more specifically, commute times - interact with house prices. Yes, but as it stands the cheap road use is subsidizing mega commutes, which is broken. > Poor people often have to travel longer and further for work, increasing the tax they have to pay even on an absolute basis. And they often don’t too. We don’t need to be subsidizing mega commutes as a society. It shouldn’t make sense to travel for 90 minutes each way for a $20/hr job. Making these jobs more expensive for the employer is a good thing. Either they will raise the wage because they lost all employees or they will just hire locals instead which is better for the environment.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

>> Poor people pay a larger proportion of their income and wealth on such tolls. If you want to charge for use of a resource, to discourage over-use, and only to raise enough to fund production of more of that resource, it's entirely irrelevant that it's "regressive" (which is a very loaded term), because it is not the main source of government revenue, and people benefit from the expenditure of the funds raised by the tax directly in proportion to how much they are taxed. If the objective is to use the tax as a proxy to tax general utilization of public infrastructure and services, then yes, it would be inappropriate to choose a tax on an activity that is a poor proxy, e.g. an activity that the poor engage in out of proportion to their general use of public infrastructure and services.