2 ms·
No, what I'm pointing out is that the scales involved are preposterous in this case. 100% of the residents would be paying for services that are only available
by jfrunyon 5y ago
No, what I'm pointing out is that the scales involved are preposterous in this case. 100% of the residents would be paying for services that are only available to ~41% of the residents.
On the other hand, if it were, say, a tax in the service area of the MTA, then it would be mostly equitable.
- ska 5y agoBut it's always the case that some tax revenue is used for things that most people paying into it won't benefit directly from. That's generally accepted when people believe the indirect benefit overall worthwhile. This means that worrying about the relative %ages often isn't that productive compared to asking what is the broader benefit. (I'm not, fwiw, making the argument one way or another based on NYC transit, just saying it's a more on target argument to make).
- jfrunyon 5y agoYes. It's always the case that some people are left out, you're right. For example, not everyone in the MTA's service area uses the MTA. The suggestion at hand is literally unprecedented. Most taxes have some people paying into them who won't (fully/directly) benefit, but this tax would have the majority of people paying into it see no benefit.