4 ms·

You know what Florida has besides taxes? User fees. You can take a brand-new highway here and it'll be a toll road, which means you're the one paying for it, no

You know what Florida has besides taxes? User fees. You can take a brand-new highway here and it'll be a toll road, which means you're the one paying for it, not unrelated taxpayers around the state. You can even finance the construction with private-public partnerships tied to the specific project's success. And because people pay for this infrastructure, it discourages frivolous uses, like the induced demand of overbuilding in the exurbs.

cortesoft 4y ago
It also means poor people can’t use the infrastructure
- mandmandam 4y ago
  That was likely used as a selling point :/
kelnos 4y ago
That's just a regressive tax that disproportionately hurts lower-income folks the most. I'm so tired of this "I got mine, so fuck you" attitude many people have. If you're wealthy, you probably got there via inheritance, luck, or on the backs and shoulders of the hard work of others. And yet "I won't do my part to pay for basic infrastructure where I live" is the attitude.
- fennecfoxen 4y ago
  If that’s a regressive tax on the poor, then so are “groceries” and “housing”.
  - imustbeevil 4y ago
    Yes, increasing costs of necessities is regressive. Charging everyone the same fee costs poor people a larger percentage of their income. > A regressive tax is a tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners.
woodruffw 4y ago
> You can even finance the construction with private-public partnerships tied to the specific project's success. And because people pay for this infrastructure, it discourages frivolous uses, like the induced demand of overbuilding in the exurbs. This is a tangent, but I want to note the irony of listing this as a "pro": when the topic of public transport comes up on HN, a standard observation is that exactly this model failed and left local governments saddled with expensive, debt-laden streetcars and subways. The end result: we spent 50 years tearing up useful pieces of civic infrastructure because the root financing was fundamentally unsound. Private financing schemes have an uncanny ability to sniff out the government's ability and willingness to catch the falling knife.
- ghufran_syed 4y ago
  Any good references I could use to read more about this?
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    The General Motors streetcar conspiracy page on Wikipedia has some references to other factors[1]. Note: I'm linking this not to claim that the conspiracy is real, only because it has useful references. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#Other_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
arberx 4y ago
Sounds like that will work for something things but not for others. Public libraries and schools would not benefit from this as more affluent areas can support better education. This is already the case in many places in the US. Local property taxes support school funding.

cortesoft 4y ago

It also means poor people can’t use the infrastructure

mandmandam 4y ago
That was likely used as a selling point :/

kelnos 4y ago

That's just a regressive tax that disproportionately hurts lower-income folks the most. I'm so tired of this "I got mine, so fuck you" attitude many people have. If you're wealthy, you probably got there via inheritance, luck, or on the backs and shoulders of the hard work of others. And yet "I won't do my part to pay for basic infrastructure where I live" is the attitude.

fennecfoxen 4y ago
If that’s a regressive tax on the poor, then so are “groceries” and “housing”.
- imustbeevil 4y ago
  Yes, increasing costs of necessities is regressive. Charging everyone the same fee costs poor people a larger percentage of their income. > A regressive tax is a tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners.

woodruffw 4y ago

> You can even finance the construction with private-public partnerships tied to the specific project's success. And because people pay for this infrastructure, it discourages frivolous uses, like the induced demand of overbuilding in the exurbs. This is a tangent, but I want to note the irony of listing this as a "pro": when the topic of public transport comes up on HN, a standard observation is that exactly this model failed and left local governments saddled with expensive, debt-laden streetcars and subways. The end result: we spent 50 years tearing up useful pieces of civic infrastructure because the root financing was fundamentally unsound. Private financing schemes have an uncanny ability to sniff out the government's ability and willingness to catch the falling knife.

ghufran_syed 4y ago
Any good references I could use to read more about this?
- woodruffw 4y ago
  The General Motors streetcar conspiracy page on Wikipedia has some references to other factors[1]. Note: I'm linking this not to claim that the conspiracy is real, only because it has useful references. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#Other_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...

arberx 4y ago

Sounds like that will work for something things but not for others. Public libraries and schools would not benefit from this as more affluent areas can support better education. This is already the case in many places in the US. Local property taxes support school funding.