3 ms·
This is another poor basis for public tax policy - the classic "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it." First - part of living in a society is paying fo
by sc68cal 15y ago
This is another poor basis for public tax policy - the classic "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it."
First - part of living in a society is paying for things that others use that you may not, but which improves society for all.
Second - I live in Philadelphia and rarely use roads, and yet my tax dollars to the government of Pennsylvania are used, in combination with gas tax proceeds, to repair roads that others drive on, and that I don't directly benefit from. That's the price of living in a society, and I support it.
- tptacek 15y agoYou're answering a resource allocation argument with a moral argument. Non sequitur. If you reject the premise that we should allocate resources to the modes of transport that move the most people at the least expense including external costs, you're opting out of the whole debate. Also, unlike most of Amtrak, you benefit directly from Penn's roads even when you don't use them yourself; for instance, virtually everything you eat is brought to you over them.
- sc68cal 15y agoI would argue that is an indirect beneift - the fact that my food arrives fresh and to my grocer. When I said direct benefit, I meant more along the lines of driving my car on those roads, which I do rarely. Still, excellent point.
- tptacek 15y agoAssume we didn't have the road system we have now, and that an entire food delivery system was organized around local sources (yay!). What would the result be? Lots of root vegetables and drastically higher food prices.