4 ms·

Only a fraction of the US population work and thus commute. Of those that commute, that 80% do not have equal road usage. Even within that community, there is a

Only a fraction of the US population work and thus commute. Of those that commute, that 80% do not have equal road usage. Even within that community, there is a subsidy going on. So, yes, there is a ton of subsidization going on (and this is not always bad) > Drivers simply pay for their road use through various taxes, and not directly. I think this is the point, notably because those 'indirect' payments are also payed by non-drivers as well. Hence, the subsidy. Even within drivers, some are subsidized by others (let alone non-drivers). To illustrate, first: most road wear is from weather [1]. This means any two lengths of similar roads will have about the same upkeep cost regardless of usage (not quite true, but if taking 30 people vs 300, it's about true). Let's consider 10 miles of road to suburb A with 30 drives, and 10 miles of different but similar road to suburb B with 300 drivers. The city will pay for upkeep of 20 miles, collecting various taxes from 330 people, and those taxes are then spent evenly across those 20 miles. To do this proportionately, without any subsidies, the group of 300 could arguably have those various taxes reduced for them only by 90% and increase the taxes of the 30 people 9 fold. That would be an equitable upkeep system. The fact the road upkeep payment per person is not equitable, means there is a subsidy (and this situation is not always a bad thing) [1] https://lacrossetribune.com/what-causes-roads-to-wear-out/article_61f01c98-9f2f-11e2-80c0-0019bb2963f4.html https://lacrossetribune.com/what-causes-roads-to-wear-out/ar...

cyberax 3y ago
> Only a fraction of the US population work and thus commute. The fraction that doesn't work is either too young to pay taxes anyway, or they had used road commutes before they retired. Everybody else are within the margin of error. Additionally, if you are not using a car for commute, you're likely to be in the lower tax brackets and thus not paying (much) in taxes anyway. I had a paper looking at exact numbers bookmarked, but I lost it somehow. So in practice, car owners don't get substantially subsidized by transit users. While the inverse is overwhelmingly true, transit users are massively subsidized by car users. > This means any two lengths of similar roads will have about the same upkeep cost This is simply incorrect. Vehicles cause stresses in the concrete, allowing fractures to accumulate, and they also directly wear down the pavement. The weather then amplifies the damage, especially in areas that experience frequent zero crossings. If you want to learn more, feel free to check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law and click the links about pavement engineering.
- joshuaissac 3y ago
  > Additionally, if you are not using a car for commute, you're likely to be in the lower tax brackets and thus not paying (much) in taxes anyway. To the contrary, those in the highest income brackets are the ones most likely to walk to work,[1] and also the most likely to be paying more in taxes. 1. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0739456X18796652 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0739456X18796652 page 9, figure 'Work Trip Walking by Income and Density'
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > To the contrary, those in the highest income brackets are the ones most likely to walk to work Stop misrepresenting the data. High incomes are still most likely to DRIVE to work. They are _more_ _likely_ to walk to work than lower incomes, but: 1. The difference is slight. 2. The absolute numbers are around 5% of trips.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    70% of the tax burden is carried by people making $120k/year or more. The argument that the poor pay more taxes than the rich is mental gymnastics with back injury. Similar to how some believe the rich get richer taking something the poor didn't have in the first place. It is all just class warfare used to divide and conquer.
    - seadan83 3y ago
      "Low-income Americans face higher payroll tax rates than rich Americans. Americans with less than five-figure incomes pay an effective payroll tax rate of 14.1 percent, while those making seven-figure incomes or more pay just 1.9 percent.Low-income Americans face higher payroll tax rates than rich Americans. Americans with less than five-figure incomes pay an effective payroll tax rate of 14.1 percent, while those making seven-figure incomes or more pay just 1.9 percent." > https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-little-known-facts-about-taxes-and-inequality-in-america/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-little-known-fact... While the absolute numbers for the rich paying a lot more in taxes is true, when looking at effective tax rates, the rich are not actually being taxed enough for there to be equity in taxation. "Billionaires in the US pay a smaller tax rate than most teachers and retail workers. " "According to a 2021 White House study, the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in the US paid an average federal individual tax rate of just 8.2 percent. For comparison, the average American taxpayer in the same year paid 13 percent." > https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%202021%20White,same%20year%20paid%2013%20percent https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/do-the-rich-pay.... Indeed, that 8.2 percent is a whole heck of a lot of money; far more than the 13 percent coming from the average taxpayer.

cyberax 3y ago

> Only a fraction of the US population work and thus commute. The fraction that doesn't work is either too young to pay taxes anyway, or they had used road commutes before they retired. Everybody else are within the margin of error. Additionally, if you are not using a car for commute, you're likely to be in the lower tax brackets and thus not paying (much) in taxes anyway. I had a paper looking at exact numbers bookmarked, but I lost it somehow. So in practice, car owners don't get substantially subsidized by transit users. While the inverse is overwhelmingly true, transit users are massively subsidized by car users. > This means any two lengths of similar roads will have about the same upkeep cost This is simply incorrect. Vehicles cause stresses in the concrete, allowing fractures to accumulate, and they also directly wear down the pavement. The weather then amplifies the damage, especially in areas that experience frequent zero crossings. If you want to learn more, feel free to check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law and click the links about pavement engineering.

joshuaissac 3y ago
> Additionally, if you are not using a car for commute, you're likely to be in the lower tax brackets and thus not paying (much) in taxes anyway. To the contrary, those in the highest income brackets are the ones most likely to walk to work,[1] and also the most likely to be paying more in taxes. 1. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0739456X18796652 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0739456X18796652 page 9, figure 'Work Trip Walking by Income and Density'
- cyberax 3y ago
  > To the contrary, those in the highest income brackets are the ones most likely to walk to work Stop misrepresenting the data. High incomes are still most likely to DRIVE to work. They are _more_ _likely_ to walk to work than lower incomes, but: 1. The difference is slight. 2. The absolute numbers are around 5% of trips.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  70% of the tax burden is carried by people making $120k/year or more. The argument that the poor pay more taxes than the rich is mental gymnastics with back injury. Similar to how some believe the rich get richer taking something the poor didn't have in the first place. It is all just class warfare used to divide and conquer.
  - seadan83 3y ago
    "Low-income Americans face higher payroll tax rates than rich Americans. Americans with less than five-figure incomes pay an effective payroll tax rate of 14.1 percent, while those making seven-figure incomes or more pay just 1.9 percent.Low-income Americans face higher payroll tax rates than rich Americans. Americans with less than five-figure incomes pay an effective payroll tax rate of 14.1 percent, while those making seven-figure incomes or more pay just 1.9 percent." > https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-little-known-facts-about-taxes-and-inequality-in-america/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-little-known-fact... While the absolute numbers for the rich paying a lot more in taxes is true, when looking at effective tax rates, the rich are not actually being taxed enough for there to be equity in taxation. "Billionaires in the US pay a smaller tax rate than most teachers and retail workers. " "According to a 2021 White House study, the wealthiest 400 billionaire families in the US paid an average federal individual tax rate of just 8.2 percent. For comparison, the average American taxpayer in the same year paid 13 percent." > https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%202021%20White,same%20year%20paid%2013%20percent https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/do-the-rich-pay.... Indeed, that 8.2 percent is a whole heck of a lot of money; far more than the 13 percent coming from the average taxpayer.