4 ms·
Because if it loses money, I, a taxpayer that does not drive is paying for you to park your car. No thanks.
by WrongAssumption 3y ago
Because if it loses money, I, a taxpayer that does not drive is paying for you to park your car. No thanks.
- unethical_ban 3y agoI see. You don't think taxes should go to anything you don't directly use. A libertarian.
- SirLamorak 3y agoI would argue that subsidizing driving is a net negative for the city. Cheaper parking means more cars. This means more traffic and more pollution. Normally subsidies funded by tax dollars are for net positives. A fire department existing in the city is a net benefit, even if I don't personally have a house fire.
- unethical_ban 3y agoI get that perspective, though I am a bit more cynical about the ability of cities to transform. It's either cars or nothing, it's have decent parking availability downtown or let the city center die, in many places. Buses are shit, and light rail won't catch on until after the Collapse in most places.
- robocat 3y agoA metered world where you only pay for what you use. And presumably denied access to anything you don't pay for. There's more than one sci-fi story including that premise
- bitcurious 3y agoRealistically, the tax payer that doesn’t drive in Chicago is likely a fiscal drain. Which is ok, but it’s silly to pretend that folks who drive are being subsidized by folks who don’t, outside of maybe a small number of upper income taxpayers in NYC.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoTons of tax payers who don't drive are young single people who are almost always fiscal positives because they don't use many services.