5 ms·

We could also just stop subsidizing as much as we currently do. We hand out so much public land in the form of free street parking, making the roads larger unwi

We could also just stop subsidizing as much as we currently do. We hand out so much public land in the form of free street parking, making the roads larger unwieldy to walk in, and bikes have to worry about getting doored. I'm not suggesting we get rid of all street parking, but it's currently at absurd levels. It would be great if some of those subsidies went to something else that lessened the need to own a car in the first place.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
You're downvoted, but it's a very reasonable point. I'm not sure why you can park a car on the street for hours for free, but not, say, a picnictable with a BBQ, a folding tablesaw, a telescope, a pop-up bookstore, a film projector, and so on.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  The short answer is because public parking is in the public interest. Same as bike parking or sidewalks. Think how much space we could save if we got rid of sidewalks! (/s of course)
  - adrianN 3y ago
    You grandparent is arguing that there is a desirable level of street parking that is below current levels of street parking. They don't claim that all street parking is bad.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    The difference is that car parking is an enormously larger handout. Bike parking probably takes a tenth as much space per "vehicle".
- melagonster 3y ago
  Before car occupied road, it is possible.
- maxsilver 3y ago
  > I'm not sure why you can park a car on the street for hours for free, but not, say, a picnictable with a BBQ, a folding tablesaw, a telescope, a pop-up bookstore, a film projector, and so on. I mean, the traditional answer is pretty clear. Roads are public transportation infrastructure. Parking cars (and bikes and scooters) is allowed, because cars move the public around. All these other things are not transportation for the public. People think of parking spots along the streets as "landed property", but they're not, they're more like the overhead bins in a bus or plane. But also, from a practical sense, no one cares about public transportation anymore, so you actually can now park random crap in the street, anytime you'd like? At least in Michigan, restaurants routinely do the "park a picnic table with a BBQ on the side of the road" thing all the time (see https://www.giffelswebster.com/dining-platforms-and-parklets-in-parking-spaces/ https://www.giffelswebster.com/dining-platforms-and-parklets...) -- many of which still persist since COVID assistance ended. And residential/commercial construction workers routinely do get to block off street parking for a tablesaw or any other construction usage at job sites all the time.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > I'm not sure why you can park a car on the street for hours for free, but not, say, a picnictable with a BBQ, a folding tablesaw, a telescope, a pop-up bookstore, a film projector, and so on. You don't have to pay to do those other things either. You might not be able to because of safety reasons (e.g. a BBQ in some places) but the "for free" isn't relevant.
verisimi 3y ago
[flagged]
- taeric 3y ago
  I don't quite follow your line of thought, here. Yes, roads were constructed using tax revenue. And road maintenance is expensive and gets more expensive on heavily used roads. To the point that you should expect to pay about as much to repair/replace a system as it cost to build it in the first place. Things get weird here, as our tax rates are lower than the years where we built a lot of our roads. Comically so, honestly. I think I'm fine that the top marginal rate isn't in the 90 percent range, but it is hard to understand complaints on taxes in perspective. Your last point, though, is where I really get lost. Yes, we want to grow the country. That means everything in the country will grow. If you want the country's government to be smaller, you are effectively wanting the country to be smaller. Why? You can maybe replace parts with non-government entities? And when they fail, as all things do, who picks up the pieces to continue on? (And really, what is a corporation but a mini government bound by the rules they create and the laws of their country?)
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I know you don't follow my thought - that's fine. The issue, imo, is something of a lack of imagination. People in general see the government as a good thing, rather than a wealth extraction method that people buy into. It has no right to do what it does. Think about it. Can I give you my right to tax someone? Can you give me a right to tax another? If we 2 get together, do our rights to tax someone else increase? The whole idea is nonsense - no one has a right to coerce money from another. I don't care if you call it mafia or government - there is no such right. So once an entity forcibly extracts wealth from people, and then sets up schools with those illicit gains and educates young people that what it does is right, does this now make it right? No. It does make it confusing for those people that have been "educated" though. If it then places itself as arbiter of 'good' and 'bad' and decides that cars are 'good' and it uses some of the illicit, forcibly extracted gains to create roads, is that right? If later it uses more illicit, forcibly extracted gains to tax the cars on roads, is that right? No - its still not right. The only thing it shows, is how incompetent the thing is, how useless for people, how arbitrary.
underlipton 3y ago
We also subsidize the auto companies (and companies related to the auto industry). Sometimes directly, sometimes by being lax on safety or privacy or efficiency standards, or by giving them loopholes (hello, truck-only product offerings). We could just... stop that. Taxing cars hits the public. Phasing out these subsidies hits companies that probably need to be smaller to begin with. Someone's going to get hurt, let's choose the ones with some fat to cut.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It's the same. Taxing companies or people results in more cost to customers. It's like thinking that people pay income tax but companies pay employment tax. Companies would happily pay you the employment tax, as they've already budgeted paying that much for you anyway. Thinking this is some free money that doesn't affect people is incorrect.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

You're downvoted, but it's a very reasonable point. I'm not sure why you can park a car on the street for hours for free, but not, say, a picnictable with a BBQ, a folding tablesaw, a telescope, a pop-up bookstore, a film projector, and so on.

thereisnospork 3y ago
The short answer is because public parking is in the public interest. Same as bike parking or sidewalks. Think how much space we could save if we got rid of sidewalks! (/s of course)
- adrianN 3y ago
  You grandparent is arguing that there is a desirable level of street parking that is below current levels of street parking. They don't claim that all street parking is bad.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  The difference is that car parking is an enormously larger handout. Bike parking probably takes a tenth as much space per "vehicle".
melagonster 3y ago
Before car occupied road, it is possible.
maxsilver 3y ago
> I'm not sure why you can park a car on the street for hours for free, but not, say, a picnictable with a BBQ, a folding tablesaw, a telescope, a pop-up bookstore, a film projector, and so on. I mean, the traditional answer is pretty clear. Roads are public transportation infrastructure. Parking cars (and bikes and scooters) is allowed, because cars move the public around. All these other things are not transportation for the public. People think of parking spots along the streets as "landed property", but they're not, they're more like the overhead bins in a bus or plane. But also, from a practical sense, no one cares about public transportation anymore, so you actually can now park random crap in the street, anytime you'd like? At least in Michigan, restaurants routinely do the "park a picnic table with a BBQ on the side of the road" thing all the time (see https://www.giffelswebster.com/dining-platforms-and-parklets-in-parking-spaces/ https://www.giffelswebster.com/dining-platforms-and-parklets...) -- many of which still persist since COVID assistance ended. And residential/commercial construction workers routinely do get to block off street parking for a tablesaw or any other construction usage at job sites all the time.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> I'm not sure why you can park a car on the street for hours for free, but not, say, a picnictable with a BBQ, a folding tablesaw, a telescope, a pop-up bookstore, a film projector, and so on. You don't have to pay to do those other things either. You might not be able to because of safety reasons (e.g. a BBQ in some places) but the "for free" isn't relevant.

verisimi 3y ago

[flagged]

taeric 3y ago
I don't quite follow your line of thought, here. Yes, roads were constructed using tax revenue. And road maintenance is expensive and gets more expensive on heavily used roads. To the point that you should expect to pay about as much to repair/replace a system as it cost to build it in the first place. Things get weird here, as our tax rates are lower than the years where we built a lot of our roads. Comically so, honestly. I think I'm fine that the top marginal rate isn't in the 90 percent range, but it is hard to understand complaints on taxes in perspective. Your last point, though, is where I really get lost. Yes, we want to grow the country. That means everything in the country will grow. If you want the country's government to be smaller, you are effectively wanting the country to be smaller. Why? You can maybe replace parts with non-government entities? And when they fail, as all things do, who picks up the pieces to continue on? (And really, what is a corporation but a mini government bound by the rules they create and the laws of their country?)
- verisimi 3y ago
  I know you don't follow my thought - that's fine. The issue, imo, is something of a lack of imagination. People in general see the government as a good thing, rather than a wealth extraction method that people buy into. It has no right to do what it does. Think about it. Can I give you my right to tax someone? Can you give me a right to tax another? If we 2 get together, do our rights to tax someone else increase? The whole idea is nonsense - no one has a right to coerce money from another. I don't care if you call it mafia or government - there is no such right. So once an entity forcibly extracts wealth from people, and then sets up schools with those illicit gains and educates young people that what it does is right, does this now make it right? No. It does make it confusing for those people that have been "educated" though. If it then places itself as arbiter of 'good' and 'bad' and decides that cars are 'good' and it uses some of the illicit, forcibly extracted gains to create roads, is that right? If later it uses more illicit, forcibly extracted gains to tax the cars on roads, is that right? No - its still not right. The only thing it shows, is how incompetent the thing is, how useless for people, how arbitrary.

underlipton 3y ago

We also subsidize the auto companies (and companies related to the auto industry). Sometimes directly, sometimes by being lax on safety or privacy or efficiency standards, or by giving them loopholes (hello, truck-only product offerings). We could just... stop that. Taxing cars hits the public. Phasing out these subsidies hits companies that probably need to be smaller to begin with. Someone's going to get hurt, let's choose the ones with some fat to cut.

robertlagrant 3y ago
It's the same. Taxing companies or people results in more cost to customers. It's like thinking that people pay income tax but companies pay employment tax. Companies would happily pay you the employment tax, as they've already budgeted paying that much for you anyway. Thinking this is some free money that doesn't affect people is incorrect.