5 ms·

Not everyone is a socialist, or high density enthusiast. Personally I want the local government to only spend money in ways that result in people being more ind

Not everyone is a socialist, or high density enthusiast. Personally I want the local government to only spend money in ways that result in people being more independent of a dense centre, that allows people to have more control over their immediate environment, and less impact from neibours. Roads and highways are worth the expense, I am not convinced when it comes to many other public infrastructure or services.

Karrot_Kream 3y ago
Socialism? The current transportation system is largely through taxes and no not gas taxes. The way it works is that gas taxes and Federal funds are used to pay for interstates, arterials, and collector roads in almost every state and MSA in the US (pretty much any municipality big enough to apply for transportation grants.) The Federal government then helps fund road construction while states and consequently cities take the maintenance burden on. Maintenance itself is paid for through a combination of gas and state taxes along with Federal grants which are also based on other taxes. The current system is already largely funded through taxation. It's just a matter of whether you think those taxes should be spent on creating and maintaining roads or whether you think they should be spent on transit. The closest to use taxes we have is the gas tax and the Federal one hasn't been raised since 1993 (state taxes differ per state and have been raised more recently.) If you really want to move away from "socialism" or whatever, then make infrastructure toll based in the US. You'll find though that toll roads are highly unpopular.
- typewithrhythm 3y ago
  You have a very unsophisticated comprehension if you are taking funded with taxes to be the same as socialism. The part of the parents comment that was directed at was "Instead of spending money on the people. We are spending it on stupid car centric infrastructure. Forget mental health, social support, universal basic income..."
- kalleboo 3y ago
  > If you really want to move away from "socialism" or whatever, then make infrastructure toll based in the US. You'll find though that toll roads are highly unpopular. One example of this is Japan, where nearly all of the highways are privatized and tolled. To get to the nearest metropolis to me I can either drive for 3.5 hours and pay $60 in tolls+gas, or ride the bullet train for 1.5 hours for $70. (Now as soon as you have a family of people in that car, the train starts looking really expensive, but for business travelers it's a no-brainer)
kiba 3y ago
Choosing roads and highways are a form of central planning. Single Family Homes zoning and lack of mixed use zoning are a form of central planning. The government is intimately involved with regulating and encouraging car centric transportation. Ultimately, using the term 'socialism' is a useless label especially when it is misapplied. It is better to discuss specific policies and details.
- typewithrhythm 3y ago
  Did you read the comment I'm replying to? "Instead of spending money on the people. We are spending it on stupid car centric infrastructure. Forget mental health, social support, universal basic income..." This is a classic socialist point, one I feel the need to call out. Yes, there is a decision on what to encourage, and I think it's important to acknowledge that density inherently comes with more restrictions.
  - kiba 3y ago
    Single family zoning is inherently restrictive since you're forced to live a certain expensive lifestyle. Not being able to ride bikes safely is inherently restrictive. Being forced to spend money on car instead of being able to afford <insert-hobby-here> is a form of restriction. Density can support things like live theaters. It's hard to support theater in the countryside. How about restaurants? Can't really have the plethora of options without a large population. How do you afford state of the art hospitals? You need a large enough population density to make supporting these hospitals viable. If you say it's socialist or capitalist or <ideology> you're really only hamstringing yourself in discussion about urbanism, making the entire discussion nonsensical.
  - crooked-v 3y ago
    The specific examples given there may be "socialist", but they could just as well be 'national defense and border control' and the basic idea would be exactly the same.
    - jen20 3y ago
earthling8118 3y ago
If anything is socialist about this scenario it would be the roads. You want other people to fund the lifestyle that you prefer and are fully willing to spend their money, time, and effort.
- typewithrhythm 3y ago
  This ignores a few things. First, I pay taxes, and my perspective is that the wealth created by my labour ought to benifit me. Just because some of that wealth is given to the government to be directed more efficiently, does not mean that it magically becomes an abstract pool of other people's money. Second, we are in a democracy... In order for the outcome I want to come about the majority of people need to be in support of it...

Karrot_Kream 3y ago

Socialism? The current transportation system is largely through taxes and no not gas taxes. The way it works is that gas taxes and Federal funds are used to pay for interstates, arterials, and collector roads in almost every state and MSA in the US (pretty much any municipality big enough to apply for transportation grants.) The Federal government then helps fund road construction while states and consequently cities take the maintenance burden on. Maintenance itself is paid for through a combination of gas and state taxes along with Federal grants which are also based on other taxes. The current system is already largely funded through taxation. It's just a matter of whether you think those taxes should be spent on creating and maintaining roads or whether you think they should be spent on transit. The closest to use taxes we have is the gas tax and the Federal one hasn't been raised since 1993 (state taxes differ per state and have been raised more recently.) If you really want to move away from "socialism" or whatever, then make infrastructure toll based in the US. You'll find though that toll roads are highly unpopular.

typewithrhythm 3y ago
You have a very unsophisticated comprehension if you are taking funded with taxes to be the same as socialism. The part of the parents comment that was directed at was "Instead of spending money on the people. We are spending it on stupid car centric infrastructure. Forget mental health, social support, universal basic income..."
kalleboo 3y ago
> If you really want to move away from "socialism" or whatever, then make infrastructure toll based in the US. You'll find though that toll roads are highly unpopular. One example of this is Japan, where nearly all of the highways are privatized and tolled. To get to the nearest metropolis to me I can either drive for 3.5 hours and pay $60 in tolls+gas, or ride the bullet train for 1.5 hours for $70. (Now as soon as you have a family of people in that car, the train starts looking really expensive, but for business travelers it's a no-brainer)

kiba 3y ago

Choosing roads and highways are a form of central planning. Single Family Homes zoning and lack of mixed use zoning are a form of central planning. The government is intimately involved with regulating and encouraging car centric transportation. Ultimately, using the term 'socialism' is a useless label especially when it is misapplied. It is better to discuss specific policies and details.

typewithrhythm 3y ago
Did you read the comment I'm replying to? "Instead of spending money on the people. We are spending it on stupid car centric infrastructure. Forget mental health, social support, universal basic income..." This is a classic socialist point, one I feel the need to call out. Yes, there is a decision on what to encourage, and I think it's important to acknowledge that density inherently comes with more restrictions.
- kiba 3y ago
  Single family zoning is inherently restrictive since you're forced to live a certain expensive lifestyle. Not being able to ride bikes safely is inherently restrictive. Being forced to spend money on car instead of being able to afford <insert-hobby-here> is a form of restriction. Density can support things like live theaters. It's hard to support theater in the countryside. How about restaurants? Can't really have the plethora of options without a large population. How do you afford state of the art hospitals? You need a large enough population density to make supporting these hospitals viable. If you say it's socialist or capitalist or <ideology> you're really only hamstringing yourself in discussion about urbanism, making the entire discussion nonsensical.
- crooked-v 3y ago
  The specific examples given there may be "socialist", but they could just as well be 'national defense and border control' and the basic idea would be exactly the same.
  - jen20 3y ago

earthling8118 3y ago

If anything is socialist about this scenario it would be the roads. You want other people to fund the lifestyle that you prefer and are fully willing to spend their money, time, and effort.

typewithrhythm 3y ago
This ignores a few things. First, I pay taxes, and my perspective is that the wealth created by my labour ought to benifit me. Just because some of that wealth is given to the government to be directed more efficiently, does not mean that it magically becomes an abstract pool of other people's money. Second, we are in a democracy... In order for the outcome I want to come about the majority of people need to be in support of it...