6 ms·

For how progressive HN seems to be I'm surprised at all the support this is getting here. At the end of the day this about as regressive a tax as you can make.

by iooi 3y ago

For how progressive HN seems to be I'm surprised at all the support this is getting here. At the end of the day this about as regressive a tax as you can make. And the whole point of this tax is to fund the most mismanaged organization in NYC -- the MTA.

voisin 3y ago
I concur. The amount, like certain Scandinavian speeding tickets, should go up with income. A billionaire living in CT shouldn’t pay the same as a plumber living in an outer borough. Also, why not have a different cost between EV and ICE vehicle, as the externalities in terms of air quality differ markedly.
- nayuki 3y ago
  When it comes to air quality, EVs still generate tire dust.
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    Probably not very much at ~15 mph, which is about as fast as traffic can get in lower manhattan.
  - voisin 3y ago
    What portion of air quality impact from vehicles is due to tire dust versus exhaust fumes?
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  If you provide a low cost for poorer people to drive in, then more poorer people might start driving in since traffic will be better, which negates the purpose of the congestion zone.
  - nayuki 3y ago
    That's an interesting angle. And then poorer people will host taxi services for richer people. Oops, cars are fungible, which means charging based on the user's income will not work.
    - IncreasePosts 3y ago
      Right, the best you could do would be to base it off of the car model associated with the license plate. But then you might just get people driving their old beaters into the city, which would have worse emissions than their newer cars and be worse for everyone who is near them on the street.
- lxgr 3y ago
  This would be incredibly hard to enforce, though. How would you properly tax a billionaire being driven by a minimum-wage earning driver, for example? How would the MTA get salary data for people commuting in from out of state, etc.
  - ametrau 3y ago
    Something that people don’t understand is that even if a law doesn’t work 100%, it can still be effective. In this case, make it self reported with random audits. Problem solved.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Like asking people for their W-2 in the Holland tunnel? And who do you ask – the driver, the car's owner, the entity paying for the lease, the passenger, or all of them? I agree, but I think this one would create incredible administrative overhead and still not even get close to 100%.
      - voisin 3y ago
        How about to use the congestion zone you need a transponder which you register for, and annually you update your information in the registration portal?
IncreasePosts 3y ago
I find it hard to care about it being a regressive tax when there are numerous options for making your way into Manhattan - 24 hour subway, ferries, amtrak, PATH, etc. Almost no one with a low paying job is driving into Manhattan for work.
- lfmunoz4 3y ago
  wonder what probability of getting mugged or having to confront a crackhead is if taking public transportation.
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    0%, if my 10 years taking public transit multiple times per day is representative.
  - occz 3y ago
    The level of fearmongering about transit from car drivers is laughable when taking into account how extremely lethal their preferred mode of transportation is relative to transit.
nayuki 3y ago
Not a regressive tax. Poorer people are less likely to own and drive a car in the first place. Moreover, everything about the cost of driving is regressive: https://cityobservatory.org/ten-things-more-inequitable-that-road-pricing/ https://cityobservatory.org/ten-things-more-inequitable-that...
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  Oh cool, because there are already unfair taxes like the fuel tax, we shouldn't complain about yet another one being added. And because most poor people are already squeezed to death out of driving, don't worry that it'll squeeze the last few that were on the edge. The goal is not complete until traffic is cut down 50%+ and only the rich remain driving around.
  - nayuki 3y ago
    > only the rich remain driving around Think about what it means to be rich. It isn't simply having more money. What it really means is having more options. Because the rich have more options, they are the ones who can fly on a private jet, or first class, or sail on a yacht, or have a full-time car chauffeur. America has essentially made it a societal goal to allow 100% of the adult population to drive. What a disaster this has been. Maybe cars should revert to being toys of the rich once again.
    - talldatethrow 3y ago
      Ah yes, that great goal of governments... To reduce the options and freedoms of their subjects over time instead. Great
      - nayuki 3y ago
        If you think that automobiles represent unbridled freedom, you're mistaken. Cars take away freedom from people who don't drive. Ask about how the car-centric environment degrades the experience of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. Having been to less-carbrained countries like Japan, I really enjoyed the freedom to take trains everywhere instead of the American so-called freedom to drive everywhere. I'm all for freedom, but we need to be careful when analyzing how one person's freedom (e.g. to smoke) diminishes another person's freedom (e.g. clean air).
nerdjon 3y ago
I feel like generally speaking, particularly in Urban areas, being progressive also comes with advocating for public transit over cars for most situations. Which like you said, this exactly does. So I think it makes sense.
GenerWork 3y ago
I'm not sure why you're surprised. This site is populated by people who view people and society as nothing more than a complicated Excel spreadsheet and jump at the chance to call things "negative externalities" if it aligns with their belief system despite it having a potentially large negative effect on those that they claim to care about.

by iooi 3y ago

voisin 3y ago

I concur. The amount, like certain Scandinavian speeding tickets, should go up with income. A billionaire living in CT shouldn’t pay the same as a plumber living in an outer borough. Also, why not have a different cost between EV and ICE vehicle, as the externalities in terms of air quality differ markedly.

nayuki 3y ago
When it comes to air quality, EVs still generate tire dust.
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Probably not very much at ~15 mph, which is about as fast as traffic can get in lower manhattan.
- voisin 3y ago
  What portion of air quality impact from vehicles is due to tire dust versus exhaust fumes?
IncreasePosts 3y ago
If you provide a low cost for poorer people to drive in, then more poorer people might start driving in since traffic will be better, which negates the purpose of the congestion zone.
- nayuki 3y ago
  That's an interesting angle. And then poorer people will host taxi services for richer people. Oops, cars are fungible, which means charging based on the user's income will not work.
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    Right, the best you could do would be to base it off of the car model associated with the license plate. But then you might just get people driving their old beaters into the city, which would have worse emissions than their newer cars and be worse for everyone who is near them on the street.
lxgr 3y ago
This would be incredibly hard to enforce, though. How would you properly tax a billionaire being driven by a minimum-wage earning driver, for example? How would the MTA get salary data for people commuting in from out of state, etc.
- ametrau 3y ago
  Something that people don’t understand is that even if a law doesn’t work 100%, it can still be effective. In this case, make it self reported with random audits. Problem solved.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Like asking people for their W-2 in the Holland tunnel? And who do you ask – the driver, the car's owner, the entity paying for the lease, the passenger, or all of them? I agree, but I think this one would create incredible administrative overhead and still not even get close to 100%.
    - voisin 3y ago
      How about to use the congestion zone you need a transponder which you register for, and annually you update your information in the registration portal?

IncreasePosts 3y ago

I find it hard to care about it being a regressive tax when there are numerous options for making your way into Manhattan - 24 hour subway, ferries, amtrak, PATH, etc. Almost no one with a low paying job is driving into Manhattan for work.

lfmunoz4 3y ago
wonder what probability of getting mugged or having to confront a crackhead is if taking public transportation.
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  0%, if my 10 years taking public transit multiple times per day is representative.
- occz 3y ago
  The level of fearmongering about transit from car drivers is laughable when taking into account how extremely lethal their preferred mode of transportation is relative to transit.

nayuki 3y ago

Not a regressive tax. Poorer people are less likely to own and drive a car in the first place. Moreover, everything about the cost of driving is regressive: https://cityobservatory.org/ten-things-more-inequitable-that-road-pricing/ https://cityobservatory.org/ten-things-more-inequitable-that...

talldatethrow 3y ago
Oh cool, because there are already unfair taxes like the fuel tax, we shouldn't complain about yet another one being added. And because most poor people are already squeezed to death out of driving, don't worry that it'll squeeze the last few that were on the edge. The goal is not complete until traffic is cut down 50%+ and only the rich remain driving around.
- nayuki 3y ago
  > only the rich remain driving around Think about what it means to be rich. It isn't simply having more money. What it really means is having more options. Because the rich have more options, they are the ones who can fly on a private jet, or first class, or sail on a yacht, or have a full-time car chauffeur. America has essentially made it a societal goal to allow 100% of the adult population to drive. What a disaster this has been. Maybe cars should revert to being toys of the rich once again.
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    Ah yes, that great goal of governments... To reduce the options and freedoms of their subjects over time instead. Great
    - nayuki 3y ago
      If you think that automobiles represent unbridled freedom, you're mistaken. Cars take away freedom from people who don't drive. Ask about how the car-centric environment degrades the experience of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. Having been to less-carbrained countries like Japan, I really enjoyed the freedom to take trains everywhere instead of the American so-called freedom to drive everywhere. I'm all for freedom, but we need to be careful when analyzing how one person's freedom (e.g. to smoke) diminishes another person's freedom (e.g. clean air).

nerdjon 3y ago

I feel like generally speaking, particularly in Urban areas, being progressive also comes with advocating for public transit over cars for most situations. Which like you said, this exactly does. So I think it makes sense.

GenerWork 3y ago

I'm not sure why you're surprised. This site is populated by people who view people and society as nothing more than a complicated Excel spreadsheet and jump at the chance to call things "negative externalities" if it aligns with their belief system despite it having a potentially large negative effect on those that they claim to care about.