4 ms·
It's public transport - does it even need to pay for itself?
by RandomLensman 2y ago
It's public transport - does it even need to pay for itself?
- unpopularopp 2y agoYou are asking this on a site where the majority would sell their soul for 1% more profit
- robertlagrant 2y agoThis service isn't making a profit if it isn't even making enough to do maintenance.
- robertlagrant 2y agoCharging for use below what it costs to maintain that use is probably a bad idea.
- myworkinisgood 2y agoYou can also pay the deficit from other taxes. That way, rich people can subsidize transport for poor people. Almost free public transportation helps people lead richer lives, so its also a productivity/quality of life issue.
- RandomLensman 2y agoWhy? Is the military breaking even, for example? Societies can decide how to spend their resources and it can be subsidies to things people want to have exist.
- robertlagrant 2y agoThe military isn't saying "pay $5 to crash a tank". They aren't creating pricing that causes a deficit.
- RandomLensman 2y agoIt is costing money in return for "security" (and some more welfare like things in the US, too, for example). How that is valued is a social/political decision, not one of simple cost calculations - the same can be true for other public spending.
- account42 2y agoInstead of having to pay the military $5 to crash a tank they will even pay you to do it.
- robertlagrant 2y agoThat sounds great! Unless war were declared.
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago> Charging for use below what it costs to maintain that use is probably a bad idea. I disagree. that's absolutely not a valid conclusion for a service (public transport, road infrastructure, healthcare, etc) that has a substantial benefit to society as a whole. i.e. providing it at low or no cost at point of use can be a great idea.
- robertlagrant 2y agoIt can be, yes. But if it has a substantial benefit, maybe it should cost more.
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago> But if it has a substantial benefit, maybe it should cost more. This makes no sense whatsoever. That conclusion does not follow - that's what the above comment says.
- Freak_NL 2y agoOnly for a completely private enterprise. For public transport the tickets are only part of the income. Often citizens already pay taxes which can be used to subsidize transport. Just like roads are really.
- goodluckchuck 2y agoI think the heart of the question was whether it is even a valuable service. Does it serve enough people to be worthwhile. Even if it’s tax-funded, everything has to pay for itself one way or another (i.e. tax receipts).
- RandomLensman 2y agoThat is for voters/societies to decide but it doesn't necessarily have to pay for itself in any monetary sense and instead be subsidized.
- robertlagrant 2y agoVoters and societies don't decide these things very often, in my experience. No one says "we're going to give these benefits and in exchange you're going to see cost of living rise, reducing the value of your savings". If you leave it to point issues, people would want free transport run by people paid a lot of money, somehow. Subsidies make it not a simple issue.
- RandomLensman 2y agoVoters and societies are totally fine in leaving those decisions and how to balance them to their elected representatives. That is a decision, too.