3 ms·

Charging for use below what it costs to maintain that use is probably a bad idea.

myworkinisgood 2y ago
You 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 ago
Why? 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 ago
  The military isn't saying "pay $5 to crash a tank". They aren't creating pricing that causes a deficit.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    It 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 ago
    Instead of having to pay the military $5 to crash a tank they will even pay you to do it.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      That 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 ago
  It 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 ago
Only 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.

You 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 ago

Why? 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 ago
The military isn't saying "pay $5 to crash a tank". They aren't creating pricing that causes a deficit.
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  It 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 ago
  Instead of having to pay the military $5 to crash a tank they will even pay you to do it.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    That 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 ago
It 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 ago

Only 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.