2 ms·
It doesn't really matter if you disincentivise it if there isn't an alternative, or the alternatives are even worse, as is currently the case in many parts of t
by thayne 2y ago
It doesn't really matter if you disincentivise it if there isn't an alternative, or the alternatives are even worse, as is currently the case in many parts of the US.
- mtalantikite 2y agoDoes that not incentivize fixing the problem, which would be to build public transit and housing?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- consteval 2y agoI think the intention is that the disincentives will then create the opportunity for lower-cost transportation options, while simultaneously increasing advocacy in voters. Personal vehicles are expensive, and historically that cost is hidden from consumers. People were "conned" into believing it was the most economical transportation available personally.
- thayne 2y agoBut the subject of OP primarily hurts families with multiple children, but even if it somehow did cause enough advocacy and lobbying, creating better public transit would take decades, at which point the parents would no longer be paying for insurance for their children.
- consteval 2y agoThe alternative is doing nothing and hurting people right now. The people who rely on public transportation most are poorer people. Something, eventually, has to be done because the path we're on is destructive. It's getting to the point where it's difficult to go just about anywhere. We're running out of space to put the roads.