3 ms·
I'm all for transit but congestion pricing never sat right with me. It's as regressive of a tax as a regressive tax can get. Ends don't justify means. And it c
by jimmaswell 2y ago
I'm all for transit but congestion pricing never sat right with me. It's as regressive of a tax as a regressive tax can get. Ends don't justify means.
And it comes off like throwing in the towel on making transit attractive enough to draw people away from driving, as if the only possible way to do so is to financially beat them into submission. I don't see that resulting in good public support for transit, stuffing it full of unwilling people who resent being herded there. On the other hand, if you make the transit good enough on its own merit, people will switch without a metaphorical cattle prod behind them. Carrot vs stick.
- ninthcat 2y agoI don't think it's quite correct to call it a regressive tax. Driving a car in Manhattan is a luxury, so this is a tax on a luxury that subsidizes transportation that works for everyone.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoTaxes on luxury goods typically aren't expected to significantly reduce their consumption, because they're purchased by price-insensitive wealthy people. But the congestion pricing seems to be deterring use, and indeed is explicitly intended to, so who are these price-sensitive people being subject to the tax?
- kccqzy 2y agoWhere do the funds to make transit good enough come from? Hint: one funding source was cancelled today by the current administration.
- tlogan 2y agoHere is an idea: increase tax on properties worth more than 2M. Or maybe increase income tax for people who make more than 500k a year?
- kccqzy 2y agoI like both of these ideas. I hope you have success in pitching these two ideas to the relevant government.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoThe relevant government in this case is New York, isn't it? Aren't they under the control of the opposite party from the federal government right now?