3 ms·

A regressive tax like this should have no place in the Democratic agenda. Across the state, 47% of people oppose the congestion tax, while only 27% support it.

by tlogan 2y ago

A regressive tax like this should have no place in the Democratic agenda. Across the state, 47% of people oppose the congestion tax, while only 27% support it. Meanwhile, Manhattanites—the wealthiest group—are the most in favor, with 57% supporting it and just 32% opposed. Unbelievable that Trump managed to steal this issue…

acdha 2y ago
Driving a car in Manhattan is inherently regressive: in addition to the high cost of owning, insuring, and operating one you’re looking at a ton of money for parking in one of the densest parts of the country. This forces an interesting dynamic: congestion pricing makes the city healthier and safer for everyone who actually lives there, speeds transit for (on average) poorer people, but it’s portrayed as regressive by the (on average) more affluent people who expect a city that they don’t live in remade for their convenience because they’ve already locked in a more expensive lifestyle.
- tlogan 2y ago
  A better approach would be to tax properties worth more than $2 million and use the revenue to improve public transit. Another option: increase income taxes on those earning over $500K a year. But, of course, the wealthy resist any tax that actually affects them. And Trump looked the polls found out that nearly two-thirds of New Yorkers oppose congestion pricing and now he is “hero”.
  - acdha 2y ago
    Everyone who lives in the city has been paying to subsidize suburban commuters for decades, at great expense to their health, lives, and quality of life. It seems unfair to say they should pay more in taxes so non-residents don’t have to pay for what they use. Congestion pricing is a market-based approach for dividing a limited resource. Cars are just too inefficient for that many people to drive in a city and you need some way to reduce the ensuing negative externalities.
    - tlogan 2y ago
      You have more money, so you should pay more in taxes. I know if might not sound right but it is better for all of us. A market-based approach is not the solution to achieving equality or public transportation. So in short: - tax the rich - make government efficient (smaller)
mcphage 2y ago
> Across the state, 47% of people oppose the congestion tax, while only 27% support it. That's kinda a weird statistic, given how many people are nowhere near Manhattan. I live in New York State, but it's 7 hours away, so I don't have any opinion whatsoever on New York City's congestion charges. Nor should my opinion (if I had one) carry any weight.

by tlogan 2y ago

acdha 2y ago

Driving a car in Manhattan is inherently regressive: in addition to the high cost of owning, insuring, and operating one you’re looking at a ton of money for parking in one of the densest parts of the country. This forces an interesting dynamic: congestion pricing makes the city healthier and safer for everyone who actually lives there, speeds transit for (on average) poorer people, but it’s portrayed as regressive by the (on average) more affluent people who expect a city that they don’t live in remade for their convenience because they’ve already locked in a more expensive lifestyle.

tlogan 2y ago
A better approach would be to tax properties worth more than $2 million and use the revenue to improve public transit. Another option: increase income taxes on those earning over $500K a year. But, of course, the wealthy resist any tax that actually affects them. And Trump looked the polls found out that nearly two-thirds of New Yorkers oppose congestion pricing and now he is “hero”.
- acdha 2y ago
  Everyone who lives in the city has been paying to subsidize suburban commuters for decades, at great expense to their health, lives, and quality of life. It seems unfair to say they should pay more in taxes so non-residents don’t have to pay for what they use. Congestion pricing is a market-based approach for dividing a limited resource. Cars are just too inefficient for that many people to drive in a city and you need some way to reduce the ensuing negative externalities.
  - tlogan 2y ago
    You have more money, so you should pay more in taxes. I know if might not sound right but it is better for all of us. A market-based approach is not the solution to achieving equality or public transportation. So in short: - tax the rich - make government efficient (smaller)

mcphage 2y ago

> Across the state, 47% of people oppose the congestion tax, while only 27% support it. That's kinda a weird statistic, given how many people are nowhere near Manhattan. I live in New York State, but it's 7 hours away, so I don't have any opinion whatsoever on New York City's congestion charges. Nor should my opinion (if I had one) carry any weight.