3 ms·

This is a myth. There have been extensive studies done for a decade. If you’re poor and can’t afford $10-15 toll then how did you get your car even close to nyc

This is a myth. There have been extensive studies done for a decade. If you’re poor and can’t afford $10-15 toll then how did you get your car even close to nyc without paying higher tolls? If you’re poor you’ll use your brain and pay the $2.95 to ride the train, not die in your car waiting in traffic and spending all your money for food on cp tolls. You want to charge the wealthy for infrastructure, you tax their income.

queenkjuul 1y ago
And that $2.95 is only gonna be a better deal when all the congestion charges pay for MTA upgrades
an_guy 1y ago
$10-15/per day adds up real quick especially for people who travels to work daily. > If you’re poor you’ll use your brain and pay the $2.95 to ride the train I hope you do understand this is only viable for people who live or travel near train stations. Anyone who live far from rail network would have to rely on bus/cab/ride-share to complete their journey and end up spending almost as much as one would on a car but without the flexibility.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > this is only viable for people who live or travel near train stations There is plenty of parking at NJTransit, Metro-North and LIRR hubs outside the congestion zone. The people who drive private cars in Manhattan are comparably wealthy.
  - an_guy 1y ago
    > There is plenty of parking at NJTransit, Metro-North and LIRR hubs outside the congestion zone. Once again this assumes the destination is close to train station.
lolinder 1y ago
> If you’re poor you’ll use your brain and pay the $2.95 to ride the train, not die in your car waiting in traffic and spending all your money for food on cp tolls. I'm pretty sure this is exactly what op is saying, isn't it? The toll forces poorer people to change their behavior while letting rich people continue to do what they've always done with a barely noticeable dent in their wealth.
- donmcronald 1y ago
  That's right. And it's the same thing for a lot of consumption based services. Our city switched to a garbage system where you pay based on the size of your garbage can (small, medium, large). They did that in lieu of a property tax increase which is a progressive tax since rich people with big homes pay more property taxes. Instead it's now a consumption tax which is regressive. All the rich neighbourhoods have large bins and it costs them less than a property tax increase would have while the poor neighbourhoods all have to "budget" their trash to fit it into a small bin. It's all a way of forcing the poor and middle class to bear the burden of dwindling resources and infrastructure while the rich get to maintain unfairly luxurious lifestyles.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    The standard mechanism for turning ensuring a flat tax into a progressive tax is to spend the proceeds of the tax a way that benefits people equally. For example a VAT is regressive, but is usually accompanied by a rebate that sends a cheque to everybody for an amount that a typical poor person would spend on VAT. The congestion charge goes to the MTA, which benefits everybody. For your example, where are the proceeds spent? If the charges are spent to improve everybody's garbage service, the rich people paying the surcharge are paying to improve the service for everybody; the rich are subsidizing the poor.
    - lolinder 1y ago
      > turning ensuring a flat tax into a progressive tax is to spend the proceeds of the tax a way that benefits people equally. How does the math on this work? If a regressive tax affects poor people disproportionately over rich people and you then turn around and spend the proceeds on something that benefits everyone equally, you've just done wealth redistribution from poor to rich, no? In order to counterbalance the effect of a regressive tax you would need to spend the proceeds on something that benefits poor people more than rich people so the disproportionate negative impact is balanced by a disproportionate positive impact. Arguably paying for the MTA may count as doing that, given that poorer folks are more likely to be using it than rich folks (especially now post-congestion tax). The congestion tax becomes a tax on what is now a luxury (driving a car in Manhattan) that is used to pay for a staple (public transit).

queenkjuul 1y ago

And that $2.95 is only gonna be a better deal when all the congestion charges pay for MTA upgrades

an_guy 1y ago

$10-15/per day adds up real quick especially for people who travels to work daily. > If you’re poor you’ll use your brain and pay the $2.95 to ride the train I hope you do understand this is only viable for people who live or travel near train stations. Anyone who live far from rail network would have to rely on bus/cab/ride-share to complete their journey and end up spending almost as much as one would on a car but without the flexibility.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> this is only viable for people who live or travel near train stations There is plenty of parking at NJTransit, Metro-North and LIRR hubs outside the congestion zone. The people who drive private cars in Manhattan are comparably wealthy.
- an_guy 1y ago
  > There is plenty of parking at NJTransit, Metro-North and LIRR hubs outside the congestion zone. Once again this assumes the destination is close to train station.

lolinder 1y ago

> If you’re poor you’ll use your brain and pay the $2.95 to ride the train, not die in your car waiting in traffic and spending all your money for food on cp tolls. I'm pretty sure this is exactly what op is saying, isn't it? The toll forces poorer people to change their behavior while letting rich people continue to do what they've always done with a barely noticeable dent in their wealth.

donmcronald 1y ago
That's right. And it's the same thing for a lot of consumption based services. Our city switched to a garbage system where you pay based on the size of your garbage can (small, medium, large). They did that in lieu of a property tax increase which is a progressive tax since rich people with big homes pay more property taxes. Instead it's now a consumption tax which is regressive. All the rich neighbourhoods have large bins and it costs them less than a property tax increase would have while the poor neighbourhoods all have to "budget" their trash to fit it into a small bin. It's all a way of forcing the poor and middle class to bear the burden of dwindling resources and infrastructure while the rich get to maintain unfairly luxurious lifestyles.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  The standard mechanism for turning ensuring a flat tax into a progressive tax is to spend the proceeds of the tax a way that benefits people equally. For example a VAT is regressive, but is usually accompanied by a rebate that sends a cheque to everybody for an amount that a typical poor person would spend on VAT. The congestion charge goes to the MTA, which benefits everybody. For your example, where are the proceeds spent? If the charges are spent to improve everybody's garbage service, the rich people paying the surcharge are paying to improve the service for everybody; the rich are subsidizing the poor.
  - lolinder 1y ago
    > turning ensuring a flat tax into a progressive tax is to spend the proceeds of the tax a way that benefits people equally. How does the math on this work? If a regressive tax affects poor people disproportionately over rich people and you then turn around and spend the proceeds on something that benefits everyone equally, you've just done wealth redistribution from poor to rich, no? In order to counterbalance the effect of a regressive tax you would need to spend the proceeds on something that benefits poor people more than rich people so the disproportionate negative impact is balanced by a disproportionate positive impact. Arguably paying for the MTA may count as doing that, given that poorer folks are more likely to be using it than rich folks (especially now post-congestion tax). The congestion tax becomes a tax on what is now a luxury (driving a car in Manhattan) that is used to pay for a staple (public transit).