4 ms·

Perhaps, but with more transit options that means fewer people on the road which is good for those who have 2+ children to lug around. On a side note we should

Perhaps, but with more transit options that means fewer people on the road which is good for those who have 2+ children to lug around. On a side note we should drop the public bit of this because it implies a bus is “publicly funded” but highways aren’t. Both are subsidized by the taxpayer.

bombcar 1y ago
It distinguishes it from private transit like Uber and taxis and even shared ride vans.
eru 1y ago
> On a side note we should drop the public bit of this because it implies a bus is “publicly funded” but highways aren’t. Both are subsidized by the taxpayer. Arguably, neither of them should be. Give poor people money, instead of giving free highway access (and bus transit) to rich and poor alike. Rich people don't need our help, and poor people would rather have the money to spend as they wish instead of other people deciding for them what alms they should consume. Individual cars have worse externalities than busses, so that means we should tax them more than busses. Though I suspect once drivers of cars and busses are paying non-subsidised prices for road access and fuel, busses will naturally look better in comparison, no extra tax differential needed.
- PaulHoule 1y ago
  Highway is paid for in vehicle registration and gas taxes.
  - chii 11mo ago
    but not completely - and this is only even talking about maintenance. The initial investment is absolutely not "paid for", because the economic returns from them are privatized, and the tax collection of those private benefits aren't really up to par imho. If it was a private business who did this road/highway investment, they'd be losing money (due to the cost of capital, and the lack of returns from collected tolls/taxes, not to mention the maintenance outlay that comes as a big lumpsum).
    - eru 11mo ago
      Roads are also not public goods in the economic sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good > In economics, a public good (also referred to as a social good or collective good)[1] is a commodity, product or service that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous [...] That's because roads are rather excludable (see toll roads), and if you've ever been in a traffic jam, you'll notice that road use is rivalrous.
- bluGill 1y ago
  The poor I want to help the most are not mentally able to handle money. I know someone who gave money to 'nigerain prince' scams several times - a nice guy but he has no idea scams exist even after that.
  - eru 11mo ago
    Sure. That's a decent argument for paternalism for some people. It's independent of the argument against giving well-off people free stuff.
    - bluGill 11mo ago
      Not exactly because as soon as you realize it doesn't solve the most important problems the a side effect of giving to well-off people as well becomes easier to argue against as well. If we need to identify those who cannot handle money then we may as well use that same effort to identify who doesn't need help in the first place. Not that your point doesn't stand, but it isn't as powerful. Note that I don't know how to identify people who cannot handle money. I know individuals, but how to you fairly do this in a way that doesn't get abused or abuse someone - both have been major problems with every plan to help the poor in the past.
      - eru 11mo ago
        > Note that I don't know how to identify people who cannot handle money. I know individuals, but how to you fairly do this in a way that doesn't get abused or abuse someone - both have been major problems with every plan to help the poor in the past. Welfare (nor any other undertaking) doesn't have to be perfect. Good enough is good enough. And you can always optimise over time, as you learn. There's plenty of programmes out in the real world and throughout history to learn from: the good programmes as examples to perhaps imitate, the bad programmes as illustrations of what to avoid. > If we need to identify those who cannot handle money then we may as well use that same effort to identify who doesn't need help in the first place. Isn't that perfectly compatible with what I'm suggesting? (Though I'm not quite sure they are actually the same kind of effort. Looking at eg people's taxable income is rather different from judging their mental state.) I'm making two points: (A) Don't bother giving welfare to the well-off. (B) Prefer cash payments over in-kind provision, where possible. You convinced me to add the 'where possible' clause, because there are some cases were people can't handle money. Though I hold that these spendthrifts should be dealt with as a special case, and not be the default template for how we treat everyone else.
subroutine 1y ago
Why are you equating busses to roads and not cars? Cars are not subsidized and in fact car-related taxes (vehicle sales, gas tax, yearly registration fees, in some cases tolls) have historically covered the majority of roadway infrastructure costs. Without car related taxes, we would absolutely need to charge bus fees to subsidize roadway costs, and they would probably need to be pretty steep.
- defrost 1y ago
  Who Pays for Roads? How the "Users Pay" Myth Gets in the Way of Solving America's Transportation Problems ~ https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/ https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/ Road Taxes and Funding by State, 2025 Most states fail to collect enough in user fees to fully provide for roadway spending. This necessitates transfers from general funds or other revenue sources that are unrelated to road use to pay for road construction and maintenance. Only three states—Delaware, Montana, and New Jersey—raise enough revenue to fully cover their highway spending. The remaining 47 states and the District of Columbia must make up the difference with tax revenues from other sources. The states that raise the lowest proportion of their highway funds from transportation-related sources are Alaska (19.4 percent) and North Dakota (35.1 percent), both states which rely heavily on revenue from severance taxes.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    Thanks. Yea also not accounting for other social costs - obesity, teen deaths, first responders and police spending time rescuing people who are maimed in car crashes. There are benefits too and all, just saying we don’t really have a full cost readily available for comparison because it’s hard to measure, never mind the literal dollars and cents that go into funding.
  - subroutine 11mo ago
    Looking through the list, https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-road-taxes-funding/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-road-taxes-fu... that's about what I expected. And that's not even including sales tax from car purchases, and maintenance related spending. Suffice to say, without cars, a year bus pass would need to run ~ however much the average person spends per year on all car related taxes.

bombcar 1y ago

It distinguishes it from private transit like Uber and taxis and even shared ride vans.

eru 1y ago

> On a side note we should drop the public bit of this because it implies a bus is “publicly funded” but highways aren’t. Both are subsidized by the taxpayer. Arguably, neither of them should be. Give poor people money, instead of giving free highway access (and bus transit) to rich and poor alike. Rich people don't need our help, and poor people would rather have the money to spend as they wish instead of other people deciding for them what alms they should consume. Individual cars have worse externalities than busses, so that means we should tax them more than busses. Though I suspect once drivers of cars and busses are paying non-subsidised prices for road access and fuel, busses will naturally look better in comparison, no extra tax differential needed.

PaulHoule 1y ago
Highway is paid for in vehicle registration and gas taxes.
- chii 11mo ago
  but not completely - and this is only even talking about maintenance. The initial investment is absolutely not "paid for", because the economic returns from them are privatized, and the tax collection of those private benefits aren't really up to par imho. If it was a private business who did this road/highway investment, they'd be losing money (due to the cost of capital, and the lack of returns from collected tolls/taxes, not to mention the maintenance outlay that comes as a big lumpsum).
  - eru 11mo ago
    Roads are also not public goods in the economic sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good > In economics, a public good (also referred to as a social good or collective good)[1] is a commodity, product or service that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous [...] That's because roads are rather excludable (see toll roads), and if you've ever been in a traffic jam, you'll notice that road use is rivalrous.
bluGill 1y ago
The poor I want to help the most are not mentally able to handle money. I know someone who gave money to 'nigerain prince' scams several times - a nice guy but he has no idea scams exist even after that.
- eru 11mo ago
  Sure. That's a decent argument for paternalism for some people. It's independent of the argument against giving well-off people free stuff.
  - bluGill 11mo ago
    Not exactly because as soon as you realize it doesn't solve the most important problems the a side effect of giving to well-off people as well becomes easier to argue against as well. If we need to identify those who cannot handle money then we may as well use that same effort to identify who doesn't need help in the first place. Not that your point doesn't stand, but it isn't as powerful. Note that I don't know how to identify people who cannot handle money. I know individuals, but how to you fairly do this in a way that doesn't get abused or abuse someone - both have been major problems with every plan to help the poor in the past.
    - eru 11mo ago
      > Note that I don't know how to identify people who cannot handle money. I know individuals, but how to you fairly do this in a way that doesn't get abused or abuse someone - both have been major problems with every plan to help the poor in the past. Welfare (nor any other undertaking) doesn't have to be perfect. Good enough is good enough. And you can always optimise over time, as you learn. There's plenty of programmes out in the real world and throughout history to learn from: the good programmes as examples to perhaps imitate, the bad programmes as illustrations of what to avoid. > If we need to identify those who cannot handle money then we may as well use that same effort to identify who doesn't need help in the first place. Isn't that perfectly compatible with what I'm suggesting? (Though I'm not quite sure they are actually the same kind of effort. Looking at eg people's taxable income is rather different from judging their mental state.) I'm making two points: (A) Don't bother giving welfare to the well-off. (B) Prefer cash payments over in-kind provision, where possible. You convinced me to add the 'where possible' clause, because there are some cases were people can't handle money. Though I hold that these spendthrifts should be dealt with as a special case, and not be the default template for how we treat everyone else.

subroutine 1y ago

Why are you equating busses to roads and not cars? Cars are not subsidized and in fact car-related taxes (vehicle sales, gas tax, yearly registration fees, in some cases tolls) have historically covered the majority of roadway infrastructure costs. Without car related taxes, we would absolutely need to charge bus fees to subsidize roadway costs, and they would probably need to be pretty steep.

defrost 1y ago
Who Pays for Roads? How the "Users Pay" Myth Gets in the Way of Solving America's Transportation Problems ~ https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/ https://frontiergroup.org/resources/who-pays-roads/ Road Taxes and Funding by State, 2025 Most states fail to collect enough in user fees to fully provide for roadway spending. This necessitates transfers from general funds or other revenue sources that are unrelated to road use to pay for road construction and maintenance. Only three states—Delaware, Montana, and New Jersey—raise enough revenue to fully cover their highway spending. The remaining 47 states and the District of Columbia must make up the difference with tax revenues from other sources. The states that raise the lowest proportion of their highway funds from transportation-related sources are Alaska (19.4 percent) and North Dakota (35.1 percent), both states which rely heavily on revenue from severance taxes.
- ericmay 1y ago
  Thanks. Yea also not accounting for other social costs - obesity, teen deaths, first responders and police spending time rescuing people who are maimed in car crashes. There are benefits too and all, just saying we don’t really have a full cost readily available for comparison because it’s hard to measure, never mind the literal dollars and cents that go into funding.
- subroutine 11mo ago
  Looking through the list, https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-road-taxes-funding/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-road-taxes-fu... that's about what I expected. And that's not even including sales tax from car purchases, and maintenance related spending. Suffice to say, without cars, a year bus pass would need to run ~ however much the average person spends per year on all car related taxes.