3 ms·

> 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.

by 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.

by eru 1y ago

PaulHoule 1y ago

Highway is paid for in vehicle registration and gas taxes.

chii 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.