01 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFif we are serious about looking for ways to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, this is the sort of thing we need to consider.
Some people think so:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/22893
But you know what? I bet not everyone here does...
since this would be almost entirely a state or local issue, those who are tax-averse can make sure to live in red states and let the blue states and blue cities experiment with this to see how well it works.
HOWEVER -- the first order of business needs to be getting all the budgets under control. Once that has been done, this idea should definitely be looked at - but any proposals must be accompanied with the tax increases and-or spending cuts that will pay for it.
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotthe article is very clear about this:
does anyone in govt think the business of govt is providing anything for free?
if not, how are we going to get free transportation?
The key is to scale an already-subsidized industry with select free-fare groups into a system-wide program free to all. This would create a tipping point toward more people using public transportation. "Of course public transportation has to be paid for,” writes Wright, “but it should not be paid for through the purchase of tickets by individual riders—it should be paid for by society as a whole through the one mechanism we have available for this, taxation."
the issue is whether or not the people living in a given city or state might consider levying a tax to cover the costs of a "free public transit system" -- and as I said before, if the whole thought of levying taxes makes your hair stand on end, you can always move to a place that's not as blue.
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by MacSwainyes - that is the idea - and believe it or not, there are places where people are willing to pay taxes for something that is of general value to the public - even if they personally might not benefit from it. (the article mentioned Clemson, SC, Chapel Hill, NC, Park City, UT, and Big Island, HI, -- and a bus system in Baltimore).
The vail lifts. Nothing of value is free. The question is who pays? The usual course of this thinking is: Those who don't use public transportationa at all must pay for all those who do. Isn't that the idea?
if you don't like this idea, avoid these places.
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by MacSwainThere would have been no veil if you'd read the article.
The vail lifts. Nothing of value is free. The question is who pays? The usual course of this thinking is: Those who don't use public transportationa at all must pay for all those who do. Isn't that the idea?
01 Oct 10
Subsidize what you want to increase, tax what you want to diminish.
Free public transportation is simply the government subsidizing public transportation.
Anyone complaining about free public transportation should also be complaining about anything the government subsidizes.
01 Oct 10
Originally posted by DrKF.I don't think it should be free, although I could see reducing the cost for everyone and not just low-income riders. I see no compelling reason for the government to provide everyone with transportation from Point A to Point B, especially since bus routes are not set up in ways that make them accessible to everyone. For example, my stepmother lives in the same city I do, but she'd have to get a 2-4 mile ride to the nearest bus stop. I would have to leave home three hours earlier to take the bus to work, while it's only a half-hour drive. In cities having an extensive public transportation system that would benefit everyone, I can see where it might be a handy idea. However, even then I fail to see why transportation should be free but so many people think that medical care is a luxury for the lucky who are born to parents with decent jobs.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/22893
But you know what? I bet not everyone here does...[/b]