61–70 of 236 posts
Why not make it just free for everybody? Public transportation typically has profit margins of -50% to -90% anyway... just take it to -100% and get a huge boost in ridership! (And probably save some expenses relating to collecting payment/enforcement.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except a boost in ridership is absolutely not what you’d want in an overpopulated city like Paris. Subway is so bad i’ve already witnessed people waiting for trains from outside the station itself. in the peak hours you often have to skip two or three trains because they’re packed.
Paris had 2.9 million people in 1921 and 2.2 million today. Is it really overpopulated?
Why not make it just free for everybody? Public transportation typically has profit margins of -50% to -90% anyway... just take it to -100% and get a huge boost in ridership! (And probably save some expenses relating to collecting payment/enforcement.)
Why not aim for 0% profit, and keep public transit self sustaining? Everything has a cost, and making something (virtually) cost 0 only transfers the cost elsewhere
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually the alternative is that the money from building rent is just going into the pocket of some real estate company. So it’s kinda like a big tax on real estate companies (which sounds like a hell of a good policy to me. Rent seekers and all that)
Then just tax that. Effectively giving public transport the ability to collect taxes in small pockets of your land around public transport stations seems like an odd way to go about it. You could similarly run the police at a profit instead of being a cost center by gifting 100 hectares around every police station to the police, and have them collect rent on it. That doesn't make sense either. For one, it creates a p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Let's start charging cars every time they use streets and highway based on their mass and space used.
How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes?
The taxes are too low.
> The report documents that the amount that road users pay through gas taxes now accounts for less than half of what’s spent to maintain and expand the road system. The resulting shortfall is made up from other sources of tax revenue at the state and local levels, generated by drivers and non-drivers alike. This subsidizing of car ownership costs the typical household about $1,100 per year—over and above the costs of gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees.
I feel like this is the same story that repeats itself all over the place.
Another one is when our northern neighbors in Canada complain about the Chinese elite buying up homes AND keeping them vacant. They want higher taxes on empty homes and homes owned by Chinese nationals. I say such a scheme is racist. The real solution is to increase real estate and property taxes on EVERYONE so each unoccupied house is a net positive return for the community. Nobody likes this idea. They don't want to pay higher taxes themselves. They just want to charge people who aren't there and don't have a voice.
Another example, when I brought up the idea of taxing revenues instead of profits, people said that retail grocery stores would fail instantly because they run on very slim margins. If we said taxes apply on total revenue, anyone operating on razor thin margins would pretty much instantly go out of business. (I usually don't like to admit my ideas are horrible but this one was pretty bad in hindsight. However, the point is taxes on businesses are too low as a percentage of revenue. As an individual, I am also able to spend all the money I earn. I don't claim I should pay no income tax.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Let's start charging cars every time they use streets and highway based on their mass and space used.
How does that differ from state registrations and fuel taxes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So no one is camping out on the platform, for long. I've never been in the Paris métro after it shut down, but are you saying the homeless people camping in some stations in the evenings, wrapped in their sleeping bags, get up at 1 a.m. and file out? I somehow doubt that.
They are kicked out. The doors are locked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then just tax that. Effectively giving public transport the ability to collect taxes in small pockets of your land around public transport stations seems like an odd way to go about it. You could similarly run the police at a profit instead of being a cost center by gifting 100 hectares around every police station to the police, and have them collect rent on it. That doesn't make sense either. For one, it creates a p…
Taxing real estate at large causes a supply-side pressure, driving up market prices. If you only "tax" very specific land around a train station, you limit the effect on the greater market. In theory a government could pass such location-specific tax law, but I've only see that done via property taxes.
Not if you tax the value of ground rent only. If anything, the effect goes the other way, as owners are incented to put their underused properties on the market. (And yes, taxing ground rent only in some relative small areas e.g. around a station may introduce distortionary incentives. But in general, shifting taxation towards land improves the incentive for good government, especially provision of local amenities.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it seen negatively?
Making things free can increase demand beyond what’s reasonable (for example, there was recently someone in the press explaining how, thanks to moviepass, he would enter a cinema just to go to the restroom). Maybe old people take trains just because they can, taking capacity from paying customers that really need the train to get to work or whatever.