Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

cityobservatory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 276 posts

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#11

Post by ramblerouser »

voisin wrote: post #8
devereaux wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds obscene to me too. A car uses a parking spot. The spot is no longer available for someone else- regardless of your income. Incomes is orthogonal to the problem. Flat taxes are the fairest taxes. Take trash taxes for example: you produce 100 lbs of trash, you pay for 100 lbs of trash because disposing of 100 lbs of trash in a landfill or a recycling facility won't be affected by the income of the person havi…

The argument isn’t about whether the quantum of taxes is appropriate. It is how a fixed quantum turns a disincentive for some into an irrelevancy to others. If the purpose of the cost is to discourage use (peak period congestion charges), then it should vary with income so as to be a equally discouraging to all to whom it applies. For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater…

A poor person's car takes up the same number of parking spaces as a rich person's car, and a rich person has already paid a huge amount of their income to the poor person in the form of income taxes and welfare.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#12

Post by oneplane »

This seems rather US-centric, but perhaps there are some universal things in there? In The Netherlands, we usually split off some of the issues; for example there is the tax that covers road usage paid per active registered vehicle. This depends on the vehicle, so depending on how expensive/big/powerful etc your new car would be, you'd pay more or less tax. For public transportation, more and more networks are getting dedicated lanes or even dedicated roads, so buses for example are not affected by what the cars happen to be doing at that time.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#13

Post by Tade0 »

let’s ask what it takes to create an overall system that is fair to all, considering all aspects of how the system is paid for, who benefits, and who bears the external costs

Here's a crazy idea: instead of pricing congestion, let's introduce a point system with quotas tied to license plates and surge point deduction.

Puts a hard limit on the number of cars that enter the zone and applies both to the rich and poor equally.

Unless of course some of the rich decide to buy additional cars just so they can drive more - although I don't think many would be willing to go to such lenghts.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#14

Post by devereaux »

voisin wrote: post #8
devereaux wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds obscene to me too. A car uses a parking spot. The spot is no longer available for someone else- regardless of your income. Incomes is orthogonal to the problem. Flat taxes are the fairest taxes. Take trash taxes for example: you produce 100 lbs of trash, you pay for 100 lbs of trash because disposing of 100 lbs of trash in a landfill or a recycling facility won't be affected by the income of the person havi…

The argument isn’t about whether the quantum of taxes is appropriate. It is how a fixed quantum turns a disincentive for some into an irrelevancy to others. If the purpose of the cost is to discourage use (peak period congestion charges), then it should vary with income so as to be a equally discouraging to all to whom it applies. For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater…

> it is reasonable to vary pricing in order to equally apply the disincentive.

No, it's not reasonable. The goal is not to discourage use, but to price in the negative externality.

> For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater incentive among the poor to reduce their trash production,

And that's good, even if we suppose your argument is right. Bear with me: what's the percentage of the population in your country that you would call "rich"? Let's say 20%.

Do you think that 20% of the population can create more bags of trash than 80% of the population? I don't think so.

In the parking example, do you think 20% of the population can park more cars than 80% of the population? I don't think so either.

Someone rich may have more than one car, but I strongly doubt they are able to drive 2 cars at once.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#16

Post by anticensor »

Tade0 wrote: post #13

let’s ask what it takes to create an overall system that is fair to all, considering all aspects of how the system is paid for, who benefits, and who bears the external costs Here's a crazy idea: instead of pricing congestion, let's introduce a point system with quotas tied to license plates and surge point deduction. Puts a hard limit on the number of cars that enter the zone and applies both to the rich and poor eq…

> Unless of course some of the rich decide to buy additional cars just so they can drive more

This workaround would be made moot by adding a rule saying you can use at most the square root (or any other sublinear function) of number of your cars.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#18

Post by buzzdenver »

The way I conceptually see it is that people with lower income pay less once a year, during tax time, and save a lot of money then. All other times it's just much simpler if prices/fees/whatnot are based on actual usage. Can you imagine owning a gas station or running a parking lot and having to deal with income verification from all your clients, and then dealing with the government to get reimbursed because Joe Schmo is low income and got a 25% discount? That would be a recipe for wasteful bureaucracy, black market activities like low income people using their gas cards to fill up others' cars, and generally just tons of inefficiencies.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#20

Post by mberning »

I really take exception with their point on insurance. They try to insidiously suggest that the poor and urban population pays more for insurance than other populations due to... Well they don’t say, but I do take their inference. The fact of the matter is that the auto insurance industry is highly regulated and cannot discriminate on many factors. Their rate books are reviewed by regulators. The fact that poor and urban residents pay more has to do with the risk to the vehicle. The chance of damage, theft, the type of car, the experience and record of the driver, etc. all factor in. It may be unfortunate, but it is it not some grand conspiracy or inherent bias to hold these people down. I wish other types of insurance (like health) were as easy to shop for as auto insurance. You can easily shop multiple insurers and compare prices from the comfort of your home and pick what works best for you. It’s really incredible when you think about it.
Post reply on HN