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

101–110 of 276 posts

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#101

Post by mberning »

matt4077 wrote: post #29
mberning wrote: post #20

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 u…

> Well they don’t say, but I do take their inference. So you’re criticizing them for something they, as you admit, do not actually say. How is it their fault if the undisputed facts they state make you think of something that you consider wrong?

I am not criticizing or disputing their point that, for example, a person living in a low income area will pay a higher rate than a similar person living in a high income area. I do dispute that it is an inequity that needs to be “fixed”, which is the main thesis of the article. While I do consider it unfortunate, it’s not discriminatory or inequitable and should not be on the list.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#103

Post by CydeWeys »

sokoloff wrote: post #87
graeme wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? In both cases the user of gas and roads is creating negative externalities for others. Taxing them compensates for the externalities. The externalities aren't dependent on income, so an income based tax doesn't seem appropriate. Externalities are: * Wear and tear on roads * Congestion * Cost of policing roads * Road deaths and accidents * urban pollution * co2 increase The latter two don't apply to electric cars…

I drive an electric car. It is CO2 free only at the (hypothetical) tailpipe, not across the entire generation cycle. My car emits CO2 for every mile driven, just not right in the urban center.

That CO2 emission is (or should be) taxed for its externalities at the power generation side, same as any other electricity, and doesn't need to be taxed again at the car level like petroleum-fueled vehicles must be.

Plus, depending on where you're filling up, you may actually be using 100% renewable energy anyway, so you're not emitting CO2. There are states that are close to majority-renewable now, and will be in a few years.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#104

Post by pnw_hazor »

benologist wrote: post #67
zdragnar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was approached twice on the same day at a cub foods once by people offering to buy my groceries with their food stamps in exchange for a lesser amount of cash. I still think the program is valuable, but damn it hurts to see it be abused (especially since one of the guys had his little kid with him). A discount card or whatever that works on the spot is practically guaranteed to be abused as an easy money maker for…

If the majority of people are acting responsibly within the program does abuse warrant changing policies for everyone else, ie optimizing around the frauds, or should abuse be handled separately? When GOG.com optimized around the frauds they came up with a refund policy for their ethicals that's driven by preventing the frauds, now their real customers wanting refunds must work within a hostile framework designed to…

GOG is not funded by money taken from others under the threat of violence.

Any corruption or waste in government weakens people overall faith in government.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#105

Post by CydeWeys »

kd0amg wrote: post #48
mikeash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why this example is there at all. This is just a product being sold for a price. Is it unfair that a banana costs the same for Jeff Bezos as it does for the homeless guy he walked past on his way to the store? I mean, you certainly could argue that this is unfair, but at that point you’re basically arguing for a different concept of money and commerce, which is a rather bigger subject than the unfa…

The "product for a price" idea is a little weird when talking about some service typically provided by a government who deliberately prices it below market equilibrium. If we're going to effectively subsidize this, it's fair to open debate on how that subsidy should be apportioned.

Depends on the city. There's a lot of paid private parking out there.

I agree with you that the price of government-owned parking is generally too low, and that it should be increased to a level to which available spaces nearby are reliably guaranteed.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#106

Post by maxxxxx »

coredog64 wrote: post #98
bhickey wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author isn't suggesting that gas taxes should vary with income. His point is that they're a flat tax and flat taxes are regressive.

I’ve made similar comments in other discussions, but there’s an element of redlining to this. Upper middle class people push for ever higher safety standards in new motor vehicles. This pushes the retail price higher for new cars, but also has the follow on effect of raising the price of newer used cars. As a result, vehicle consumers at the bottom of the economic ladder wind up with cars that are less safe, less eff…

I drive a Kia Rio. It's one of the cheapest cars on the market and it's efficient and reliable. I don't know about safety.

There are good cars available on the lower end of the market. I wish there were options with less power available to be even cheaper.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#107

Post by tomohawk »

jonstewart wrote: post #47

In Northern Virginia outside DC, I-66 had been subject to directional rush hour restrictions on single occupancy vehicles. It was illegal to drive a car with just yourself for a few hours every weekday and you risked a ticket if you were caught. People put blow up dolls in their passenger seats. Last year they rolled out automatic congestion pricing for SOVs. All the news stories were about how the toll could hit a r…

An acquaintance of mine was unfamiliar with that area and accidentally drove through there - it's pretty easy to do. Got a $55 toll fee for the single use.

Lesson learned - avoid doing any business down there if at all possible.

Have to wonder what the cost here is. Acquaintance does lots of business, and now directs it elsewhere to areas that are less hassle.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#108

Post by jacobolus »

hedora wrote: post #70
jonstewart wrote: post #47

In Northern Virginia outside DC, I-66 had been subject to directional rush hour restrictions on single occupancy vehicles. It was illegal to drive a car with just yourself for a few hours every weekday and you risked a ticket if you were caught. People put blow up dolls in their passenger seats. Last year they rolled out automatic congestion pricing for SOVs. All the news stories were about how the toll could hit a r…

> Commuters have effectively time-shifted, alleviating and smoothing congestion. It has been so effective that the length of I-66 subject to this treatment will be extended. Also, has anyone computed the cost of the economic externalities here? Time shifting ones commute either has severe financial repercussions for the employer (lost productivity) or the employees (a decrease in effective wages). I suspect those num…

> consider raising peak commute throughput instead of devising ways to suppress peak demand

Getting rid of most of the cars and putting people on trains does wonders for peak throughput.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#109

Post by hedora »

nicoburns wrote: post #86
hedora wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Commuters have effectively time-shifted, alleviating and smoothing congestion. It has been so effective that the length of I-66 subject to this treatment will be extended. Also, has anyone computed the cost of the economic externalities here? Time shifting ones commute either has severe financial repercussions for the employer (lost productivity) or the employees (a decrease in effective wages). I suspect those num…

> Also, has anyone computed the cost of the economic externalities here? Time shifting ones commute either has severe financial repercussions for the employer (lost productivity) or the employees (a decrease in effective wages). That, or companies implement flexible working hours, which allow time shifting without penalty.

That doesn’t work if you have kids. You miss seeing them in either the morning or evening, and the schools don’t time shift to match your schedule.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#110

Post by benologist »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #104
benologist wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the majority of people are acting responsibly within the program does abuse warrant changing policies for everyone else, ie optimizing around the frauds, or should abuse be handled separately? When GOG.com optimized around the frauds they came up with a refund policy for their ethicals that's driven by preventing the frauds, now their real customers wanting refunds must work within a hostile framework designed to…

GOG is not funded by money taken from others under the threat of violence. Any corruption or waste in government weakens people overall faith in government.

Recipients of foodstamps aren't government employees and their fraud is individuals committing crimes, it's not government corruption.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2018/04/04/the-f...

    The takeaway is that food stamp fraud ballooned during 
    the four years through 2016 but that it still represents 
    a tiny percentage of the program.
A corrupt solution would be punishing the 99.1% of ethical recipients through more bureaucracy and restrictions for what the 0.9% did. That 0.9% should drive 100% of their fraud policies separately without impeding the overwhelmingly legitimate aid distribution.

     When compared with those total figures, the fraud 
     identified in 2016 amounted to a mere 0.9% of the 
     total. That was up from 0.5% in 2012.
Post reply on HN