>> there are poor people who will be hurt by this indiscriminate
>> pricing scheme.
>
> Then it needs to be adjusted so it does not hurt the poor, but
> does affect those who choose to drive when the subway is an
> option (even though they may not deign to travel with the masses).
Good luck figuring out a scheme that fits that requirement. I'll wait while you go to the white board to sketch it out. In the mean time, I think we're back to "How can we punish the bastards?" -- which is a laudable goal, but not at all what Bloomberg has set out to do here. I listed some things that would help yesterday: luxury taxes, stronger regulation for minimum mileage standards, more R&D for alternative transit options, tax benefits for encouraging people to take it, etc.
> If I want to pollute with a car when I can take a subway, then I
> should pay for making that choice.
I hear ya. But: congestion pricing will not accomplish your goal very well, and it would leave a stain in its wake the size of what came out of the Exxon Valdez.
>> It amounts to a tax which un-does the progressive nature of the
>> Income Tax
>
> What is wrong with a use tax? A person then is given a choice to save
> money by not driving.
Yesterday we had trouble with "a dollar is a dollar" and today we have problems with "a person is a person" -- do you see that a use tax nails everyone equally, whether they have what you're calling a choice or not? And whether they can afford it or not? We're talking about a city where we don't have perfect transit; not taking into account the real world we live in where people have to drive to jobs, family obligations, even commerce is a big mistake.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned gasoline taxes (which I'm also against, for much the same reasons). Or that I limited extra taxes on inefficient cars to just NEW cars and not older ones -- because poor people often can't buy new cars, and new cars that don't meet minimum standards are often expensive ones. I'm saying that if we're not careful, the war on greenhouse gasses will easily become a war on poverty, and not the good kind.
Again from that paper I referenced before, there's a large number of people who live in Manhattan who drive to work; can you guess who they are? That's right: people who work in the suburbs! They are driving _out_ of Manhattan, because all the transit is timed for coming _in_ ...
You say they are making a choice; fine, you tell them they have to move.
>> You're not going to get everyone onto a subway by charging them;
>> some will just shift their finances
>
> Which is their right to do.
Yes, it's their "right" to cut down from 1200 calories per day to 800 for their children because you think they have a choice of where to live and work. When the cost of commuting to low-wage jobs goes up, what do you think people do as a choice? Do you think they eat less? Yes: that's one of the things they do.
Is that really what you want?
>> you create a new corrupt boondoggle that is not just costly
>> but continues to erode civil liberties
>
> Since when was driving a civil liberty?
Pay attention to the conversation! The EzPass, etc. data, license plate scanning, etc. is turning your world into a panopticon. The wholesale collection and abuse of data does not need a champion in the guise of anyone on this list.
> People are not going to reliquish their obsessions with cars
> just because it makes rational sense. Until they feel pain,
> they will keep on trucking.
Where do all of you people get this sanctimonious point of view? Do you know any poor people at all? Are you able to distinguish between humans at all? Or is it split down the middle: drives = bastards; subway riders = angels?
/jordan