> The tax is what we used to call 'regressive', that
> it it falls on rich and
> poor equally, meaning that inner London travel has
> been turned into a
> privilege of the wealthy. Unlike NY, Londoners are
> overwhelmingly car
> owners, so there is no sense in which this is
> redistributive. Indeed current
> plans are to charge older cars more.
I'll admit to being one who opposes "congestion charges" and other forms of "tolls" in principle. But beyond that, I've seen lots of good arguments here and elsewhere that they simply don't work. (Thanks for all those good arguments, like the failure to reduce congestion in London.) Which further reinforces my loathing of them, along with the neoliberals who are always praising them. Such as Milton Friedman, an early and big fan of congestion charging. (OK, this is a bad argument, guilt by association by association, but it works for me.)
The principle involved is capitalism. However any sort of toll or "congestion charge" may be rationalized, ultimately it works like rent, and as such they are never (rarely) discontinued, rise over time, make rich richer, poor poorer, and all of us in some way worse off. Yes I am making antithesis of the neoliberal argument.
Although it's true that cars and car society is an ecological disaster, the solution to the disaster is not to simply punish poor people as much as you can, which is what tolls and congestion charges do. The way to end the disaster is to build alternatives, which is never going to happen while plutocrats are getting rich milking the status quo with rent-like "charges."
Transportation and mobility are a fundamental social good, not unlike "free speech". I take it as a philosophical given that people are best off when they can go where they want to go as freely and easily as possible. I have learned that in medieval times people had to pay large tolls to enter cities. So, largely, poor people born outside cities stayed outside cities all their lives, while poor people in cities stayed inside cities all their lives. Also, in various societies, you couldn't pass certain boundaries without showing "your papers" etc. Thus, road-related charges (and surveilance) are anti-liberal in this sense, while understanding mobility as a positive social good, and it is a very important one, perhaps more important than speech.
FIrst the neoliberals argued that the congestion charges worked. Well, in common with how many of their other arguments work, they don't actually work for various reasons. I'm too lazy to repeat those arguments (LBO has done a good job here). They end up being very harsh for all but the very rich. But either way, they just don't work. Congestion is not reduced, it may even get worse, and alternatives never appear.
Then neoliberals and others might well argue that we need them anyway, simply to "raise the funds for further construction and maintenance." (As in, "You fool, do you think everything should be free?" Yes, actually I do. Which is why I'm not the biggest fan of Parecon, etc. I believe, ultimately, the world where everything is free is not only the best possible world, but the only possible one. I thought Wojtek is--somewhat--on this side of the socialist argument, unless I've gotten confused over the past 6 months. So it surprises me that he comes out as a fan of congestion charging, etc.)
I wonder how we are ever going to get to socialism if we insist on putting a money meter on everything. We need to be going in the opposite direction, so that ultimately money, property, all of that (socially) bad stuff is simply irrelevant.
I'm glad those of you in NYC skirted the bullet. Where I live in Texas we have not been so fortunate. Here, certain existing interstate highways, which people have at zillion dollar expense built their homes and businesses around, are slated to be tolled. "To continue to meet transportation needs in the future." (Hah!!!) Plus, despite the fact that the major future needs are WITHIN existing cities, an enormously expensive toll road is slated to be built around existing cities (TTC35), presumably to facilitate vast continuing imports from China through non-union ports in Mexico. By the time it is completed, we won't be able to afford those imports anyway. But then we may have to pay our foreign road-owners through our taxes anyway to cover their lost profits. Texas Governor Perry isn't releasing the details of the toll agreements he has negotiated.
There was the story of the congestion charged highway in Orange County, California. It lasted about 10 years. The road was sold for about $100 million. People were so enraged by the scheme ultimately the road had to be bought back for more than $220 million (plus interest).
The tolls charged, quite typically nowadays, ranged up to $1 per mile. Now many people would do nearly anything to avoid a toll like that. But most poor people can't significantly change their working hours, etc. They just have to bear it.
In contrast to the potential toll rate of $1/mile, (actually, my local MPA has set the toll rate at 18 cents per mile...we'll see how long that lasts), state gas taxes run just a few cents a mile. What you pay depends on your MPG (seems fair to me...but then I drive a Prius.) They could be raised a few percent a year to fund all road needs. But instead of paying an additional 3 cents a mile, to pay for all road construction in Texas, some unlucky people may be paying $1/mile, simply to get home.
I think it's obviously fairer to raise the tax on everyone by about 3-6 cents a mile than to punish some unlucky people $1/mile. But my very own City Council rep is also the MPA chair, and she notoriously said that "those people [who live near the proposed interstate highway which will be made into a tollway] make $300,000 a year and can afford the tolls." Yes she infamously used those exact words "those people".
You can see the many places where this argument goes. For one, most of the people on the road are not the millionaires who live nearby. They are the convenience store clerks, waitresses, a/c servicers, gardeners, and maids, etc. The rich people who live in area are actually a minority of the people on the roads there.
Further, it was quickly determined that the average income of people living 5 miles from the new tollway was less than $30,000.
Now, what if you were driving across the country, and every county decided that to pay for road construction, everyone has to pay $1/mile. Your cost for tolls alone would be more than $3000.
Finally, most of us know, that if we don't oppose this now, sooner or later it's going to come back to us. So we have to fight it now. That's the principle of solidarity.
Now, to me it's obviously more fair to raise the gas tax so people pay 3-6 cents more per mile, than to pick some loosers and make them pay $1/mile. YMMV.
But actually, I like the idea suggested here, of paying for all social goods, including transportation, from progressive taxation like the progressive income tax. (Unfortunately, there is no income tax in Texas.)
Making roads free is not entirely like making public transportation free (though I think that should be free also). For one thing, transportation is not something that people could sell to other people like corn oil. It is a social good that you use up yourself, but may benefit others as well. For another, you have to provide your own car, gasoline, maintenance, etc. There are already built-in incentives to use less. To extend this argument to public transportation, you only have a limited amount of time to spend riding public transport. So, generally, there are built in limits to usage. What needs to be provided to end the ecological disaster of car society are other, even freer, alternatives.
Charles Peterson San Antonio, TX
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com