[lbo-talk] Congestion pricing may not hurt the poor, study finds

[Max B. Sawicky]

I'm for more social transit, rail, bus, bicycle lanes, denser cities, 
the whole bit.
Supporting it with numbers -- demonstrating a net drain of GDP -- is a
whole different story, however.  Imagining what happens if a system
shuts down is not really a fair comparison.  Over time people would
adjust, private outfits would focus on the most lucrative choke points.
It's not a foregone conclusion that GDP would be lower.  I think it
probably would, but that's just what I think.


>> Though with no metro, people would have adjusted their behavior
>> and found some way to cope, albeit with less efficiency and higher costs.
> 
> ... which would be a net drain on GDP.  I think it comes down to: it's 
> going to get done anyway, why not do it in the most efficient, fair way? 
> BTW, what makes you think that the Metro isn't just such an adjustment 
> already?  There was a time, you know, before the Metro :-)
> 
>> I wouldn't be so sure that outside finance is more progressive
>> than fares. Don't forget, someone paying a fare is getting
>> something back directly.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> They "get" to go to work?

They get a trip that cost much more than what they pay.


> But I think the general idea stands: congestion pricing is bad policy.

The public sector is so starved for money, in my book any way you
can get more is worth consideration, except maybe gambling-related
(because for some vulnerable types, it destroys their lives).


>> regional/metropolitan systems are financed predominantly by state and
>> local revenues as far as taxes go, and as everyone knows those are not
>> as progressive as Federal taxes.
> 
> True, though most states that have an income tax have a progressive one. 
> It's only places like Illinois and Colorado that are stupid about it :-) 
> That being said, California's top bracket is like $45k ... which is 
> pretty low.

I don't think so.  Most state income taxes are pretty flat, IMO.


> Here's what I don't get: Wojtek wants more transit, but he doesn't want 
> taxes to pay for it ... he wants 'rich white fatheads' to pay for it. 
> You know what you get when you don't have taxes pay for transit?  You 
> get crappy boondoggles like this: