Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I don't know --- it sounds like robbing Peter to pay Peter. Presumably, public transit would have a political incentive to be the best stewards of public resources like budgeted expenses and the environment. We don't allow punitive damages against public entities or allow them to be sued for discretionary acts because the legal system, like a tax-implemented policy, is a machete where a scalpel might suffice.
If a consumption tax on transit simply raises the cost of moving person A from point B to point C, it's going to be passed through to the end user because nearly every transit system is expected to make up almost 100% of operation costs from fares. So you're gonna be raising fares on a guy who doesn't really have a practical say in whether his train is diesel-electric, or just electric.
|
You are more focused on shifting people from inefficient transport to efficient transport than you are with discouraging consumption (or ensuring that consumption falls to where it would be if the prices reflected the true costs). Arguably, we are subsidizing gasoline consumption -- including both people driving SUVs and people riding buses -- by covering some of the costs thereof through the DoD's budget, etc. If you increase the price of gas across the board, people who are price-sensitive will stop driving SUVs and start riding the bus -- efficient modes of transport will have more of a relative advantage.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
