Far Left Liberal San Fran Considers Taxing People Entering The City

Damocles said:
Yeah, by taxing them into buses. That's magical. Let's make sure they can't get ahead and only let them drive during "off-peak" times.

Seriously, this is BS. The fricking party that is supposed to help them is working to keep them down to save the roads for the affluent. Then in another thread a "Conservative" is arguing how great nanny laws could be.
Click to expand...


You're so over the top it's hilarious. And all under the guise of working to help out the poor folks. Get fucking real.

Congestion pricing is not keeping down poor folks. At all. And, as I said, if you want to work to improve the lot of poor folks it is quite easy to do through tax policy. Ensuring that poor folks can sit in traffic for "free" isn't where I'd start (nor would I start with poor people living in urban neighborhoods breathing your idling fumes). But please, don't permit me to force you down off your soap box.
 
Dungheap said:
You're so over the top it's hilarious. And all under the guise of working to help out the poor folks. Get fucking real.

Congestion pricing is not keeping down poor folks. At all. And, as I said, if you want to work to improve the lot of poor folks it is quite easy to do through tax policy. Ensuring that poor folks can sit in traffic for "free" isn't where I'd start (nor would I start with poor people living in urban neighborhoods breathing your idling fumes). But please, don't permit me to force you down off your soap box.
Click to expand...
There is no "guise" I am pointing out to somebody who purports to be of the party of the people how the law they are promoting benefits the affluent to the detriment of the poor. Shoot, you even recognized the regressive nature of the tax yet still promote it. Now you tell me that they should only be able to travel at the times you set, that when they go to work they must take buses... Seriously, do you hear yourself?

Just like in the other thread I was pointing out to another that they were promoting the same type of nannyism they complain about when it comes from "liberals".

Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't mean I am promoting something. I am simply pointing out hypocrisy.

Because your imagination can't think of a way to make it actually equal, you now propose laws you would object to on their face if they were promoted by the other party because of the inequality. What next? A national sales tax?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
only according to a nanny state government. In reality, government has no authority to determine who can travel by what means, unless said person is in custody.
Click to expand...

So we have had a nanny state govt pretty much since we started driving cars?

I knew all along it was the cars fault!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
show us here where the constitution gives the government power to determine who can drive and who can not drive?



It's better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, which you've failed at.
Click to expand...
It is one of the powers left to the states. Like who can have marriage licenses, like getting a permit to run a business in a state, like LOTS of things left to the states. It doesn't have to be in the Federal Constitution.
 
Socrtease said:
It is one of the powers left to the states. Like who can have marriage licenses, like getting a permit to run a business in a state, like LOTS of things left to the states. It doesn't have to be in the Federal Constitution.
Click to expand...
I think it would be an interstate commerce issue. If a state didn't recognize a driver's license from Omaha in NYC, for instance, it would be an unnecessary burden on Truck Drivers to be able to deliver goods...
 
Dungheap said:
You're so over the top it's hilarious. And all under the guise of working to help out the poor folks. Get fucking real.

Congestion pricing is not keeping down poor folks. At all. And, as I said, if you want to work to improve the lot of poor folks it is quite easy to do through tax policy. Ensuring that poor folks can sit in traffic for "free" isn't where I'd start (nor would I start with poor people living in urban neighborhoods breathing your idling fumes). But please, don't permit me to force you down off your soap box.
Click to expand...

What a crock of shit... so tell us oh wise Dung... WHO is it that will cease driving and go to mass transit? The wealthy.... or is it indeed the poor?

It is a regressive tax. To argue otherwise is laughable at best. Again, if you are worried about the poor living in urban areas, then make the wealthy take the mass transit into the city. Don't give them the option.
 
Superfreak said:
What a crock of shit... so tell us oh wise Dung... WHO is it that will cease driving and go to mass transit? The wealthy.... or is it indeed the poor?

It is a regressive tax. To argue otherwise is laughable at best. Again, if you are worried about the poor living in urban areas, then make the wealthy take the mass transit into the city. Don't give them the option.
Click to expand...


Who will cease driving to certain areas of the city at certain times? Whomever doesn't want to pay the fees to go there. That's the thing. It's designed to discourage driving to certain areas at certain times by making it more expensive. Certainly wealthy folks would have an easier time paying the fee but that's not really any of my concern. If they want to pay for it, by all means.

I find the idea that placing a fee on driving to certain areas at certain times is some sort of draconian policy that keeps poor folks down is laughable. There are lots of ways to get places, particularly in urban environments with good mass transit. Use the revenues generated from the fees to improve mass transit (oh noes, wealth redistribution!) and, if your goal is to improve the lot of poor folks generally, do it through the tax code or other policy mechanisms. Let transportation policy be transportation policy.
 
Dungheap said:
You're so over the top it's hilarious. And all under the guise of working to help out the poor folks. Get fucking real.

Congestion pricing is not keeping down poor folks. At all. And, as I said, if you want to work to improve the lot of poor folks it is quite easy to do through tax policy. Ensuring that poor folks can sit in traffic for "free" isn't where I'd start (nor would I start with poor people living in urban neighborhoods breathing your idling fumes). But please, don't permit me to force you down off your soap box.
Click to expand...
It keeps down the working and middle class New Yorkers, I suppose it would not hurt the welfare poor that sit on their ass in their social housing but it would certainly hurt the working poor and the study below proves it.

The New York Times thinks it would not be good for New York either:
"A Cure Worse than the Disease?
How London’s “Congestion Pricing” System
Could Hurt New York City’s Economy"

Key point in the article:
"Especially hard-hit would be working- and middle-class New Yorkers who commute to
the CBD by car from outlying areas in Queens and the other boroughs outside
Manhattan; and small to mid-sized firms whose business requires frequent trips to the
CBD."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/empire_zone/20070425_congestion.pdf
 
Dungheap said:
Who will cease driving to certain areas of the city at certain times? Whomever doesn't want to pay the fees to go there. That's the thing. It's designed to discourage driving to certain areas at certain times by making it more expensive. Certainly wealthy folks would have an easier time paying the fee but that's not really any of my concern. If they want to pay for it, by all means.

I find the idea that placing a fee on driving to certain areas at certain times is some sort of draconian policy that keeps poor folks down is laughable. There are lots of ways to get places, particularly in urban environments with good mass transit. Use the revenues generated from the fees to improve mass transit (oh noes, wealth redistribution!) and, if your goal is to improve the lot of poor folks generally, do it through the tax code or other policy mechanisms. Let transportation policy be transportation policy.
Click to expand...


Right.... more like it will be those who cannot afford to pay the fees will be forced to take alternative methods. You are simply being foolish to pretend otherwise. This is a hit against the poor. The wealthy can afford it and the poor cannot. Plain and simple. To pretend it is all by 'choice' is pathetic.

Yes, there are indeed lots of ways to get to places. But the bus system takes longer, which means those that are forced to take it are forced to use more of their time while saving time for the wealthy who can afford to drive.

Tell you what. Make it a $20k fee per year on all cars that are worth more than $14k. (including limos and all private cars from airport)
 
KingCondanomation said:
It keeps down the working and middle class New Yorkers, I suppose it would not hurt the welfare poor that sit on their ass in their social housing but it would certainly hurt the working poor and the study below proves it.

The New York Times thinks it would not be good for New York either:
"A Cure Worse than the Disease?
How London’s “Congestion Pricing” System
Could Hurt New York City’s Economy"

Key point in the article:
"Especially hard-hit would be working- and middle-class New Yorkers who commute to
the CBD by car from outlying areas in Queens and the other boroughs outside
Manhattan; and small to mid-sized firms whose business requires frequent trips to the
CBD."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/empire_zone/20070425_congestion.pdf
Click to expand...


1. The link is not to an article.

2. The study is not by the New York Times.

3. The study was commissioned by the Queens Chamber of Commerce.

4. The Queens Chamber of Commerce is obviously opposed to congestion pricing in Manhattan is it would cost their members money to make trips into Manhattan.

5. The idea that lots of working poor drive from Queens or outlying suburbs drive into central Manhattan for work is laughable. Apparently I am to believe that they work simply to earn money to pay to park at work.
 
Dung.... just wanted to highlight this portion... what do you think ....

Tell you what. Make it a $20k fee per year on all cars that are worth more than $14k. (including limos and all private cars from airport)
 
Superfreak said:
Dung.... just wanted to highlight this portion... what do you think ....

Tell you what. Make it a $20k fee per year on all cars that are worth more than $14k. (including limos and all private cars from airport)
Click to expand...


I'd be favorable to any policy that served the goal of less congestion without disproportionately impacting poor folks. It's just tough to develop one. The market-oriented solutions seem to be the ones that gain traction.

I mean, I understand the criticism and recognize that it is valid. I just think that, as a matter of transportation policy, congestion pricing makes sense is some locations notwithstanding the inequities. Deal with the inequities in another way.
 
Dungheap said:
I'd be favorable to any policy that served the goal of less congestion without disproportionately impacting poor folks. It's just tough to develop one. The market-oriented solutions seem to be the ones that gain traction.

I mean, I understand the criticism and recognize that it is valid. I just think that, as a matter of transportation policy, congestion pricing makes sense is some locations notwithstanding the inequities. Deal with the inequities in another way.
Click to expand...

WHAT other way are you going to deal with the inequities? You are forcing the poor to take mass transit, which typically takes LONGER to get where you are going. Not to mention it subjects you to the schedule of the mass transit system.

AGAIN, this is not a market based solution. A market based solution would not have this level of governmental interference.
 
I didn't read the entire thread and just skimmed the OP, but my first thought was, "Now there's a brilliant politician for you! He wants to reduce congestion in the city so he is considering adding toll booths!" Now that makes a hell of a lot of sense!! :eek:

Immie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top