Far Left Liberal San Fran Considers Taxing People Entering The City

Dungheap said:
Of course, we could look tot he London example and see what actually happened when congestion pricing was implemented as compared to the predictions like the one above.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd like to see that. We could also see what happened to the Irish economy when they reduced their tax rates to the lowest in Europe, and then see how much traffic was generated from British workers commuting there to find jobs. I bet that reduced traffic in London significantly. :)
 
Dungheap said:
Of course, we could look tot he London example and see what actually happened when congestion pricing was implemented as compared to the predictions like the one above.
Click to expand...
That the poor started taking the tube, waiting? Yeah, wow. My "prediction" panned out. It's regressive taxation. You, like Dixie in the "for their own good" arguments against allowing storefronts, you justify a regressive tax even though it is against your philosophy because you like people taking the tube.

If it effected all people equally, rather than just clearing the streets for the more affluent to use, I might even agree with you.
 
Damocles said:
That the poor started taking the tube, waiting? Yeah, wow. My "prediction" panned out. It's regressive taxation. You, like Dixie in the "for their own good" arguments against allowing storefronts, you justify a regressive tax even though it is against your philosophy because you like people taking the tube.

If it effected all people equally, rather than just clearing the streets for the more affluent to use, I might even agree with you.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is regressive. It is regressive by design. If everyone could afford it or was willing to pay the fee, it wouldn't work. But you don't have to pay it if you don't want to.
 
KingCondanomation said:
"Officials in San Francisco are considering a plan to ease traffic by charging drivers a fee upon entering notoriously clogged sections of the city.

Using $1 million in federal funds, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority is studying various “congestion pricing” options. If approved, such pricing would make San Francisco the first American city to charge cars a fee to enter certain neighborhoods at certain times. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/us/04congestion.html

And we all know how Liberal Democrats work, once one does it, then the rest try and keep up with the Liberal Joneses and think they are "behind" by not having the same "progressive" legislation.
Click to expand...
Why the fuck don't you ever criticize conservatives that want to intrude on peoples personal lives. The party you support is everybit as intrusive as the tax and spend left.
 
Dungheap said:
Yes, it is regressive. It is regressive by design. If everyone could afford it or was willing to pay the fee, it wouldn't work. But you don't have to pay it if you don't want to.
Click to expand...
And thus my "predictions" were not magically wrong. They were, in fact, designed just as I described them, and apparently you want them. Clear those poor people off the streets so the rich people can move faster, that's the "American" way.
 
Dungheap said:
Sexiness has nothing to do with it. Congested urban roads are, from a market standpoint, extremely inefficient on myriad levels and environmentally problematic, largely because the rational decision of the individual to drive becomes an irrational, inefficient mess when everyone does it.

Use the revenues from congestion pricing and build a better public transit system (BART is pretty good as it is).
Click to expand...

While I agree BART is pretty good, Damos point stands. By taxing the 'congestion' you push the poor onto the mass transit, while the wealthy can afford to pay the 'congestion' tax.
 
Damocles said:
And thus my "predictions" were not magically wrong. They were, in fact, designed just as I described them, and apparently you want them. Clear those poor people off the streets so the rich people can move faster, that's the "American" way.
Click to expand...


The "predictions" I was referring to are the economic doom and gloom predictions.
 
Superfreak said:
So your point is that the rich should be the only ones using cars and the poor should be forcefully regulated to mass transit?
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. I think it makes sense for driving to certain areas within a city to actually cost money at certain times to avoid the ill effects of congestion.
 
Do "poor people" really want cars if there is good, reliable and cheap mass transportation available? Man when I first moved back to the suburbs fairly recently, after living in Seattle and Manhattan, I hated having to shell out 300 a month for car payments, 1,500 a year for insurance, plus maintence and repairs? Some months that really hurt me.
 
Dungheap said:
Not necessarily. I think it makes sense for driving to certain areas within a city to actually cost money at certain times to avoid the ill effects of congestion.
Click to expand...

Which by nature eliminates the poorer citizens or forces them onto mass transit. It... by design... allows clearer roads for the wealthy.
 
Superfreak said:
Which by nature eliminates the poorer citizens or forces them onto mass transit. It... by design... allows clearer roads for the wealthy.
Click to expand...


OK. Are you the champion of the poor and downtrodden all of a sudden? Should we impose the John Edwards rule on you now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top