Is Mass Transit a "Regressive Tax"?

[Agschmid]

I don't see a whole lot of difference between Mass Transit and toll roads...

Could just be me?

[Wounded Bear]

1. Typically, no...

most mass transit is subsidized by one level of gov't or another, generally city or county.

For a while, downtown Seattle had free bus service, as long as you stayed in the designated downtown area. They dumped that, as an 'austerity' measure, I guess, but it helped keep cars on the streets a bit more managable.

[TheFarseer]

2. a tax to who?

It's a service to its riders. Cheaper than buying, registering, maintaining and gassing up a car.

[Agschmid]

4. I'm just wondering what people think...

In my head today all I thought about was how mass transit compares to tolls... Basically I had a GD nightmare all day.

[liberal N proud]

3. We don't pay a fuel tax in addition to paying to ride.

That is the fundamental difference, double taxation and one that hurts the lower incomes than anyone else.

[upaloopa]

5. Not everyone used mass transit

It is an alternative to driving
I ride a commuter bus
I am on it now I go 50 miles both ways
It cost $150 a month the same commute costs about $500 in gas a month
The bus is cheaper and takes 55 cars off the road
Add a toll to the $500 and the bus is still cheaper

[Agschmid]

6. Yes both tolls and mass transit are "optional" in my mind.

[TBF]

9. It doesn't matter if they are "optional" -

the fact that it still takes a greater amount of a person's income makes it regressive.

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. "Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, where the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.[7][8] In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax incidence of people with higher ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with lower ability-to-pay.

(source - wiki)

[Fumesucker]

11. You might want to make that an OP, sadly a lot of posters here seem to fail to understand it

[Agschmid]

17. Thanks for that I don't think I really understood what someone else mean in another post.

[TBF]

22. No problem -

republicans will argue things are "optional" - but people do need to buy food, shelter, transport to work. Many of these people, especially these days, are working poor and these very basic tasks take a much larger proportion of their income than they would a rich person's income.

[gollygee]

7. Mass transit gives the poor more options

Toll roads don't give any more options. They just make the current option cost more.

[etherealtruth]

8. Exactly

There is actually a potential for a benefit to the poorest among us

[Shandris]

13. There is.

IF you can make sure the mass transit actually goes places we need it too, doesn't consume ridiculous amounts of time, and has some kind of security apparatus on it, as well as being affordable...then yes, it does provide choices for us.

Alternately, you could supplement the funding of cabs to function as public transit (and forget the 'mass' part) for us in smaller cities. This offers substantially more amounts of choice.

There are actually several different directions you could go, but if you're actually serious then you need to look at security and safety first. Most of us aren't afraid to walk to get where we need to go, and sadly it can be safer than riding in mass transit.

[Niceguy1]

10. mass transit is heavily

Subsidised, so it is very progressive. It is common for the actual cost of the bus ride to be 5-6 times the actual fare.

Plus seniors and disables get further subsidies.

[Trajan]

12. Another 'Toll Troll' in the house

DU is becoming really fucked up ... It sucks ...

[whistler162]

14. Well thanks for announcing your self!

not everyone will agree with you on any subject and that disagrement doesn't make them a bad person.

[Agschmid]

18. Rethink that please.

[Agschmid]

19. Rethink that please it's not cool to call people trolls.

[TBF]

23. Agschmid is not a troll

to my knowledge - just didn't understand this issue completely.

[Fred Drum]

15. Mass Transit is a good thing

paying for Mass Transit with a regressive tax is a bad thing

if the debate is the need for additional tax revenue, progressive taxation should be the answer

[Chathamization]

20. Good point. Interesting how we come to think of the status quo as how the world should be rather

than how it happens to be. There's not particular reason why the way government handles transportation should be exactly how it is now. It could be more monetarily regressive - higher fares, tolls, higher gasoline tax, or more monetarily progressive - free public transit (some places have this), fuel subsidies, increased development.

Ideally the government would provide public transportation, highways, bike lanes, aggressively build infrastructure, and keep upping the fuel efficiency standards. We're not going to have much luck on the national level anytime soon, though we might be able to get some local traction in some places (not nearly enough, though).

Practically, however, I'm curious what alternatives people believe can be implemented that would adequately fund the Highway Trust Fund.

[The Straight Story]

21. It depends on where you live I suppose. Not all of America is like NYC and such.

Most of it is not. So taxing for it in some places would be regressive if not downright stupid.