Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbry2sd wrote

Hot take: If you live within 1 mile of light rail/rapid transit or 10 miles of heavy rail you should be taxed 1.5% of your income + capital gains.

Yea, richer you are, the more you should pay.

And 50% of that money should be dedicated towards transit outside of metro areas.


rapmasternicky_z t1_jbu58sj wrote

Imagine thinking eco-friendly urban areas need to subsidize planet-killing suburban areas even MORE than they already do


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbu5mx2 wrote

Imagine one of the wealthiest parts of the wealthiest states needs to hoard money rather than expand public transit to change that.

Take one less planet killing flight a year and help add a bus line to someplace in the state without one.


nycnola t1_jbt21gu wrote

I can’t get behind Vehicles registered at residences within a certain distance of transit should be taxed higher.


PostPostMinimalist t1_jbumhbf wrote

So you’re incentivizing people not to live in the more economically, environmentally sustainable areas?


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbupznv wrote

No. We’re using the rich to improve public transit in the region.

You’re not going to move over 1.5%. You’ll just cut a vacation down a few days. No big deal.


PostPostMinimalist t1_jburczi wrote

You can do both at the same time. You should incentivize living near transit and tax the rich to build more. Taxing based on making the responsible choice to live near transit is crazy.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbuynv0 wrote

It’s not based on where you live. It’s based on you already have access to the system funded by others and now need to contribute your share not only for usage but expansion.

Reality is you’re mostly subsidized by those who fly, drive and purchase stuff that came in through the ports.

It’s not like you’re paying your own way. By living here you’re heavily subsidized, you just chose not to count it that way.

I’m merely suggesting a small reduction in that subsidy based on income. While you’re suggesting continuing to subsist on the backs of others.


PostPostMinimalist t1_jbv57fs wrote


>By living here you’re heavily subsidized, you just chose not to count it that way.

But that's exactly the way it should be. Governments should subsidize things that are better for their citizens (and economies and environments etc.).


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbv5kob wrote

Right.., and the way they make good things is by taxing those with advantage and using it to expand those borders to incorporate more people. Not by letting the top couple percent hoard wealth and be exclusionary as you propose we continue.

Just admit it: you’re cheap and like benefitting off others even to the detriment of others.


PostPostMinimalist t1_jbv7krg wrote

>Right.., and the way they make good things is by taxing those with advantage

But what kind of advantage???

Not "lives near transit" that's just dumb and disincentivizing the exact behavior you want to encourage. We've already covered this.

>as you propose

I literally said "tax the rich to build more." Come on now have an honest discussion.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbv7v6g wrote

Taxes don’t disincentivize. That’s conservative fear mongering. It’s been shown again and again taxes don’t do that. There’s decades of data on this.

The whole premise of your argument is a flawed attempt to mask being cheap.


PostPostMinimalist t1_jbvabss wrote

Don't disincentivize what?

For example, taxes on cigarettes do in fact discourage smoking. "Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status." You're equating different kinds of incentives. Or I guess the NIH is just conservative propaganda.

By your logic non-smokers are just "cheap" and should probably pay that money too since that all smoker tax money is subsidizing health programs that might just benefit them or society.