this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
1113 points (93.3% liked)

memes

10389 readers
1922 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

People called me crazy when I didn't like the fact that they wanted free public transit and for all the bus costs to be put into people's property taxes. My only argument was those that actually need free bus fare, will be unable to continue affording their places they rent because property tax will go up. They will end up paying the same, if not more in the long run..all for free transit. People couldn't grasp it and resorted to verbally attacking me. Lol I still laugh.

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think the best solution is tax brackets for houses, like we do income. 0.1% for anything under 200,000, .4% under 500,000, and so on. Get that transit fund from those that won't use it anyways but rely on the labor of others to fund their mansions.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What's to stop Trump accounting under your system?

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Easy, your insurance policy can't exceed the taxed value.

[–] Novman@feddit.it 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The tax bracket is for the landlord, if the landlord pay 0.4% , you pay 0.4%.

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
[–] psud@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Transit ideally should be partly funded in the reduced road cost. Less so for buses, but imaging you linked exurbs and outer suburbs to the city by rail and a simple one lane each way road, instead of a five lane each way highway

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am really not against the idea. The only thing I would say is maybe try it first on areas that are already losing money on mass transit. That way we could massively increase usage. If you are not making money on something stop pretending that you are. NYC system is almost break even so leave that one for last.

[–] UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I don't believe public services should need to break even. They cost money because they're a service

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I think it is nice when they do break even. It does cost money and effort to run them. I agree it is not essential that they do but it is nice. Cities have budget crisis if their system is running at cost or near it the chances of it losing funding is lower.