Re:SF residents get a shock: Someone bought their street
by mikeash on Monday August 07, 2017 @01:50PM
(#14949521)
The whole point of charging for the parking spot would be so that they wouldn't have to use tax money to maintain it.
It's not a matter of alleviating your tax burden, it's a matter of alleviating everyone else's tax burden so they're not subsidizing your car. You should pay for what you use unless there's a compelling reason for it to be subsidized, not the other way around. Roads are essential for freedom of movement and in any case are too difficult to toll on a massive scale, so it makes sense to subsidize them. Parking spaces are inessential and easy to charge for, so we should charge for them.
Re:SF residents get a shock: Someone bought their street
by sgdread on Monday August 07, 2017 @02:54PM
(#14950173)
Nobody is subsidizing your car: as a car owner, you already paid 1) sales tax; 2) yearly registration; 3) yearly property tax; 4) taxes included in gas. Why car owners should be double-triple taxed?
Re:SF residents get a shock: Someone bought their street
by Sleeep on Monday August 07, 2017 @09:36PM
(#14952811)
Those costs are minor and not close to covering the cost of car ownership. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving...
Re:SF residents get a shock: Someone bought their street
by mikeash on Monday August 07, 2017 @03:00PM
(#14950227)
Those don't come close to covering it all. Especially since I don't pay any (4).
Paying to store your car is not a "tax" so it cannot result in being double-taxed. It's a standard payment in exchange for use of property.
If tax money built the parking spot and tax money maintains the parking spot, then why should the government get extra income from the parking spot? Is my tax burden alleviated when I pay to use this parking spot?