You have to use real numbers. The congestion charge is going to be about $3k per year, which is NOT a $10k difference in gross income at this level, no matter how many taxes you include. If someone happens to find a job that pays exactly the perfect amount less where they break even on paying the congestion charge, well, good for them, I guess? Salary is not the only reason people take jobs, and it's likely they'd have more opportunities to advance in the city anyway.
>How is congestion pricing better than building enough housing in the city that everyone who works there can afford to live there instead of having to commute in?
Here are several ways it is better:
1. Building housing costs money. Congestion fares raise money.
2. The city is generally not in the business of building housing. This is something the private sector does.
3. Again, there is absolutely no reason we can't do both.
You're not counting state and local taxes and benefits phase outs. The benefits phase outs are a bear -- for low and middle income people they often exceed the taxes.
> I would be willing to wager there is almost nobody making $50k who drives to work in lower Manhattan by themselves.
To wear a suit and work in an office? No, probably not. But many service workers don't get paid very well and nonetheless work in Manhattan. And it's hard for people making that amount of money to afford to live in Manhattan either -- because there isn't enough housing there.
> They would already be priced out by the current tolls and parking.
This is why the current tolls are also bad. (And Uber and Lyft have got a solution for the parking.)
But what about the principle is dependent on the income level to begin with? It's just an example. Isn't it also bad to force out the person making $70,000 who then takes another job somewhere else for $60,000?
How is congestion pricing better than building enough housing in the city that everyone who works there can afford to live there instead of having to commute in?