I don't see how any of this applies.

The infrastructure isn't paid for when it's built (including the public house). It's financed on debt. Pay-by-use is just a form of tax payment.

It's just that the "use" for information is nearly free, so it doesn't make sense to charge for usage.

If the road was already completely paid for by tax-payers (no debt), and then a toll company wanted to operate the road for a 99% margin - you'd see a lot more people complaining about that.

Street parking is an interesting example in that the demand charge is probably unrelated to the underlying cost. However, it's just one of the many examples of taking tax dollars from Pot A to pay for things in Pot B.

> The infrastructure isn't paid for when it's built (including the public house). It's financed on debt. Pay-by-use is just a form of tax payment.

Sorry, I don't understand the relevance here.

> It's just that the "use" for information is nearly free, so it doesn't make sense to charge for usage.

Exactly. It's easy to provide the information to essentially infinite people for free, and there's no real downside to doing so.

> If the road was already completely paid for by tax-payers (no debt), and then a toll company wanted to operate the road for a 99% margin - you'd see a lot more people complaining about that.

For sure. Of course, real world charges for roads/parking is a little more complicated than that.

> Street parking is an interesting example in that the demand charge is probably unrelated to the underlying cost. However, it's just one of the many examples of taking tax dollars from Pot A to pay for things in Pot B.

Yeah, the most obvious reason to do this for street parking is because you actively want to manage demand of a highly demanded, finite resource. You don't really need the money, but charging gets you other changes you want. Ditto for congestion charges.

> and there's no real downside to doing so.

There's no legitimate downside to doing so. There is a very real illegitimate downside for copyright racketeers such as Elsevier, in that they would be much less able to engage in said racketeering.

I see no reason why the answer shouldn't be "yes" to each of those bullets. I don't think the logic falls apart. Public goods and services should be public goods and services, full stop.

One reason to put tolls on roads is to make the people who use the infrastructure also the people who pay for it's maintenance and improvements. Public goods are provided by public money, and in some cases it might be fairer to get some/most/all of that public money from the portion of the public that are using the thing.

Also as a disincentive to use something. Like we want people to drive less in the urban core to reduce congestion and also the air pollution that's killing thousands of people every year. So we're going to put a charge on using those roads.

It depends on the specific scenario. For parking, for example, not charging for it when it's in high demand is generally a bad idea, because you get "overconsumption": people who barely even need it end up using it anyway (hey, it's free!) while people who really need it have a hard time finding any available. So you'll have, say, people who are just storing their occasionally-used car for weeks between uses on the street, while people who are just parking to unload something right now can't get their stuff done.

Then you also end up with people spending a lot of time circling around downtown looking for elusive free parking, which is bad for both traffic and the environment. In contrast, charging a "market rate" that usually leaves 10-15% of parking spots open means that scenario is now transparent and fast: you know you can usually quickly find parking, you know how much it's gonna cost, you can make the calculation ahead of time and execute fast.

We rely too much on money as a determining factor for things. Money does not accurately reflect value, nor does it accurate reflect contributions made to society. So, in that vain, I agree with another poster who said this should all be free. Perhaps with some changes.

> * So public housing can't be at least partially paid for by the tenant, it must be completely free?

Depends on what you consider as payment. I'm in favor of temporary housing (e.g. a tenant is expected to stay in the area no more than five years) being owned and managed by the city in which it's located. "Rent" would go toward maintenance of the building and surrounds, with any extra going back toward city services. Rent could be offset by a number of things - tenant's physical contribution to the maintenance, stipends for public service (e.g. teacher, social workers, etc.), federal grants, etc. The city would be expected to keep rents low. Maintenance could be handled by parks and rec. This is, of course, all dependent on how the city is set up, but I like it as a model.

Permanent housing would also be handled by the city, but only in terms of building and selling. Developers and real estate agents have a LOT of incentive to keep housing prices climbing. Putting this in the hands of the city - not the state, not the feds - has greater potential to help influence positive growth with citizen input while reigning in costs.

The part I have not solved for here is situations like Atherton, which is heavily populated by rich white weirdos who would rather no one other than their own live there, and actively work to discriminate against "undesirables" moving to their city (see the recent hullabaloo there regarding affordable housing). On the one hand, if that's what their democratically elected city government is pushing for, and the citizens agree, that's basically democracy at work. But you can't ignore the folks who are being left behind and simply make them the "problem" of the next city over.

> * No bridge or road tolls anywhere, any time?

Nope. Tax the companies that ship goods on those roads and bridges fairly and you'll recoup those costs. As should the fees for vehicle licensing.

> * No paid street parking either, even in highly demanded areas, like the middle of big cities, where demand needs to be managed somehow

Nope. Parking is self-managed - if there's no spot, you can't park. Adding money only fills the coffers of the local government, it doesn't really do much to actually address the issue. You may argue that the money could go toward adding more parking structures, but I'd argue back it's wiser to build cities that don't rely so heavily on motorized transit for access. The more parking we add, the less room we have for things like homes and small, locally owned businesses.

> Any kind of license or permit or passport should all be free, even for businesses?

Licensing and passports and all that aren't public goods - they're methods of tax collection, authentication (license ID, passport) and authorization (you need a passport to travel internationally). The fees you pay for them are what ought to ultimately be paying for those services (in addition, yes, to the other taxes we collect).

Free parking is actually bad, particularly in cities, though it's bad for reasons largely specific to cars.

> Putting this in the hands of the city - not the state, not the feds - has greater potential to help influence positive growth with citizen input while reigning in costs.

I'm leery of this; cities have generally shown themselves to be easily swayed by NIMBY's when it comes to housing policy. Just look at how California the state is constantly trying to get cities to build more housing semi-willingly through their local policies, and how pretty much all the coastal cities (who are the same sort of liberals elected to state-wide office, mind) just ignore that and do their best to do the bare minimum.

> Tax the companies that ship goods on those roads and bridges fairly and you'll recoup those costs.

Why though? Like, why is doing taxes on companies superior to, say, general/road tax funds + bridge tolls?

I'm open to the idea of making things free to the user, but I'm not so dogmatic as to think it's the right answer 100% of the time.

> The fees you pay for them are what ought to ultimately be paying for those services (in addition, yes, to the other taxes we collect).

Right, and I'm saying that this reasoning can apply to other things as well. Just because something is at least partially paid for by tax funds somewhere doesn't mean it should have zero cost to the user (though certainly sometimes that's true).

I think this is more of an issue of the GP not having explained why they believe a single cent of public money should mean zero cost for use.

> We rely too much on money as a determining factor for things. Money does not accurately reflect value, nor does it accurate reflect contributions made to society.

Yes, but nevertheless money works better than not doing anything for stuff like street parking. It's simple and effective. Perhaps another system would work better on paper for allocating street parking, but I'm guessing most other suggestions would be a lot more complicated and brittle in practice.