One limitation of the previous price experiment is that it was only a few summer months. Nobody sells their car for 3 months, especially when they include a summer holiday. Let's see what happens when you can count on this existing for years to come.

The germans are generally quite conscious of right and wrong (see e.g. Linux and OSM usage: it's still minorities but it's much more present than in similar countries like NL), maybe very competitive pricing does help in mass transport adoption.

In my opinion it should be somewhere between dirt cheap and free if your income is in the bottom 10% of incomes (and could cost twice as much for the top 50%, which includes me, because it has to be financed somehow anyway), but as an intermediate step, this is not going in the wrong direction.

You don’t need to mention that you are in the top 50% to make your augment stronger. You should probably even actively avoid saying it so that people don’t think you’re relying on selfless reasons, (hey everyone I’m the nice one in the room) to further your point, because others may not feel that way about themselves.l, at least not to random strangers in the bottom 10%.

Anyway, making more money is just a measure of one’s ability more or less (not a causation but a strong correlation). Therefore to the extent that one works harder or provides more value to others and is rewarded for it by increased earning power, they should not be punished for it by an arbitrary tax on their transportation needs.

I think it might make sense to create countries or places where people in the bottom 10% live with minimal conveniences, a place like Thailand when everything is cheap.

In additional to above requiring everyone to pay the same amount creates equality and most likely moves technological innovation ahead that much faster because everyone feels like they are getting value for their money and more likely to spend even more on improvements.

What exactly do you mean like by

“ I think it might make sense to create countries or places where people in the bottom 10% live with minimal conveniences, a place like Thailand when everything is cheap.”

Like a “full service convenience place” for the part of society that doesn’t want to work and outsource that to a cheap third world country and make their population work at low cost for the unemployed of the first world?

Or collectively create a place where “the bottom 10 percent are left at their own abilities” ?

I think you'll have to read a couple of Ayn Rand novels to truly understand what they mean. But I think the gist of it can be reduced to: "I'm very smart and upset that I have to pay taxes. Also, I don't like it when I see homeless people, after all it's their own fault they provide no value and are therefore poor. Can't we just send them to Thailand where I went on holiday recently and the can of Pabst Blue Ribbon that cost a reasonable $19 here in San Francisco only cost $15 at this "bar" some guy took me to to meet his sister. That's very cheap."

Sun Rand would be a bit extreme, but you’re not too far off track.

> In my opinion it should be somewhere between dirt cheap and free if your income is in the bottom 10% of incomes (and could cost twice as much for the top 50%

True, for many people 49€/ month is still too expensive - e.g. low wage, low pension or living on welfare.

In its current form, it's mostly a relief for the middle class living in areas with good public transportation.

I'm definitely happy to pay just 49€ for all over Germany instead of 80€ just for Berlin. I'd be ready to pay more and think it would be fair if the amount was tied to the taxable income, like union memberships are.

>True, for many people 49€/ month is still too expensive

But those people have to have means of transport at least to go to work. Even if they have a shitbox they pay more than that in gas and taxes. It's precisely for those people that this would be more beneficial.

As a bonus, it would reduce the ENORMOUS externalities that come from car usage: pollution, congestion, space for parking, roads, etc.

That sounds logical. Somehow I fear the problem might be in convincing people of these facts.

Case in point: nuclear energy popularity in Germany

My take is that in many, if not most, cases people choose based on convenience and practicality unless one option is simply unaffordable.

In Europe in general affordability of public transport is not the problem so I don't expect that decreasing prices will have a big effect on use.

I would disagree. Public transportation isn't cheap either if you're not a student or have a company sponsor, in some cases even more expensive than having a car.

I didn't claim it was 'cheap'. I wrote that people can afford it in the same way people can afford a car and that other concerns are often more important.

It surely is a problem and not everyone lives in the city center or in a nearby street with a public transport stop.

Then there is the whole issue with timetables once one gets a few km away from city center, with only one connection per hour between 7 AM and 8 PM, for anything else there are taxis.

Not every location in Europe is Amsterdam, Berlin, Milan,...

it is a problem, especially if you need a car anyways.