dagblog - Comments for "What Does Free Really Cost?"

Looks like we agree that the

Watt Childress — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:39:00 +0000

In reply to The money being extracted is

Looks like we agree that the full costs of urban services should be exposed for all to see rather than tying them to a dysfunctional political system. When it comes to parking, user fees are a good way to show costs.

It does matter where deficit spending comes from. What I've observed is that corporate entitlements are often loaded onto the front end of the budget process. Then when there's not enough money to meet priority civic needs, lawmakers use those needs to package their pitch for raising taxes or increasing debt.

Let's do it in reverse. Fund the civic priorities up front. Then we'll know how much our priorities cost and can decide whether it's worth it to extract more revenues for entitlements.

So we should stagger prices

Donal — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:31:39 +0000

In reply to This is the same principle

So we should stagger prices on everything, based on the purchaser's income? I'm not unsympathetic to your argument, but how do I provide cheap parking for poor people when rich people are already buying handicapped plates?

This is the same principle

MrSmith1 — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:09:18 +0000

In reply to What Does Free Really Cost?

This is the same principle which dictates that if you raise the tax on cigarettes high enough, people will stop smoking. It ignores the addictive nature of nicotine in favor of behavior modification via financial penalty. Trouble is, some people will simply pay the price because they can afford to, so you haven't really modified everyone's behavior, just the poor people.

The money being extracted is

moat — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:14:16 +0000

In reply to Drum's theory assumes that

The money being extracted is being spent on both civic priorities and corporate entitlements. I don't see how that condition undercuts Drum's theory. If the entitlements are way to avoid paying a "user fee", what better way of concealing the nature of the arrangement than tying it to a dysfunctional policy system where taxpayers avoid the real cost of services they demand?

The deficit doesn't care where the unpaid money doesn't come from. Drum's theory is simply that taxpayers would pay a lot more attention to the list of charges on the account if they had to pay the full amount.

Drum's theory assumes that

Watt Childress — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:45:17 +0000

In reply to A related point by Kevin Drum

Drum's theory assumes that money extracted from taxpayers is being spent on civic priorities rather than corporate entitlements. That's a flawed assumption, in my estimation.

A related point by Kevin Drum

Donal — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:26:24 +0000

In reply to A thoughtful post with many

A related point by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:

If you raise taxes to pay for government programs, you're essentially making them expensive. Conversely, if you cut taxes, you're making government spending cheaper. So what does Econ 101 say happens when you reduce the price of something? Answer: demand for it goes up.

Cutting taxes makes government spending less expensive for taxpayers, which makes them want more of it. And politicians, obliging creatures that they are, are eager to give the people what they want. Result: lots of spending and lots of deficits.
If you want to reduce spending, the best way to do it is to raise taxes so that registered voters actually have to pay for the services they get. I don't have a cute name for this theory, but it's true nonetheless. Even for Republicans.

I've heard that phony

Donal — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:20:55 +0000

In reply to P.S. In NYC, finding free

I've heard that phony handicapped plates are a depressingly common tactic.

P.S. In NYC, finding free

artappraiser — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:29:00 +0000

In reply to But while hunting and

P.S. In NYC, finding free parking IS hunting and gathering at its most challenging. As with hunting, it requires patience for long bouts of boredom interspersed with a switch in an instant to acting immediately and possibly brutally. Doing it successfully also requires superior intelligence, "outside the box" thinking skills, confidence, decisiveness, physical agility, extreme competitiveness, knowledge of the terrain and environmental dangers and especially, finely honed intuition about "the other."

A thoughtful post with many

Watt Childress — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:39:00 +0000

In reply to What Does Free Really Cost?

A thoughtful post with many connecting points.

The allegedly libertarian comment from Mr. O'Toole at CATO jumps out at me. It exposes my main objection to corporate libs. They preach free market when it comes to criticizing regulation and planning, yet seldom speak out about government subsidies that drive pollution, over-development, and abuse of natural resources.

I would think that a true libertarian would applaud a policy that pays for parking with user fees rather than public subsidies.

Phew, there's a lot here! I

Michael Maiello — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:53:00 +0000

In reply to What Does Free Really Cost?

Phew, there's a lot here! I think sometimes I sound callous about environmental issues because the environment, while important to me, isn't my primary concern. I'm mostly concerned with how people live and struggle and how we can reduce people's struggles, many of which I think are unnecessary and even perverse. We all get one life. Why suffer through it? Why do we think it's okay that some people get trapped in mine for weeks as a consequence of trying to feed themselves and their familes while Paris Hilton has total freedom from want? What does any of this have to do with the cost of parking?

Well, I guess it has a lot to do with the cost of parking and with stuffing things into our McMansions. On parking, I kind of agree with Atrios and the urban planner -- the requirement that every new structure comes with parking just compounds the car culture problem, makes high density developments impossible to build and adds to the cost of housing and commercial real estate. That said, I am entirely sympathetic to people who have to drive to work and see high cost parking permits as a regressive tax. I mean, first you have to go to a job when you'd rather be doing something else and then they tax the gas you have to buy to go there and then they charge you for leaving your car outside? Kind of sucks. This is why I get so annoyed when I see Tom Friedman calling for a carbon tax. He's rich. It doesn't matter to him. He can buy a hybrid. Or just pay the darn tax. It's the working class person with a used car and a 20 mile commute who's really going to suffer.

Your CATO guy objects to the urban planner trying to "Change people's behavior." But of course, anyone with an actual vision for how society should function is going to be trying to change people's behavior. That's kind of the point. I can accept that, even if CATO can't.

But, you know, if we have to charge for parking, carbon or whatever else, maybe we should charge rich people first. The majority of overworked and underpaid Americans just shouldn't be the first targets.

Ultimately, we have to find a way to free ourselves from want. One way to do that is to eschew desire and embrace ascetic living. I doubt think that's practical. We also can't go on as we are, for obvious reasons. But I think the answer ultimately lies in science and technology, not in the other direction. Fusion? Space? The Sun? I don't know. But I'm pretty sure the fate of the species and the planet relies on us getting to a Star Trek type future.