His account is a few years old, but his first post was only a few days ago. I think he might be a troll.
Either that or he's very misinformed about taxes, the economy, and MBTA funding.
Congestion toll in Boston?
- Thread starter statler
- Start date
His account is a few years old, but his first post was only a few days ago. I think he might be a troll.
Either that or he's very misinformed about taxes, the economy, and MBTA funding.
TheMagicMan
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 0
The state has a transportation problem why not have the public invest in something that would add value to all residents in this state.
What's a troll? I am not that intune with Massachusetts state and local politics.
If you think tripling the state income tax would be anything less than catastrophic for the state economy, I'd question how in tune you are with reality.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
I agree. We do have a transportation problem. Explain to me why you want a mere 10% more in income tax and not 20% to 30%.
If you're not in tune with state and local politics, you should probably read up a little before you start making outlandish proposals.
Now one proposal that has been made would be a millionaires tax, or a 4% surcharge on incomes over 1 million dollars in the commonwealth. That is estimated to provide over 2 billion dollars, if approved. Some lawmakers want this tax to go towards transportation. As I've said earlier, the MBTA subsidy that the state provides is less than half of this 2 billion dollars.
Currently the state has a flat tax rate, so (excluding deductions) someone making 50k pays the same rate as someone making 500k or 5 million dollars.
So increasing the tax rate for persons making over a certain amount is a legit proposal, and something that has lots of popular support in this state. However a 10% income tax increase on everyone would never fly.
TheMagicMan
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 0
10% is a conversation piece that would need to be reviewed by what is actually needed to help our transportation system.
What will it take for everybody to have a better quality of life with better transportation in the state.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 480
If I had to pick a ballpark number, it would be closer to 0.5%.
10% is a conversation ender, not a conversation starter.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Pretty much this.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,247
- Reaction score
- 2,035
Here's a more reasonable proposal. It doesn't solve all of our problems, but would be a step in the right direction and have widespread support.
Currently, there is a per-ride tax on ride-share trips. The tax is 20 cents, with 5 cents designated for taxis, 10 cents going to cities and towns, and the final 5 cents designated for a state transportation fund.
I propose, a re-designation of this tax where a higher percentage goes to the state transportation fund, and possibly a lower amount subsidizing taxis. Any of the following would be fine with me:
Currently, there is a per-ride tax on ride-share trips. The tax is 20 cents, with 5 cents designated for taxis, 10 cents going to cities and towns, and the final 5 cents designated for a state transportation fund.
I propose, a re-designation of this tax where a higher percentage goes to the state transportation fund, and possibly a lower amount subsidizing taxis. Any of the following would be fine with me:
- 25 cents (10 to state transport, 10 to cities/towns, 5 to taxis)
- 25 cents (15 to state transport, 10 to cities/towns, 0 to taxis)
- 20 cents (10 to state transport, 10 to cities/towns, 0 to taxis)
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Why the hell is any going to taxis? Besides the usual graft.
Or just charge $2.75 which is the fee in NYC for ride hail.
Actually, just index it with the base MBTA fare, which is where $2.75 came from in NYC.
In fact, everything should be indexed to MBTA fares. Parking meters, Uber fees, tunnel fees, etc
For one, it will make it less likely that the MBTA fare is hiked every time you blink
JumboBuc
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,646
- Reaction score
- 1,515
None of it has actually gone to taxis, so far. About $3.2 million has been collected (almost 65 million rides!) and just about all of it is sitting in the bank. About $50k of it has been budgeted to MAPC to run a study to figure out how to spend the rest to help the taxi industry. There was an article in the Globe about this a few weeks ago.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 480
I love that! Make every ride-hail include paying a subway fare to the MBTA. At about 35 million trips per year, that raises $80 million per year. That's not a lot in the grand scheme of their $2 billion budget, but it covers their $30 million annual deficit and adds $50 million for a modest (single digit percentage) increase in service.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Why are we helping the taxi industry? This kind of BS is why people like me look at every attempt to raise taxes or fees with a serious sideways glance. May as well charge Ford to subsidize buggy whip makers.
I’m going to stop myself, but I want to rant about crony capitalism.
A small number of taxi drivers mortgaged hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to buy into a cartel (medallion) that was guaranteed by the city/state. Uber/Lyft then came in with a legally questionable business model, but consumers liked it enough that the state made it legal. However this screwed the people who paid hundreds of thousands for medallions.
I don't have much sympathy for the large medallion owners, they used their political power to constrain the number of taxi licences and profit as a result. But for small time medallion owners I think it would make sense for some sort of bail out.
JumboBuc
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,646
- Reaction score
- 1,515
Oh I agree. In my opinion Uber/Lyft fees should not be used to bail out the taxi industry.
I wasn't editorializing in my previous post, just explaining what the "taxi" funds have gone to so far.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,247
- Reaction score
- 2,035
The taxi drivers that bought medallions made a terrible business decision. I have sympathy for them, just like others who make terrible business decisions. But they do not deserve any subsidy. They are not providing a public good. They were operating a private business within a corrupt and failed. Thankfully that corrupt system is dying the death it deserves. We should let it.
cadetcarl
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 432
- Reaction score
- 30
The rising price of rideshares will do the work of pushing more people into the transit system anyway, so I'm all for helping them along with this surcharge.
It's fairly well-reported by now that none of the big players in this sector make any money; Uber and Lyft use VC money to subsidize rides to pick up market share and choke out competition. Then they IPO (this is where we are now), so the original investors get paid back by passing the buck to the bigger fools who think any company with an app is a winner.
Eventually those left holding stock will demand that the companies finally turn a profit, and the companies are hoping that their customers are loyal enough to weather a permanent surge rate. They also juice their bottom line by squeezing drivers, but that's for another day.
Forget taxis, taxis are done. Throw them 10 cents, whatever, but they'll struggle to get out from under their medallions and as mentioned above, businesses live and die every day. It will be interesting to see what the break-even point for these companies settles at, and whether all the work of developing the app, growing into all these markets, etc. will have been worth it, or whether that number becomes close to or even higher per ride than what cab companies charge. And that's before any regulatory pressure to do things that transfer driver overhead to their ledgers. If they face any real demands to consider drivers as employees, the associated costs would be punishing.
We should remember that it is in these companies' interest establish a foothold and deprive us of many alternatives so that when the third phase comes and they're forced to hike prices or die, we're stuck paying because we have no choice.
I'm not even totally anti-ridesharing; it's obvious they're filling in the gaps between transit nodes and performing trips that are difficult in our hub-and-spoke system. But I'm totally okay with siphoning off their revenues to expand the public network.
It's fairly well-reported by now that none of the big players in this sector make any money; Uber and Lyft use VC money to subsidize rides to pick up market share and choke out competition. Then they IPO (this is where we are now), so the original investors get paid back by passing the buck to the bigger fools who think any company with an app is a winner.
Eventually those left holding stock will demand that the companies finally turn a profit, and the companies are hoping that their customers are loyal enough to weather a permanent surge rate. They also juice their bottom line by squeezing drivers, but that's for another day.
Forget taxis, taxis are done. Throw them 10 cents, whatever, but they'll struggle to get out from under their medallions and as mentioned above, businesses live and die every day. It will be interesting to see what the break-even point for these companies settles at, and whether all the work of developing the app, growing into all these markets, etc. will have been worth it, or whether that number becomes close to or even higher per ride than what cab companies charge. And that's before any regulatory pressure to do things that transfer driver overhead to their ledgers. If they face any real demands to consider drivers as employees, the associated costs would be punishing.
We should remember that it is in these companies' interest establish a foothold and deprive us of many alternatives so that when the third phase comes and they're forced to hike prices or die, we're stuck paying because we have no choice.
I'm not even totally anti-ridesharing; it's obvious they're filling in the gaps between transit nodes and performing trips that are difficult in our hub-and-spoke system. But I'm totally okay with siphoning off their revenues to expand the public network.