Congestion toll in Boston?

[tysmith95]

Of course it wouldn't. I was responding to the magic mushroom's zany idea for an added 10% transportation tax on top of the state income tax. Maybe I shouldn't have wasted my time responding at all.

You were responding to Mushrooms idea like it was mine. I think there should be transit improvements, but costs need to be kept in check. And tripling the income tax for everyone is outrageous.

The good part about a congestion tax would be that you'd avoid some criticism from people in more rural parts of the state if there were to be an increase in the income or gas tax.

 

[cadetcarl]

What kind of magic trains can you get for that kind of money? For 10 extra percent of my income I'd want a train on wheels that lives in my driveway and only goes to the places I want, when I want and in which I can play my own music through the speakers. (My comment history will speak to my position on taxes but this is utter lunacy.)

 

[TheMagicMan]

10% transportation tax will look very cheap today if we cannot reverse the current environment issues plaguing the future.

How much would it be worth to have 1/3 of traffic gone? 10%

 

[tysmith95]

10% transportation tax will look very cheap today if we cannot reverse the current environment issues plaguing the future.

How much would it be worth to have 1/3 of traffic gone? 10%

10% of what? Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

 

[DominusNovus]

10% transportation tax will look very cheap today if we cannot reverse the current environment issues plaguing the future.

How much would it be worth to have 1/3 of traffic gone? 10%

Its a pointless gesture. If you triple the tax rate in MA, when it is right next to a state with a 0% income tax, trust me, you won’t do a damn thing for the planet.

 

[kmp1284]

You were responding to Mushrooms idea like it was mine. I think there should be transit improvements, but costs need to be kept in check. And tripling the income tax for everyone is outrageous.

The good part about a congestion tax would be that you'd avoid some criticism from people in more rural parts of the state if there were to be an increase in the income or gas tax.

Initially I was responding to this:

Yes. The goal is to decrease traffic and reverse the global warming effects on this planet.

which was a response to this:

So you are suggesting nearly tripling the income tax? Fortunately, we don't need nearly as much money as that for transportation. Maybe you should reconsider your proposal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I interpreted this:

Not true, at all. Most of the people in my downtown office use the T to get to work.

in response to this:

It would certainly decrease traffic in Massachusetts. Almost everyone who can afford to would move elsewhere.

to indicate that you supported the proposal and/or believed that people who used public transit(based on the subway riders in your office) would go along with a massive tax increase because they might benefit.

 

[HenryAlan]

Not true, at all. Most of the people in my downtown office use the T to get to work.

Pay attention. MagicMan is talking about increasing the income tax to over 15%. Who is going to willingly stay in a state with a tax like that? Taking the 'T doesn't exempt you from paying his proposed tax rate.

 

[tysmith95]

Pay attention. MagicMan is talking about increasing the income tax to over 15%. Who is going to willingly stay in a state with a tax like that? Taking the 'T doesn't exempt you from paying his proposed tax rate.

The MBTA is only a fraction of the state budget. You could double the subsidizes and only raise the income tax by 3/10ths of a percent. Personally I'd be in favor of getting rid of the flat income tax, and raise it by people making over 200k (after deductions).

And some improvements, like electrification, would be expensive in the short term but would actually save the T in operating costs in the long term.

 

[DominusNovus]

The MBTA is only a fraction of the state budget. You could double the subsidizes and only raise the income tax by 3/10ths of a percent. Personally I'd be in favor of getting rid of the flat income tax, and raise it by people making over 200k (after deductions).

And some improvements, like electrification, would be expensive in the short term but would actually save the T in operating costs in the long term.

Or we could just pay for if with a toll.

 

[Rover]

Voters will not approve giving the T another 5 cents if they don't clean up their act. Open the books, full accounting of absurd pensions, less unemployable relatives of state politicians, etc. I'm not sure why some posters don't get that. Its not that we collectively don't want to fund transportation. Its that we don't want to put extra dollars into the black hole that is the T's books in order to pay for some 45 year old to live in Florida on a full pension.

 

[tysmith95]

Or we could just pay for if with a toll.

Yep. A congestion toll, centered around the center of Boston at peak times. This would not be regressive, as poor people don't go to the central business districts and park at peak times.

 

[HalcyonEra]

The MBTA is only a fraction of the state budget. You could double the subsidizes and only raise the income tax by 3/10ths of a percent. Personally I'd be in favor of getting rid of the flat income tax, and raise it by people making over 200k (after deductions).

And some improvements, like electrification, would be expensive in the short term but would actually save the T in operating costs in the long term.

We have the 12th largest budget in the US. There is no revenue problem, there is a spending problem.

 

[tysmith95]

We have the 12th largest budget in the US. There is no revenue problem, there is a spending problem.

And the 15th largest population.

I don't think size of the budget is what matters, but spending per capita does. Of course California is going to have the highest budget, because it's huge. But looking at per capita spending would be the better solution.

 

[HalcyonEra]

And the 15th largest population.

I don't think size of the budget is what matters, but spending per capita does. Of course California is going to have the highest budget, because it's huge. But looking at per capita spending would be the better solution.

That view is economic fallacy. It fails to take into account local taxes, federal funding allocated directly to local or county governments, excise taxes and all the other hidden shit through "fees" extorted out of the populous.

 

[jl326]

Voters will not approve giving the T another 5 cents if they don't clean up their act. Open the books, full accounting of absurd pensions, less unemployable relatives of state politicians, etc. I'm not sure why some posters don't get that. Its not that we collectively don't want to fund transportation. Its that we don't want to put extra dollars into the black hole that is the T's books in order to pay for some 45 year old to live in Florida on a full pension.

BINGO!

 

[tysmith95]

That view is economic fallacy. It fails to take into account local taxes, federal funding allocated directly to local or county governments, excise taxes and all the other hidden shit through "fees" extorted out of the populous.

How is that view fallacy? It costs more to run a state with 30 million people than it does a state with 5 million people.

I'm just stating that total budget means nothing. Budget per capita is a more useful number.

 

[TheMagicMan]

Voters will not approve giving the T another 5 cents if they don't clean up their act. Open the books, full accounting of absurd pensions, less unemployable relatives of state politicians, etc. I'm not sure why some posters don't get that. Its not that we collectively don't want to fund transportation. Its that we don't want to put extra dollars into the black hole that is the T's books in order to pay for some 45 year old to live in Florida on a full pension.

If the state incorporated 10% total income tax on Mass Residents into a transportation tax it would help the MBTA solve its financial problems.

 

[tysmith95]

Voters will not approve giving the T another 5 cents if they don't clean up their act. Open the books, full accounting of absurd pensions, less unemployable relatives of state politicians, etc. I'm not sure why some posters don't get that. Its not that we collectively don't want to fund transportation. Its that we don't want to put extra dollars into the black hole that is the T's books in order to pay for some 45 year old to live in Florida on a full pension.

Totally agreed. Out of control costs are even more of an obstacle than funding.

Some of it is the fact that MBTA salaries way above what the private sector pays for similar positions. And with pensions and benefits, it's way above what other state agencies pay. Riders and taxpayers have to pay for this.

Charlie has done a little to control this, threatening to outsource functions was probably one of his administrations best negotiating tactics, but the problem still exists.

It also exists with any major project in this state. The Green Line Extension was a fiasco, and the Big Dig fiasco is still fresh in peoples mind.

 

[cadetcarl]

If the state incorporated 10% total income tax on Mass Residents into a transportation tax it would help the MBTA solve its financial problems.

My blocklist has grown by a member, you've had a laugh but a lot of us here try to take things somewhat seriously.

 

[DominusNovus]

If the state incorporated 10% total income tax on Mass Residents into a transportation tax it would help the MBTA solve its financial problems.

I’m going to keep humoring you, but I’m going to admit that I’m doing so for the pettiest of reasons: your arguments are so facile that its like stealing candy from a baby to dismantle them.

So, why 10%? Why not 20% or 30%? If this is so important, tell me why you want to raise it by such a small amount.