I think increasing the payroll tax is a mistake. People who don't own a car should actually be rewarded because they pollute far less, they don't disable workers, they don't require traffic police, they don't emit CO2....
I would replace the payroll tax with a weight tax on huge SUVs.
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
There are degrees of obligation. The amount poor people would have to sacrifice in order to not drive is more. That's how 'regressiveness' works.
This is hard to believe because there is a maximum anyone could reasonably drive, a higher end income would dwarf the cost of that, there is a tradeoff between housing costs and commute distance (best way to avoid driving is living in an expensive city), genuinely wealthy people don't have to commute anyway, etc. could you link the source on this?
There is tons of stats at data.bts.gov, BLS, and Federal reserve FRED system. Image above is from https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Transportation-Economic-Trends-Transportation-Spen/ida7-k95k/
Basically, what we find is that wealthier people have bigger carbon footprint. They drive more miles, own more and bigger cars. They also fly more miles. What you are calling "degrees of obligation" is nothing more than a lifestyle choice. The suburbanite driving 50 miles a day in a BMW SUV is the one being impacted here, not the low-income worker taking the bus or driving an old Corolla.
Also note that driving is highly subsidized, and if the gas tax isn't raised to cover those costs then that money still has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is other government programs, which low-income are much more highly dependent on.
Transportation spending isn't just gas costs, I bet a lot of this is accounted for by how much more you can spend on newer, fancier cars, or even air travel.
Sure, I agree, again, I'm not arguing against a gas tax, I'm in favor of it because it's necessary, just saying that it should be acknowledged that it disproportionately affects the poor and that fact should be addressed in its implementation.