This comment is a good example of the type of narrow minded progressive thinking that has held back good public policy like congestion pricing and carbon taxes. Both of these programs are criticized as being regressive. The criticism neglects to take into consideration the society wide benefits like more efficient bus travel or cleaner air that preferentially help the less well off.
I agree with your rebuttal in response to that other person's comment, but ultimately I do think those programs are regressive for the poor, at this very point in time.
I guess the question becomes, should those poorest suffer for the betterment of all future generations? I would personally say no.
Life is regressive. Charity is a good thing, but not every single conceivable public policy has to include a charity component. Charging citizens a reasonable price for the cost of services rendered is a perfectly fair thing to do. The fact that life itself isn't fair doesn't change that. I'd prefer we try to address that later problem separately through a centralized welfare program rather than by hamstringing good public policy.
Thank you for letting me clarify my point with two examples of how these seemingly regressive policies ultimately help the poorer among us: 1. carbon taxes will improve poor air quality which currently impacts the poor more than the wealthy who can afford to live in cleaner areas. The poor will enjoy significant health benefits that far outweighs the small regressive tax they pay know. 2. A Congestion pricing stands to dramatically improve mass transit options like buses, which the working class rely on far more than the wealthy to get to work on time and will even expand the job options they have available to them.
You paid far less. The top half of American pay almost 98% of federal taxes. The top 10% pay nearly three quarters. The American tax system is very progressive.
You have it wrong. You are grouping in that top 10% the millionaires/billionaires who pay nothing with the 6-figure W2 workhorses who cannot hide anything.
Stop equivocating. You said that ‘you’ (as in the lower income half) paid more. This is demonstrably false. The top half of Americans pay 97.7% of taxes.
It may be you paid a higher percentage of your income despite the progressive nature of the American tax code which has a higher rate the more you make, via some tax breaks some wealthy people take advantage etc... It can also be that you paid a smaller percentage through an EITC. I don’t know without know your situation. It is definitely false that Americans making between $200-400K paid a smaller rate than you did.
Your broad statement the poor are paying the bulk of support for public infrastructure is clearly wrong. Revise your priors.
Oh god. Didn't they try to do something like this in Mexico City and it resulted in no change? Clever policy is always rife with unintended consequences; prices are good.
