U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-23-2019, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,004 posts, read 9,285,783 times
Reputation: 5625

Advertisements

This one is for you, jsvh! From the LA Times:

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...122-story.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2019, 10:59 AM
Status: "Apparently not a person." (set 3 days ago)
 
4,988 posts, read 3,266,999 times
Reputation: 3327
Another city with very few alternatives seeking to keep people from using pretty much the only option by tolling them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2019, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,554 posts, read 3,024,039 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnsleyPark View Post
This one is for you, jsvh! From the LA Times:

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...122-story.html
Yes, Atlanta, as a metro area, absolutely should. The city is, at least, considering cordon pricing within the city core.



Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Another city with very few alternatives seeking to keep people from using pretty much the only option by tolling them.
There's this fantastic concept called 'issuing debt against expected and projected revenue'. No government is a stranger to the concept, since it's how pretty much anything with respect to tax-backed large projects are done.

It's a comparatively trivial matter to fund an expansion plan off of expected toll revenue, just like any other tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2019, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
245 posts, read 111,854 times
Reputation: 580
I've got a better idea - one that will have much better public support.

Implement a per-employee tax on companies within the city, based on the distance the employee lives from work. Zero to 5 miles, zero tax. 5-10 miles, a tax set at a modest level. 10-15 miles, make this tax sting a little. More than 15 miles, the tax is set at a high level, and would only be suitable for hiring high-paid professionals. Over time, this would reduce commuter mileage dramatically, since most people would live far closer to work than they do now.

I agree we need money to pay for stuff, but why not tax entities which actually have the money to pay these taxes - like wealthy companies who are getting off far too easily. Let's not tax people who are least able to pay them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2019, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,554 posts, read 3,024,039 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical_Thinker View Post
I've got a better idea - one that will have much better public support.

Implement a per-employee tax on companies within the city, based on the distance the employee lives from work. Zero to 5 miles, zero tax. 5-10 miles, a tax set at a modest level. 10-15 miles, make this tax sting a little. More than 15 miles, the tax is set at a high level, and would only be suitable for hiring high-paid professionals. Over time, this would reduce commuter mileage dramatically, since most people would live far closer to work than they do now.
The problem with this is that it focuses too heavily on distance rather than mode. A lot of long-distance commuters on commuter rail have much fewer negative impacts than a bunch of long-distance commuters in cars.

Same goes for people commuting 5 miles by bus or subway, rather than by car.

It's not so much that commuter mileage needs to be reduced, particularly when you consider issues of needing to change jobs even though you own a home and are fixed to a spot, or even trying to ballance between spouses who work in different parts of the metro while job-searching, but that we need to fix how we use the transportation space we have.

Quote:
I agree we need money to pay for stuff, but why not tax entities which actually have the money to pay these taxes - like wealthy companies who are getting off far too easily. Let's not tax people who are least able to pay them.

The thing about congestion charging is that it reduces congestion by targeting a specifically highly-inefficient mode of transportation, which is actually the goal of the policy.

As it turns out, the transportation network is already so imbalanced, that just the congestion reduction alone is likely equitable before even an ounce is spent on building new mobility options.

I don't have an issue with fixing corporate taxes and the income tax scale in Georgia to be more progressive, but that's something that should be done whether or not congestion pricing is put into place considering the differences in policy goals.

Last edited by fourthwarden; 01-23-2019 at 01:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2019, 12:53 PM
 
Location: North Atlanta
5,410 posts, read 3,809,347 times
Reputation: 2968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical_Thinker View Post
I've got a better idea - one that will have much better public support.

Implement a per-employee tax on companies within the city, based on the distance the employee lives from work. Zero to 5 miles, zero tax. 5-10 miles, a tax set at a modest level. 10-15 miles, make this tax sting a little. More than 15 miles, the tax is set at a high level, and would only be suitable for hiring high-paid professionals. Over time, this would reduce commuter mileage dramatically, since most people would live far closer to work than they do now.

I agree we need money to pay for stuff, but why not tax entities which actually have the money to pay these taxes - like wealthy companies who are getting off far too easily. Let's not tax people who are least able to pay them.
The Perimeter Center and Cumberland areas would love this idea and would certainly welcome companies that bolted the City of Atlanta due to the tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2019, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,554 posts, read 3,024,039 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch View Post
The Perimeter Center and Cumberland areas would love this idea and would certainly welcome companies that bolted the City of Atlanta due to the tax.

I don't think you'd actually see that much of an exodus from CoA. It's higher density and generally offers a larger employment pool closer to its nodes. Actually, you could very well see the opposite, where companies leave the outer nodes to be in the more dense core.

I think all nodes would likely feel a contraction as people scrambled to try to get closer into the few spots of concentration.

Again, though, that isn't necessary here, since the metro could handle its commute population just fine if it used more efficient methods to do so, like trains, and buses, both of which would be funded and helped by a reduction in car-use despite commute distance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2019, 02:19 PM
bu2
 
9,903 posts, read 6,375,461 times
Reputation: 4123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch View Post
The Perimeter Center and Cumberland areas would love this idea and would certainly welcome companies that bolted the City of Atlanta due to the tax.
Yes. These ideas assume no freedom of choice. Over time, it would be very good for the suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2019, 02:20 PM
bu2
 
9,903 posts, read 6,375,461 times
Reputation: 4123
Los Angeles has put in a pretty massive rail system. And transit ridership has declined. So they talking about doubling down. Charge drivers more and build more transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2019, 02:26 PM
bu2
 
9,903 posts, read 6,375,461 times
Reputation: 4123
Some of the things are not so radical. Taxing drivers based on miles traveled is often suggested as an alternative to the gas tax, which is declining as MPG rises. Converting carpool lanes to HOT lanes is not so radical. But the "...charging a fee to enter certain neighborhoods and business districts...." is pretty radical. Of course, LA's traffic is radically bad. Not sure what their solution is. Atlanta still has lots of other solutions if they have the will.

I can't imagine how bad its going to be when the Olympics go there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:11 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top