[enoch_r]

> Look, if you want to wrap your life around riding your bike to work, more power to you, just don't try force your lifestyle on the entirety of the US population through punitive taxation.

No one is talking about "punitive taxation," we are talking about eliminating subsides for driving.

This is not a stick, it's a reduction of your free monthly carrot delivery.

It's as if the government were giving massive subsidies to Angular developers. After 50 years of this the small community of React developers says "hey, um, can we eliminate those Angular subsidies someday?" and the response is "oh my god--stop this horrible social engineering! Don't try to force your lifestyle on the entirety of the US population through punitive taxation!"

[CalRobert]

Not to mention the Angular developers are killing thousands of React developers every year, forcing React developers to pay for their infrastructure, and polluting the ecosystem to the point where everyone's health is imperiled.

I mean, c'mon, I might enjoy flying a helicopter to work every day but I don't force every new apartment to have a helipad, or demand that we only have one home per acre because otherwise air traffic might get too congested. Nor do I complain when I can't park my helicopter for free at the store.

[Clubber]

Sorry, it was another thread where someone was talking about taxation.

>FastTrak is a nightmare. The answer is gasoline/carbon taxes, since you are "consuming against the environment" on a per gallon basis, not a per mile/per toll road basis

Either way, if you are talking about removing subsidies that directly affect individuals, it might as well be a stick because it's a net negative. You should consider of something that is less directly harmful to people. Subsidizing electric cars is a much better idea because it injects capital into the market and saves people money on something they need to work.

[chc]

What they're calling a subsidy is just a lack of extra taxation. We don't literally receive money from the government for driving.

[enoch_r]

If the government spent tens of billions of dollars annually to construct housing, and allowed people to live in it for free, I would describe that as a "housing subsidy" even if no one living in those buildings was actually receiving money from the government. Likewise, when the government spends general tax money on infrastructure that can only be used by drivers, I consider that a subsidy for drivers.

[chc]

Surely you realize that drivers are not the only people who benefit from driving infrastructure. This seems about as fair as calling the post office a subsidy to the paper industry.

[enoch_r]

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Yes, subsidies have many beneficiaries; some are direct and some are indirect. You imply that it's ridiculous to call a policy a subsidy to its indirect beneficiaries--even if the paper industry indirectly benefits from the existence of the post office, it's silly to call the post office a subsidy to the paper industry.

I completely agree. And...

Drivers are the direct beneficiaries of driving infrastructure. Yes, driving infrastructure benefits other people too, e.g. through cheaper shipping, but the sole mechanism by which those benefits are realized is by making driving cheaper. Drivers are the direct beneficiaries, anyone else who benefits does so indirectly.

It's entirely reasonable to support subsidizing driving because you think it will have economic benefits in the form of, e.g., faster shipping (and I think some level of this has been absolutely necessary historically). But it's entirely unreasonable to claim that because your preferred subsidy has benefits, it shouldn't really be called a subsidy.

[Clubber]

>I consider that a subsidy for drivers.

And people who order from amazon!