[catalogia]

> Why should people in Iowa subsidize each of those trips to the tune of $73 each way?

Same reason people in rural or suburban communities subsidize city buses?

[rayiner]

For the most part, needy people ride city buses, not businesspeople, lawyers, and politicians as in OP’s anecdote about the northeast regional.

[catalogia]

I think city buses would be worthwhile even if dislikable people like lawyers used them. Wouldn't you agree?

[rayiner]

No. The government shouldn’t subsidize services used primarily by well-off people.

[catalogia]

Then we should tear up the road in your neighborhood.

[rayiner]

To the extent a particular neighborhood can be identified as especially wealthy, it would seem fine to require them to pay for private maintenance of roads constructed by the subdivision developer in the first instance.

[travisporter]

What if they now become poor? Would you subsidize them?

What about police services and ambulance services for a poor versus rich person visiting that neighborhood?

This already happens in some places, but I don’t think it’s practical or fair.

[catalogia]

Or, instead of privatizing roads, the maintenance of roads could be paid for by taxes and the wealthy could be made to pay higher taxes. Crazy, I know.

[pen2l]

Why would you deny needy people, people trying to make ends meet and move up the ladder, people with revoked licenses, etc. the opportunity to partake and contribute in society? Wouldn't you agree that if we take this away, it would cost the economy more by causing more crime and reducing gains these folks might have had to offer?

[rayiner]

I'm saying we should spend the money on needy people, and let services used primarily by wealthier people pay for themselves.