[keyanp]

There are societal reasons why this won’t be accepted by the public. It’s sort of analogous to allowing the rich to pay for a higher spot on an organ donor waitlist, in theory it is economically efficient but in practice it is unfair and will cause outrage.

Lots of good discussion on this idea here: https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-traffic/

[lotsofpulp]

Yes, the political challenge of getting massive wealth redistribution passed in conjunction with public opposition to giving up the luxury of personal cars means the probability of the US ever getting its transit situation in order is very low until energy prices rise high enough to force a change.

[dragonwriter]

It also means energy prices will not rise high enough until the government becomes incapable of subsidizing them, if you (s your argument does) neglect the possibility of political shifts.

[rootusrootus]

I want some of those subsidies. Aside from a few particular oil-rich nations (and some very poor ones), where are these fuel subsidies I keep hearing about? A gallon of gasoline largely costs the same in the US as it does in Europe, if you strip away the taxes.

[dragonwriter]

> Aside from a few particular oil-rich nations (and some very poor ones), where are these fuel subsidies I keep hearing about?

Flowing from the US to oil-rich nations in form of security assistance to buy policy, or in the form of US military going to enforce policy preferences, as well as:

> A gallon of gasoline largely costs the same in the US as it does in Europe, if you strip away the taxes.

Accepting negative externalities without internalizing them (whether through direct liability for externalized harms or pigovian taxes) is a forced subsidy to the activity creating those externalities by the rest of society.

[danny_codes]

Perhaps we can peg it to income? Progressive taxes are wonderful