[nimbleplum40]

Do your taxes go towards the fire department even if you never have a fire? (Subsidy)

Do your taxes go towards the public parks even if you don’t use them? (Subsidy)

Do your taxes go towards public schools even if you don’t have kids? (Subsidy)

[cyberax]

> Do your taxes go towards the fire department even if you never have a fire?

Fire departments provide protection from fire. I absolutely do use and depend on it.

> Do your taxes go towards the public parks even if you don’t use them?

This is indeed a subsidy. A pay-per-use system would allow to remove the subsidy. However, it's so small around here that it's inconsequential in the face of massive transit subsidies.

> Do your taxes go towards public schools even if you don’t have kids?

Nope. I will eventually have kids who will need schools. So not a subsidy.

[nimbleplum40]

You said you’re in Seattle? If so, you have quite the parks department… It’s certainly not inconsequential. https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/FinanceDepartm...

Also, if your public schools receive funding from people who do not currently have kids in school (no kids, kids already graduated, kids in private school, etc.) it’s subsidized. To claim otherwise is to redefine words.

[PM_me_your_math]

Taxes are not subsidies. Good Lord

[nimbleplum40]

Sure, to be more specific - tax revenue can be used to subsidize services.

In the context of transit, people talk about transit not being able to “pay for itself” and needing subsidies. That money comes from taxes… so people who don’t ride transit end up subsidizing people who do (via taxes) in the same way people who don’t go to parks subsidize people who do (via taxes) and people without kids subsidize public school education of those who do (via taxes).