but wouldn't the whole system be cheaper if it were paid for by taxes? because at that point you don't have to maintain a point of sale? hundreds of fare boxes, communication systems, physical barriers, auditing, accounting, printing cards, employees to maintain and operate it all... you even save a little time it takes tapping a card to get people on
the tax system is also progressive, so the people who are most capable of paying pay the most and the poor truly pay nothing
charging for a public system seems like pure waste
No, it's not even close. Those fares don't cover the whole operation of the train system, but they actually go a long way to covering a very large chunk of it. The cost of operating the fare system is a rounding error relative to the sums of money talked about here.
1) It's not a 10:1 ratio though, it's much more than that. These fare collection systems are very cheap relative to the money they bring in.
2) If there's sufficient money and will available to fund the transportation system to that level, then sure, that's great. But in most cases, I think it's better to just direct expansions in government train budgets towards expanding the network, not making it cheaper. Most people who drive cars don't drive because trains are expensive, they drive cars because there's no train at the time and place they want. Making trains cheaper doesn't address this problem.
> If there's sufficient money and will available to fund the transportation system to that level
there is! the system is already funded... people are just paying a portion of it out of pocket now and a bigger chunk out of taxes... the out of pocket part is really the same money but less efficient
That's very easy to say, and very unpopular to actually do. People on the country side would for example not feel it's fair for them to pay for the much more complicated public transport system in the city, when they get one train going by their village every few hours for it.
If you have a sovereign currency taxes don't pay for government spending. Governments should spend to expand the economy to its productive capacity (processes, labour, IP, infra of all kinds, social services, R&D), and use taxes to control investment and inflation.
Neoliberal governments don't do this, but they lie about why.
Other than that - of course you could.
Governments also lie about who gets subsidised, and why.
Generally subsidies go to the oligarchy, which makes constant attempts to "cut wasteful and inefficient public spending", because the oligarchy believes poor people don't deserve nice things.
(Not just rhetoric, btw.)
It's a political issue, not a practical one.
There are sociological reasons why you might want some kind of fare income, but they're more to do with adding some token resistance to accessing the system than making money from it.
the tax system is also progressive, so the people who are most capable of paying pay the most and the poor truly pay nothing
charging for a public system seems like pure waste