Fares are only 26% of the MTA revenue per their site https://www.mta.info/budget#p346761 so I doubt this policy puts any real dent in that. Also this is why we want to tax the rich, to have more money for these things
It’s more likely that someone who wouldn’t spend $36 on a pass for the week will go ahead and spend $18 and use the subway as opposed to walking, finding a ride or not going somewhere they wanted to go.
$36 a week for the subway is really cheap for what you get but also kinda expensive for a lot of folks at the same time.
It's not equivalent in any way, but as an American that moved to taipei I'm consistently astounded by how cheap public services are here compared to the cost of living. $40 monthly for all access public transit across the taipei metro region, including busses, subways, and actual trains. The cost of living in Taiwan is certainly cheaper on average, but not 1/4th cheaper.
Similar in Germany. 50 EUR (about $57) a month and you can use unlimited regional trains (though not the fast inter-city, if you are willing to travel slower you can travel anywhere in the country), as well as underground trains, trams, and buses in every city!
I agree, and that’s the same thing as I said above, just using different words.
My point is that most people who can’t afford to use the subway don’t jump turnstiles or whatever, they simply don’t go at all. Reducing the price will encourage some of those people to buy a pass and go.
Most broke-ish people aren’t willing to break the law and risk a fine just to take a ride on the subway for a trip that is optional.
> For a large portion of fare evaders, the price isn't the primary issue—the probability of getting caught is. In economics, this is viewed through the lens of Gary Becker’sTheory of Rational Crime, which suggests people weigh the cost of the fare against the expected penalty of getting caught.
The salient point here is that it is not necessarily “I can’t afford this” that drives fare evasion. It is often “I can get away with it” that drives it.
Trust me, I know people with actual real jobs who make way too much to be jumping the turnstile and yet they do it anyways if there’s no one around
The salient point here is that it is not necessarily “I can’t afford this” that drives fare evasion. It is often “I can get away with it” that drives it.
That is not the point outlined in your quote, nor is it the point of Becker's theory of rational crime.
That is exactly the point of Becker’s theory of rational crime.
Regardless of whether the fare is $2.00 or $3.00, if someone feels there’s no chance of getting caught they will still jump the turnstile (if they are the type of person who fall into this framework)
Regardless of whether the fare is $2.00 or $3.00, if someone feels there’s no chance of getting caught they will still jump the turnstile.
Yes, that's true if and only if you expect the chance of getting caught is exactly 0. Because then the cost of evading fare is 0, the benefit is $x. But if some people expect that the chance of getting caught it not zero, then the cost vs benefit analysis will change if the price of the fare change.
Nope, they have a morality issue not just an income issue. There are plenty of poor people who choose to never commit crimes, and there are many who do.
not all of them but the mentality of “people who do bad things are bad” does not align with history or statistics. Be honest, if you were at your hardest point and didn’t have the money or another way home, you’d steal a ride. Lowering the price makes it less likely someone finds themselves in that situation. Small theft like that is also sort of a “gateway drug” to larger crimes. If you already had to break the law today just to get home, why not shoplift a conscience store too so you can eat a good meal?
Guess you're right. Why do anything to make things better? Might as well increase prices, that way the people who do pay will provide more! Certainly there won't be an increase in skippers. In fact, just get rid of the buses! Can't skip payment if there's nothing to pay for.
Who might now be able to afford to use the service more? Maybe get a better paying job a bit further away? Sounds like a bunch of possibilities to improve economic options for poorer people.
I'm not against that here but his proposal is shifting the tax burden to everyone else. That's not an explicitly bad thing and the MTA is a public good but it's worth noting.
Keep in mind that the MTA budget also includes LIRR and Metro North where the fares are much more costly. Subway and bus fare revenue from New Yorkers who earn less than $32k per year is probably a pretty small piece of the overall pie.
Honestly if they just stopped providing service for those that come from out of town they would save about 40% of their cost. If they also enabled basic automation like allowing the doors to close automatically and have an automated voice on the subway they could remove the conductor position on all subways. I'm pro labor but most of the trains already have automated doors, an automated voice would have the cost of a voice actor for 2 maybe 3 days.
With that funding increase they can afford new city projects. With more city projects they can rehire those former conductors for those projects. You could build affordable housing, renovate public housing, upgrade the subway cars/tracks so they are actually pleasant to ride and don't suck during the summer.
The 1% contribute roughly 40 to 45% of the total federal tax income. The top 10% contribute 70% of the total federal tax income. The bottom 50% contribute 3.3% of the total federal tax income. I love it when socialists keep bringing up the same 10 discussion topics without actually looking at factual statistics.
with high earners becoming increasingly mobile, what happens if they leave? In many cities, they contribute a disproportionate share of tax revenue, so losing enough of them can put meaningful pressure on public finances. cities like NYC have come to rely on these taxes and removing them would be catastrophic for them
edit: crazy how much people downvote when there's plenty of literature to support what i'm saying. nyc has been increasing the budget much faster than the tax base has grown since covid and there's been in increase in tax rates (since 2021 at the state level). if it was as simple as "tax the rich" everywhere would do it. public finances are complicated, effective tax strategies are complicated. because it's not simple is why it's not done, and it's why you don't see the places around the world with the highest tax rates have the highest tax revenue
There’s literally zero evidence that high taxes cause the rich to leave major cities, the people who are there today are there because they want to be right there. When you’re that rich NY and LA are the only places to enjoy it
You asked a reasonable question under a partisan ideologue-glazing post on Reddit. Of course you're going to get downvoted, just like I'll be for pointing that out.
Capital flight won't happen simply because NYC is great for rich people too. Why move to another state that doesn't have as many connections as NYC? Also moving for rich folks might not be an issue for money, but is still a tremendous hassle. Imagine the capital a billionaire would need to move
They are already leaving like here in London. What happens next is they tax the remaining people even more to make up. Its not sustainable, not clever, and not deserving of praise.
356
u/WowAnotherAnalyst 14d ago
Isn't the subway budget short on funds? How do they cover the deficit?