In Fred's phrase "do you actually want to continue to pay for the public transport infrastructure that exists at point of use?", the term "at point of use" modifies "pay", not "public transport infrastructure that exists". In other words, it should be interpreted as equivalent to "Do you want to continue to pay at point of use for the public infrastructure that already exists?"
Which is to say "public transport infrastructure that exists at point of use", however you choose to interpret that, is not a thing anyone is talking about.
If that is the case it would all depend on how many people use it and if it was to be free how it is going to be paid for.
Why is that?
Presume 1) the number using it now and 2) income taxes. Yay or nay?
Red herrings aside, do you actually want to continue to pay for the public transport infrastructure that exists at point of use? The question is about you, and it is about what you want. Do not answer with any estimation of whether it is possible, that's beside the point. What I want to know is whether you want it or whether you, personally m52nickerson, do not. That's it.
It doesn't matter what m52 wants.
It certainly does. M52 is one of those 'Americans' who allegedly 'doesn't want public transport'. Well maybe. But I'd like to know why. And the answer cannot be 'because everyone else doesn't'. That's fallacious, a fallacy he always falls into.
Fred, the whole message everyone is trying to send is this: You can offer the service, but you can't make people take it. Politicians have to worry about being re-elected.With the economy as it is, they don't want to be pointed at and accused of creating Christmas Tree bills with services a lot of people don't use.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, this will raise neither taxes* nor the deficit, unless you want it to (or useage increases, which would make it stimulatory).
* So long as you include fares as taxes, which they are.
