11-14-2024, 10:08 AM
(11-14-2024, 09:03 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(11-14-2024, 08:12 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I don't think that reasons of equity are the best arguments for seniors' and children's fare discounts. I think the argument is to help move a few car trips to transit, to increase ridership (maybe during parts of the day that are not our traditional peaks), and in the case of children to present transit to them as an option that exists from a very young age and so to build ridership in the future.
It doesn't seem to me likely that a lot of particularly wealthy parents will take their eight-year-olds on the bus if there is no fare for him, but maybe. In that case, GRT has earned an adult fare, and removed a car trip. Similarly, if there really are wealthy seniors who will take advantage of the three dollar savings to take a trip on GRT rather than use a private car or a taxi, that's a win from the perspective of traffic, and how could it hurt to demonstrate to a member of that cohort that transit is useful?
I’m not arguing against reduced fares; I’m arguing against a certain argument against reduced fares (and other accommodations), or for income-testing benefits. Essentially, I’m OK with everybody benefiting from programs such as child fares — I don’t care if the child in question is from a wealthy or a poor family. If the wealthy aren’t paying enough, increase the income tax rates on the higher tax brackets.
That being said, I would rather provide some form of basic income for everybody, and eliminate all the special deals intended to help poor people. Rather than having poor people apply for rent and utility subsidies, just give everybody some money. The current system requires people who need benefits to do a bunch of extra work to get those benefits, and those are precisely the people who don’t really have time to do that extra work.
One of the best arguments for this is to get away from the "handouts for the poor" reputation, it's extremely susceptible to being cut or restricted (e.g., you can't take the bus without a drug test) because sociopaths hate when poor people get "something" for free, and that's before you even consider how it also harms poor people, even aside from the having to jump through hoops to apply, it's intentionally self-labelling yourself as "someone in need". This is a big challenge for food banks, some people would rather go hungry than be seen at one, and that's for a pretty basic need like "food". Even better "services for us all" builds social capital in the community, because we see ourselves as contributing to the service.
And just to be clear here, this doesn't actually matter HOW something is funded. I think this is part of why libraries are uncontroversial. They're for everyone, all walks of life can use it. Transit is different, yes, it's open to everyone, but a lot of people have a perception that it's only "for the poors". Which is why IMO the "charging of fares" matters much much less than other elements in establishing value to a community, even in our aggressively neoconservative financialized world.