Some of the mass transit comments are entertaining. Ours has been on strike for the last couple months, and even though I don't use it, I'm still seeing the effects of it. The people who used it and now are unable to do so because of the strike still have to get from point A to B, and they are doing so by utilizing friends, family, etc with cars to help them out (I have done this for my neighbor when time has permitted).
The big difference I've seen is that the roads are much more heavily congested than usual, and this does impact me in that its meant more close calls (more traffic always brings out riskier and more aggressive tendencies as people become impatient to get where they're going) and more time to get from point A to B as I spend more time either stuck in traffic or moving from red light to red light. The difference has been very pronounced, particularly with it occurring over the holiday season when traffic increases anyway (though never before like it has this year past).
Some of my tax dollars are used to finance the public transit system and I'm fine with that. Partly its out of a belief that a car should not be a requirement for people to get to work or school, etc, and that an alternative should be made available to those who either by choice, or by virtue of their economic situation, use the public transit system. And partly its because I've gotten to see first hand what happens when this alternative is removed, and it does effect me even though I don't use it, and not in a way that makes life, or the driving component of it, more pleasant and enjoyable.
I pay already quite a bit in taxes, and my income tax is also increasing this year, and I'm fine with some of it being used to fund mass transit. Its not a "green" thing for me. Its a pragmatic thing. As a productive member of society who benefits from all manner of things provided by government, I have no issue with upholding my end of the social contract and paying into those things that are for the greater good - regardless of whether I derive any personal benefit from them or not. Others have paid into things they have never used and may never use that I have derived benefits from as well (government involvement in air transit comes to mind - not everyone flies, but I have many times and we all pay into it one way or another).
That is the whole point of government and the social contract: not every service the public needs is affordable on a user pay scheme, so to make it affordable or available we subsidize it so those who need it are able to use it. Whether you benefit directly from it or not is beside the point and misses the whole concept of the social contract that is the foundation modern, functional society works on.
But this is the 21st century way, this extremely individualistic notion that one should get to pick and choose how their tax dollars are spent, and hostility toward paying into anything they derive no personal, direct benefit from. Fortunately for us, those who created - with their efforts and their tax dollars - the things we've inherited and use so much we take for granted, didn't think the same way. Because if they did, modern society as we know it would not exist at all.
-Spyder
The big difference I've seen is that the roads are much more heavily congested than usual, and this does impact me in that its meant more close calls (more traffic always brings out riskier and more aggressive tendencies as people become impatient to get where they're going) and more time to get from point A to B as I spend more time either stuck in traffic or moving from red light to red light. The difference has been very pronounced, particularly with it occurring over the holiday season when traffic increases anyway (though never before like it has this year past).
Some of my tax dollars are used to finance the public transit system and I'm fine with that. Partly its out of a belief that a car should not be a requirement for people to get to work or school, etc, and that an alternative should be made available to those who either by choice, or by virtue of their economic situation, use the public transit system. And partly its because I've gotten to see first hand what happens when this alternative is removed, and it does effect me even though I don't use it, and not in a way that makes life, or the driving component of it, more pleasant and enjoyable.
I pay already quite a bit in taxes, and my income tax is also increasing this year, and I'm fine with some of it being used to fund mass transit. Its not a "green" thing for me. Its a pragmatic thing. As a productive member of society who benefits from all manner of things provided by government, I have no issue with upholding my end of the social contract and paying into those things that are for the greater good - regardless of whether I derive any personal benefit from them or not. Others have paid into things they have never used and may never use that I have derived benefits from as well (government involvement in air transit comes to mind - not everyone flies, but I have many times and we all pay into it one way or another).
That is the whole point of government and the social contract: not every service the public needs is affordable on a user pay scheme, so to make it affordable or available we subsidize it so those who need it are able to use it. Whether you benefit directly from it or not is beside the point and misses the whole concept of the social contract that is the foundation modern, functional society works on.
But this is the 21st century way, this extremely individualistic notion that one should get to pick and choose how their tax dollars are spent, and hostility toward paying into anything they derive no personal, direct benefit from. Fortunately for us, those who created - with their efforts and their tax dollars - the things we've inherited and use so much we take for granted, didn't think the same way. Because if they did, modern society as we know it would not exist at all.
-Spyder
