Maybe buses should be free...

[QM1to6Ave]

You can't say that the personal travel habits of the wealthy determined entirely by choice are at all akin to the necessary travel habits of the lower class. Dependent is the key word there. The upper class could easily get just as much value for their money; it's an apples to oranges argument.

It's true that the upper class could get as much value for their transit fares, but the reality is that they do not. Nobody is forced to travel--rich and poor alike choose to travel to their place of employment to earn money, or to visit family, or whatever, so I disagree that it is an apples to oranges argument.

 

Unlike in, say, parts of NJ where I see lots of housekeepers and restaurant workers paying ridiculously high sums of money to take NJ Transit out to the fanciest suburbs where their employers are located. At least in NYC a restaurant worker or housekeeper can get from Bed-Stuy to the Upper East Side for a relatively low price. 

[Turbo19]

How did we turn from free rides to social hierarchies... very interesting switch.

Well they're obviously correlated. In essence public transportation caters to no one, because it serves the public. So quite honestly, a discussion like this isn't that odd.

 

 

Why is it my fault that the bus boy earns $20k a year?  Maybe he isn't educated enough to do something that pays more.  I can tell you right now that single upper middle class professionals are killed in taxes here in NYC.  The country favors those who have families.  A friend of mine commented on how he earns $75 - 80k a year and how he is strangled in taxes and he lives in NJ.  My income is in the same bracket and I live in New York so you can imagine what I pay in taxes.  If anything I'm sure I supplement his $2.50 far more than he supplements my $2.50 ride.

There would be many variables in this situation. We don't know if the busboy is in his teens, his twenties, his thirties, or even older than that. As it stands, the hypothetical individual could be receiving a post secondary education, and was ultimately forced to seek employment.

 

Regarding your personal income, well of course you're basically to the roof and then some with taxes, it's NY. I'd know a thing or two about that, because in CA it is the same deal. As it stands next years tax refund I'll probably owe more than what I'll be refunded. Sad thing is it's supplementing things I don't even use, but hey, that's the U.S. for you.

 

 

If neither of you can understand how free fares are tied into economic classes, then I don't know what to tell you.  Obviously someone has to pay for those "free rides", hence the discussion of who should pay for them.  MHV is making the argument that those who earn more should be forced to subsidize transit more and my argument is that many of us already do via taxes.

 

The free rides set up is being tried in a European city (I forget which one) as a way to lure people to using public transit more and people are skeptical about it because someone has to pay for it.  It's a huge expense and something that people wonder about in terms of how long it will last.

Regarding the subsidization of transit, I do believe that those with an annual income of $100,00 or more should be paying more taxes, but we all know that wouldn't happen. In fact, if excess taxes were collect the state would likely decide to use those funds elsewhere rather than the public transit budget. Quite honestly public transit is at the low end of services supported by tax dollars.

 

In regard to the pilot you mention, it'd work outside of North America as more patrons use transit and view it as a public service. To compare the two is great, but it's really a different mentality compared to the U.S.'s mainstream mentality.

 

 

Two problems I have with this post. Number 1, the sentiment that poverty is due to ignorance or due to choice. You think that this theoretical busboy's lack of education is by choice? That he turned his back on Harvard? No, when you're born into a poorer community you're born into less opportunity and you general choose the option that puts food on the table (a job at 16, maybe) over the option that doesn't (staying in school). So you're right, he isn't educated enough to do something that pays more. But that's the point: that's not his fault. This is an unequal country, and that lack of education is not his fault.

 

Number 2, you SHOULD supplement the $2.50 of a man in poverty more than he supplements yours, that's just how taxation works. Those with more help those with less; pretty simple principle. And you're not 'strangled in taxes,' don't give me that. When you consider all of the flat taxes that the poorest people are subjected to between transit fares, sales taxes, child support, etc., the burden is much worse on them than on you; just because you can't see it directly doesn't mean it's not there. In any case, the upper and upper middle class have some of the lowest tax rates in US history, so any idea that you're 'strangled' is just nonsense. 

 

 

EVERYBODY should subsidize mass transit. With a progressive trasnit tax, those who can afford the most would pay the most.

Thanks for bringing that up and addressing this.

 

Yes, it usually isn't by choice that an individual would back down from an post secondary education, rather it is due part to necessity. And once again everyone should supplement public services with their share of taxes, but as it stands I'd say after averaging out many factors that nearly everyone pays the same amount of taxes.

 

 

Let me put it to you this way... The United States is a capitalist country and there will be some who earn more and some who earn less and I don't think that those who earn more should somehow feel guilty or have to have their pockets raped more because someone else didn't have the same opportunities.

 

Life is what you make of it.  I haven't had an easy road to get to where I am, but I've made the most of my opportunities and I sure as heck am not going to feel guilty for my success which has been earned mainly through hard work with some help from my parents along the way. I came from a middle class family of working professionals, so the notion that those who are upper middle class or are wealthy are all fed with a silver spoon is just ridiculous.  

 

If the bus boy had to work at a young age well that's his problem.  That's life.  No one is owed anything and no one should be given something just because.  I've got what I have through hard work and I don't think that I should have to fork over my hard earned money to some guy because he had some misfortunes in life.  

 

All you do with your mentality is create an environment of entitlement, which is what many people who are of less economic fortunes have. Oh I'm not as well off as this guy and it's HIS fault, so he MUST pay for me.  That's insane.

Lastly, I wouldn't say it that what MHV is proposing is supposed to make anyone feel guilty, rather I think he believes that a slight increase for select individuals over a certain income level is justified for sustaining our public services. Do I think it's a little radical, yes, but it's worth looking at it from his point of view.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

There would be many variables in this situation. We don't know if the busboy is in his teens, his twenties, his thirties, or even older than that. As it stands, the hypothetical individual could be receiving a post secondary education, and was ultimately forced to seek employment.

 

Regarding your personal income, well of course you're basically to the roof and then some with taxes, it's NY. I'd know a thing or two about that, because in CA it is the same deal. As it stands next years tax refund I'll probably owe more than what I'll be refunded. Sad thing is it's supplementing things I don't even use, but hey, that's the U.S. for you.

 

 

Regarding the subsidization of transit, I do believe that those with an annual income of $100,00 or more should be paying more taxes, but we all know that wouldn't happen. In fact, if excess taxes were collect the state would likely decide to use those funds elsewhere rather than the public transit budget. Quite honestly public transit is at the low end of services supported by tax dollars.

 

In regard to the pilot you mention, it'd work outside of North America as more patrons use transit and view it as a public service. To compare the two is great, but it's really a different mentality compared to the U.S.'s mainstream mentality.

 

Lastly, I wouldn't say it that what MHV is proposing is supposed to make anyone feel guilty, rather I think he believes that a slight increase for select individuals over a certain income level is justified for sustaining our public services. Do I think it's a little radical, yes, but it's worth looking at it from his point of view.

My issue is that a single professional that earns 70 - 100k a year is not exactly swimming in money.  What people don't realize is that it's expensive to live in NYC and the taxes here are high.  Single professionals get more taxes taken out than married couples whose salaries may be 70 - 100k each simply because married couples get tax breaks that single professionals don't, so he can't just assume that because someone makes 70 - 100k a year that they can be taken to the cleaners to pay more taxes.

 

A single professional like my friend who earns in the same bracket that I do of $75 - 80k a year is not going to pay the same amount of taxes as say a couple that earns 75 - 80k a piece so there are various factors that come into play that must be considered.

 

Now that I think about it, I'm sure he'll be paying less in taxes now because he just had a little one so he can claim the kid as a dependent. 

[Turbo19]

My issue is that a single professional that earns 70 - 100k a year is not exactly swimming in money.  What people don't realize is that it's expensive to live in NYC and the taxes here are high.  Single professionals get more taxes taken out than married couples whose salaries may be 70 - 100k each simply because married couples get tax breaks that single professionals don't, so he can't just assume that because someone makes 70 - 100k a year that they can be taken to the cleaners to pay more taxes.

 

A single professional like my friend who earns in the same bracket that I do of $75 - 80k a year is not going to pay the same amount of taxes as say a couple that earns 75 - 80k a piece so there are various factors that come into play that must be considered.

 

Now that I think about it, I'm sure he'll be paying less in taxes now because he just had a little one so he can claim the kid as a dependent. 

And I never said nor insinuated that a single professional is swimming in money. One the contrary I'd assume the opposite and estimate 25% of earning are taken by the state. Hell as it stands you could marry and knock out a few kids and your overall cash flow would stay roughly the same after balancing out your income and taxes.

[Vistausss]

I've long been an advocate of this. A flat fare like we currently have is insanely unequal, as $2.50 out of a banker's pocket is a lot different than $2.50 out of a busboy's pocket. With a transit tax focused on the upper-middle and upper classes (the two most undertaxed brackets) you do away with that inequality, along with any worries about farebeating, fare collection, and all those other expenses. It's an elegant system and for many of us it would actually cost less, but for some reason people hear the word tax and they freak out.

 

You could do it like in my country: have a base fare of 0.80-0.85 cents (depends on what region your in) and then 12 cents per kilometer (in your case per mile). Generates a lot of revenue. The only hassle is that you need to check in *and* out (so in when you enter the vehicle and out when you leave the vehicle) with the chip card (which is kinda like a Metrocard) so that it can deduct the fare upon checking out.

 

Free would never be an option, especially in NY. There are places where free buses work like in Hasselt, Belgium for example. But in NY it wouldn't work. The would go bankrupt in no-time.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And I never said nor insinuated that a single professional is swimming in money. One the contrary I'd assume the opposite and estimate 25% of earning are taken by the state. Hell as it stands you could marry and knock out a few kids and your overall cash flow would stay roughly the same after balancing out your income and taxes.

I never said you did.  I was giving my counterargument to MVH's argument.

[Turbo19]

I never said you did.  I was giving my counterargument MVH's argument.

Fair enough. My apologies.

 

By all means continue with the discussion.

[Gorgor]

For those arguing higher taxes, how much tax would be enough for you to consider it equal?

 

The way you guys are acting is that you want everyone to take home the exact same amount of money.  You guys are sounding like if someone who makes $30,000 pays $5,000 in taxes, someone making $100,000 should pay $75,000 in taxes so that they each take home $25,000 which would be fair and not have any inequality, two words that I can't stand.

 

I invested money to go to college, and came out with lots of debt.  I used those skills that I learned in college to get a job and now make a high salary that I used to pay off that debt.  I potentially could have never found a job and been in debt all my life, but I took a risk and it paid off.  Now because I borrowed money to further benefit myself, I now have a nice Manhattan apartment, own a nice car, and make enough money to sustain myself and still have money left over to buy whatever I want.  I pay more in taxes than what some people make in a year, my taxes are high enough; if anything the tax system is unfair to me because I have to give a higher percentage of my paycheck to the government while a busboy (the example that's been being used here) is giving a much lower percentage of his paycheck to the government.

 

Now if buses were "free" they wouldn't really be free, they would be paid for by mainly by those making more money.  If a service is free then the MTA would have no incentive to make service better or expand the system because they're still getting the money no matter what.  Buses could all be late, dirty, smelly, and there's not anything we could do.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

For those arguing higher taxes, how much tax would be enough for you to consider it equal?

 

The way you guys are acting is that you want everyone to take home the exact same amount of money.  You guys are sounding like if someone who makes $30,000 pays $5,000 in taxes, someone making $100,000 should pay $75,000 in taxes so that they each take home $25,000 which would be fair and not have any inequality, two words that I can't stand.

 

I invested money to go to college, and came out with lots of debt.  I used those skills that I learned in college to get a job and now make a high salary that I used to pay off that debt.  I potentially could have never found a job and been in debt all my life, but I took a risk and it paid off.  Now because I borrowed money to further benefit myself, I now have a nice Manhattan apartment, own a nice car, and make enough money to sustain myself and still have money left over to buy whatever I want.  I pay more in taxes than what some people make in a year, my taxes are high enough; if anything the tax system is unfair to me because I have to give a higher percentage of my paycheck to the government while a busboy (the example that's been being used here) is giving a much lower percentage of his paycheck to the government.

 

Now if buses were "free" they wouldn't really be free, they would be paid for by mainly by those making more money.  If a service is free then the MTA would have no incentive to make service better or expand the system because they're still getting the money no matter what.  Buses could all be late, dirty, smelly, and there's not anything we could do.

My sentiments exactly.   That's his idea of fair because someone who makes 75-80k a year or 100,000k+ is "swimming in money".* Sarcasm.  I mean seriously, by the time Uncle Sam takes his cut that amount doesn't look as good as it does before taxes.  That's why I look for every tax advantage I can get (which isn't much in my case) but if I decide to do some independent work, I try to get things written off where I can, so I can keep more of what I earn and give less of it to the tax man. 

[AndrewJC]

The free rides set up is being tried in a European city (I forget which one) as a way to lure people to using public transit more and people are skeptical about it because someone has to pay for it.  It's a huge expense and something that people wonder about in terms of how long it will last.

 

Just to put the numbers in context: the subsidy per express bus ride is greater than the entire cost of a local bus ride. In other words, a local bus rider who doesn't pay the fare is still subsidized less than an express bus rider who does.

 

I don't think bus rides should be free, but it's a bit disingenuous to argue that the subsidies would be too great while also arguing that express buses, even weak ones, are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

I guess it depends on who's being subsidized.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just to put the numbers in context: the subsidy per express bus ride is greater than the entire cost of a local bus ride. In other words, a local bus rider who doesn't pay the fare is still subsidized less than an express bus rider who does.

 

I don't think bus rides should be free, but it's a bit disingenuous to argue that the subsidies would be too great while also arguing that express buses, even weak ones, are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

I guess it depends on who's being subsidized.

You're damn straight it depends on who's being subsidized.  I can assure you that my community certainly contributes quite a bit in taxes, so spare me with the express bus subsidy nonsense.

[Turbo19]

Just to put the numbers in context: the subsidy per express bus ride is greater than the entire cost of a local bus ride. In other words, a local bus rider who doesn't pay the fare is still subsidized less than an express bus rider who does.

 

I don't think bus rides should be free, but it's a bit disingenuous to argue that the subsidies would be too great while also arguing that express buses, even weak ones, are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

I guess it depends on who's being subsidized.

Personally that argument is invalid because as it stands passengers are obligated to pay a fare, regardless of the service being provided.

 

Additionally as it stands, nearly each service is subsidized as only a very small portion of routes actually turn profit, so it's not a matter of it depending who's being subsidized, rather it's where are these subsidizes going and what are they supporting.

[bobtehpanda]

I oppose free fares, but for two completely different reasons.

 

1. Once something is free, everyone abuses it.

 

We can sort of already see this with the politicians' notion that a parking space is basically a constitutional, if not a human right. Because parking is free, people feel like they can use the street as their personal garage, even if they have a driveway, and that's why there's so much double parking - people have no incentive to use the space and their time better.

 

More relevant example - Guangzhou, China held the Asian Games in 2010. Being your typical Chinese city, there is almost total gridlock at points, and awful air pollution. They wanted to promote mass transit use, so they were like, "Hey, let's make the fares free!"

Ridership on the subway doubled overnight. During rush hours, stations were crowded to insane levels, and an already congested system was made unsafe. The authorities had to shut down parts of the system, and the authorities reinstated fares because it was obvious that free fares failed.

 

The New York City Subway does not have the capacity for free service. The buses sure as hell don't. Prices exist to regulate demand - the moment you make them free, people will take transit for a trip they might not have made, or they would've done on foot or on bike. It's okay for a small town, but for a big city? Not at all.

 

2. There are better ways that MTA could cut down on dwell time.

 

There are two things that would speed up service in a much less negative way. One would be POP, and we already know that it's effective. The other way would be for MTA to stop dragging their ass with the smartcards. Smartcards take milliseconds to register a tap, and have quite the far range - you could put it in the middle of a Louis Vuitton bag and hold your bag to the reader, and it would register immediately. If MTA would suck up their pride and adopt SmartLink, this problem would be solved.

 

TL;DR there are better ways to reduce dwell time and free would make everything way too crowded

[MHV9218]

I invested money to go to college, and came out with lots of debt.  I used those skills that I learned in college to get a job and now make a high salary that I used to pay off that debt.  I potentially could have never found a job and been in debt all my life, but I took a risk and it paid off.  Now because I borrowed money to further benefit myself, I now have a nice Manhattan apartment, own a nice car, and make enough money to sustain myself and still have money left over to buy whatever I want.  I pay more in taxes than what some people make in a year, my taxes are high enough; if anything the tax system is unfair to me because I have to give a higher percentage of my paycheck to the government while a busboy (the example that's been being used here) is giving a much lower percentage of his paycheck to the government.

 

What a complete crock of self-aggrandizing, arrogant, egotistical, selfish, ignorant, out-of-touch bullshit. 

[QM1to6Ave]

I oppose free fares, but for two completely different reasons.

 

1. Once something is free, everyone abuses it.

 

We can sort of already see this with the politicians' notion that a parking space is basically a constitutional, if not a human right. Because parking is free, people feel like they can use the street as their personal garage, even if they have a driveway, and that's why there's so much double parking - people have no incentive to use the space and their time better.

 

More relevant example - Guangzhou, China held the Asian Games in 2010. Being your typical Chinese city, there is almost total gridlock at points, and awful air pollution. They wanted to promote mass transit use, so they were like, "Hey, let's make the fares free!"

 

Ridership on the subway doubled overnight. During rush hours, stations were crowded to insane levels, and an already congested system was made unsafe. The authorities had to shut down parts of the system, and the authorities reinstated fares because it was obvious that free fares failed.

 

The New York City Subway does not have the capacity for free service. The buses sure as hell don't. Prices exist to regulate demand - the moment you make them free, people will take transit for a trip they might not have made, or they would've done on foot or on bike. It's okay for a small town, but for a big city? Not at all.

 

2. There are better ways that MTA could cut down on dwell time.

 

There are two things that would speed up service in a much less negative way. One would be POP, and we already know that it's effective. The other way would be for MTA to stop dragging their ass with the smartcards. Smartcards take milliseconds to register a tap, and have quite the far range - you could put it in the middle of a Louis Vuitton bag and hold your bag to the reader, and it would register immediately. If MTA would suck up their pride and adopt SmartLink, this problem would be solved.

 

TL;DR there are better ways to reduce dwell time and free would make everything way too crowded

Well put

[Gorgor]

What a complete crock of self-aggrandizing, arrogant, egotistical, selfish, ignorant, out-of-touch bullshit. 

 

I went to college, became successful, made a lot of money, but I'm selfish for wanting to keep the money I worked so hard to make?  And having money makes me out-of-touch?

[Q43LTD]

This whole thread is a joke. Free buses?

[Turbo19]

This whole thread is a joke. Free buses?

With all respect due towards you, I started this thread to share this idea and solicit feedback from members on the subject of no fare buses as featured in a news article of The Economist. I believe I accomplished just that and seeing the majority of response, I can see people have demonstrated and stood by their position on the issue.

 

All together, not something I'd refer as a joke.

[bobtehpanda]

I would also like to put out the fact that smartcards may actually be more effective at POP than collecting fares - in Europe, arctics have smartcard readers at all doors (because they're the size of a wallet), which eliminates the whole "Holy s*** an SBS bus is coming why isn't this Metrocard going into the machine" problem.

[MHV9218]

I went to college, became successful, made a lot of money, but I'm selfish for wanting to keep the money I worked so hard to make?  And having money makes me out-of-touch?

 

What makes you out-of-touch is your incredibly ignorant idea that the system is somehow unfair to YOU, one of the lucky few who were given enough opportunities thanks to your race, gender, location, and a lot of other variables that were handed down to you. Ignorant is you thinking that somehow you 'deserve' where you are today more than anybody else. Self-aggrandizing is you reminding us time after time how 'successful' you are with your 'nice car' and 'nice house,' when honestly, you don't have a fraction of the money that the upper class you so adore actually has, and they'd turn their backs on you in a minute. Childish is you downvoting my posts simply because you disagree--something that I never do, because I'm not four years old.

[Q43LTD]

With all respect due towards you, I started this thread to share this idea and solicit feedback from members on the subject of no fare buses as featured in a news article of The Economist. I believe I accomplished just that and seeing the majority of response, I can see people have demonstrated and stood by their position on the issue.

 

All together, not something I'd refer as a joke.

With all due respect, I think it's a dumb idea to makes buses free in New York. Especially when fare evasion is on the rise.

[bobtehpanda]

With all due respect, I think it's a dumb idea to makes buses free in New York. Especially when fare evasion is on the rise.

 

It's not a great idea because everything will be super crowded (although fare evasion would be eliminated by the fact that there would be no fare to pay...)

 

Also going to point out that even if MTA statistics are slightly fudged, removing farecards also removes the one reliable way they have of measuring entry/exit counts on the subways and buses, and since the idiots at planning will adjust a bus frequency with extremely small fluctuations in service, that's a really big negative right there.

 

Also, can we stop with the whole "rich people should pay more" thing? Rich people already pay more - most of them live in closer-in areas with high property values, so their trips are shorter and subsidize those of the middle and working classes in the outer boroughs, a significant portion of whom use buses. They already pay in a progressive tax system. Progressive taxes don't apply to the MTA, anyways - last I checked the sales tax or real estate tax or payroll tax are not progessive (and they really shouldn't be, because how would you calculate that?)

 

The only increases in tax or fee to fund the MTA I would support would be an LA-style penny tax on basically everything except food (to pay for the Capital program) and tolls pegged to the Port Authority rate on all inbound crossings into Manhattan (while reducing tolls on bridges between the outer boroughs). With the current toll system we're basically telling people "drive through the crowded streets of Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn instead of using the highways". You could also probably raise the payroll tax, since it's extremely low and the only reason people hate it is because of the insane paperwork required for it.

 

[Culver]

With all due respect, I think it's a dumb idea to makes buses free in New York. Especially when fare evasion is on the rise.

I still say it could be done, but only under very specific (and not without a giant up-front investment when certain technology becomes available) conditions a few years from now. I do agree that as of now, it makes literally no sense to even consider the idea.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What makes you out-of-touch is your incredibly ignorant idea that the system is somehow unfair to YOU, one of the lucky few who were given enough opportunities thanks to your race, gender, location, and a lot of other variables that were handed down to you. Ignorant is you thinking that somehow you 'deserve' where you are today more than anybody else. Self-aggrandizing is you reminding us time after time how 'successful' you are with your 'nice car' and 'nice house,' when honestly, you don't have a fraction of the money that the upper class you so adore actually has, and they'd turn their backs on you in a minute. Childish is you downvoting my posts simply because you disagree--something that I never do, because I'm not four years old.

I'm sorry but your post reeks of envy.  I've had luck just as Gorgor has and some fortune due to my gender, my background, etc., but I've also worked my @ss off to get what I have.  I've put in plenty of 40+ hour weeks and I've done my time. Why should anyone who has worked hard turn around and give away what they've worked hard for just because others are less fortunate?  Doing this does NOT solve the inequality problem. It just creates a situation where those who have less become entitled as if they are owed something, which I can assure you is a false pretense. 

 

We have too many people that feel that they're entitled to something... Entitled to a free bus ride or subway ride, entitled to "free" welfare, etc. etc. etc.  Meanwhile the people that work hard are supposed to continue to keep coughing up their hard earned money to "even the playing field". What a load of crap.  The 1% that you speak of are the ones paying the least amount of taxes, not the upper middle class folks like myself. The truly upper class don't use public transit.  At best maybe they use yellow taxis.

[MHV9218]

I'm sorry but your post reeks of envy.  

 

I have no envy for your lives. I'm very content with where I am--thankful, even, for the good fortune I've had. I recognize those who are more and less fortunate, and seek greater equality.

 

Why should anyone who has worked hard turn around and give away what they've worked hard for just because others are less fortunate?  Doing this does NOT solve the inequality problem. 

 

This really, is the core. You're selfish. You can give your anecdotes about buying homeless guys sandwiches, but you really don't give a sh!t about anybody besides yourself. This is however, the core tenet of America: opportunity. And in a country as incredibly unequal as we are in today, it takes those with more helping those with less to make this a sustainable place. If you don't believe in that principle and the basic right to opportunity and the pursuit of happiness, I daresay that's un-American.

 

We have too many people that feel that they're entitled to something... Entitled to a free bus ride or subway ride, entitled to "free" welfare, etc. etc. etc.  Meanwhile the people that work hard are supposed to continue to keep coughing up their hard earned money to "even the playing field". What a load of crap.  The 1% that you speak of are the ones paying the least amount of taxes, not the upper middle class folks like myself. The truly upper class don't use public transit.  At best maybe they use yellow taxis.

 

This is not an entitlement society. It makes me sick when people assume it is. Welfare is not something that (except in a few obscure cases) people want to live on. Food stamps and government aid give you nothing; it's barely sustainable. There really should be a negative income tax, but that's a separate issue. Now in terms of "evening the playing field," if you can see the merits of that, you are truly selfish and truly ignorant, and I really hope you one day find yourself in complete poverty and see if you still maintain those selfish views that helping out those less fortunate is "crap." 

 

Also, making transit free is completely separate proposition than welfare or food stamps. Clearly it was too much for you to understand as the word "free" is found in all of these things, but they're incredibly different. Welfare is to help support the less fortunate in our society. Making transit free is a largely economic decision that would smooth the inequality of a flat tax and perhaps better fund our woefully underfunded transit systems.