Fortunately none of them died as far as I can find. Surgeons had to crack open the skull of the bystander they shot in the back of the head to relieve his brain swelling though. I hope he recovers because he’s gonna be set for life.
They spent 150 million on overtime for cops to stop fare evasion. How much were they losing in fares? I’m gonna go ahead and guess it wasn’t even a teeny fraction of that.
They spent 1500x more on enforcement than they could have ever recovered from fare evaders. Just like every single other monitoring and enforcement program for public services.
Has there ever been a single program like that which is actually a net positive? Fare enforcement, food stamps means testing, public services with drug screens, “welfare queen” check ups, means testing, etc. I’m not aware of a single instance where it wouldn’t have been cheaper just to let a few people get benefits that “didn’t deserve them” than putting these restrictions in place
But God’s forbid we let poor people have nice things, or just to do good things for our society. Goddamned toxic puritanicalism. …
Absolutely right. Brings to mind something I read a while ago which I will paraphrase.
“Liberals want everyone to get what they need even if a few cheat the system. Conservatives want nobody to get what they need if there’s a chance anyone will cheat the system.”
Somebody on Lemmy a while back asked about the phrase, “the cruelty is the point,” and whether it was true and fair. Well, here’s the evidence: The point is not a net gain on fare collections.
The fact that the numbers are public and they keep doing it proves it: The cruelty is the point.
I disagree, the poor would be worse off without public transit since else it’d be much harder for them to move around. In fact many if not most public transit systems are subsidized and operate at a loss.
The richer don’t use it and so care little, beyond the macro level that it benefits businesses and such.
Public transit never turns a profit, not because it’s bad business but simply down to the economics of providing affordable transit. In fact, fares recover such a small percentage of a public transit agency’s budget that there’s good arguments being made for making public transit fare free. Public transit is a net good for communities so making it as accessible to those who want or need it is important
I think you may have missed his point. He wasn’t arguing against public transit, just the fare. It should be free. For the reasons you yourself mentioned.
Just what I wrote above. There aren’t a lot of articles about it after the initial incident. Our media has the attention span of a frantic gnat with Level 11 ADHD so it’s not surprising.
Fortunately none of them died as far as I can find. Surgeons had to crack open the skull of the bystander they shot in the back of the head to relieve his brain swelling though. I hope he recovers because he’s gonna be set for life.
They spent 150 million on overtime for cops to stop fare evasion. How much were they losing in fares? I’m gonna go ahead and guess it wasn’t even a teeny fraction of that.
They spent 1500x more on enforcement than they could have ever recovered from fare evaders. Just like every single other monitoring and enforcement program for public services.
Has there ever been a single program like that which is actually a net positive? Fare enforcement, food stamps means testing, public services with drug screens, “welfare queen” check ups, means testing, etc. I’m not aware of a single instance where it wouldn’t have been cheaper just to let a few people get benefits that “didn’t deserve them” than putting these restrictions in place
But God’s forbid we let poor people have nice things, or just to do good things for our society. Goddamned toxic puritanicalism. …
Absolutely right. Brings to mind something I read a while ago which I will paraphrase.
“Liberals want everyone to get what they need even if a few cheat the system. Conservatives want nobody to get what they need if there’s a chance anyone will cheat the system.”
Somebody on Lemmy a while back asked about the phrase, “the cruelty is the point,” and whether it was true and fair. Well, here’s the evidence: The point is not a net gain on fare collections.
The fact that the numbers are public and they keep doing it proves it: The cruelty is the point.
public transit fares are a steeply regressive tax on the poor
I disagree, the poor would be worse off without public transit since else it’d be much harder for them to move around. In fact many if not most public transit systems are subsidized and operate at a loss.
The richer don’t use it and so care little, beyond the macro level that it benefits businesses and such.
Public transit never turns a profit, not because it’s bad business but simply down to the economics of providing affordable transit. In fact, fares recover such a small percentage of a public transit agency’s budget that there’s good arguments being made for making public transit fare free. Public transit is a net good for communities so making it as accessible to those who want or need it is important
I think you may have missed his point. He wasn’t arguing against public transit, just the fare. It should be free. For the reasons you yourself mentioned.
That’s why Seattle largely doesn’t bother with fare enforcement and doesn’t even have turnstiles. It’s simply a waste of money and manpower.
What were you able to find out about the cases? 👀
Just what I wrote above. There aren’t a lot of articles about it after the initial incident. Our media has the attention span of a frantic gnat with Level 11 ADHD so it’s not surprising.
Yeah I know what you mean. Thanks for the extra context that you were able to glean though.
Lolololololol no
He will sue, the state will settle for 20mil and then quietly cancel the settlement payment after people move on from the story.
That’s what they always do.