Hacker News Reader

Comment by RandomLensman | Hacker News Reader

It's public transport - does it even need to pay for itself?

You are asking this on a site where the majority would sell their soul for 1% more profit

This service isn't making a profit if it isn't even making enough to do maintenance.

I think the heart of the question was whether it is even a valuable service. Does it serve enough people to be worthwhile. Even if it’s tax-funded, everything has to pay for itself one way or another (i.e. tax receipts).

That is for voters/societies to decide but it doesn't necessarily have to pay for itself in any monetary sense and instead be subsidized.

Voters and societies don't decide these things very often, in my experience. No one says "we're going to give these benefits and in exchange you're going to see cost of living rise, reducing the value of your savings". If you leave it to point issues, people would want free transport run by people paid a lot of money, somehow. Subsidies make it not a simple issue.

Voters and societies are totally fine in leaving those decisions and how to balance them to their elected representatives. That is a decision, too.

Charging for use below what it costs to maintain that use is probably a bad idea.

Why? Is the military breaking even, for example? Societies can decide how to spend their resources and it can be subsidies to things people want to have exist.

The military isn't saying "pay $5 to crash a tank". They aren't creating pricing that causes a deficit.

It is costing money in return for "security" (and some more welfare like things in the US, too, for example). How that is valued is a social/political decision, not one of simple cost calculations - the same can be true for other public spending.

Instead of having to pay the military $5 to crash a tank they will even pay you to do it.

That sounds great! Unless war were declared.

You can also pay the deficit from other taxes. That way, rich people can subsidize transport for poor people.

Almost free public transportation helps people lead richer lives, so its also a productivity/quality of life issue.

Only for a completely private enterprise. For public transport the tickets are only part of the income. Often citizens already pay taxes which can be used to subsidize transport. Just like roads are really.

> Charging for use below what it costs to maintain that use is probably a bad idea.

I disagree. that's absolutely not a valid conclusion for a service (public transport, road infrastructure, healthcare, etc) that has a substantial benefit to society as a whole.

i.e. providing it at low or no cost at point of use can be a great idea.

It can be, yes. But if it has a substantial benefit, maybe it should cost more.

> But if it has a substantial benefit, maybe it should cost more.

This makes no sense whatsoever. That conclusion does not follow - that's what the above comment says.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com