That is why taxing all 12 counties equally is arguably unfair.

Very well. Then those counties’ service shall be reduced by a percentage equivalent to what they wish to pay relative to the rest of us–also taking into account the higher cost of providing it to them. Let’s say (hypothetically) it costs double per person to provide bus service in relatively sparsely-populated Suffolk County. And let’s say they pay half the payroll tax that NYC pays. Then their service shall be reduced to one quarter its present level. Fair is fair.

Alternatively, an equitable payroll tax could provide the dramatically-improved service that folks in those counties are already demanding but not receiving.

That’s what the team owners want you to think when they convince us to give them hundreds of millions of dollars, but I can easily locate studies that prove otherwise.

Anon

Same (arguably) for Yankee stadium. You may not like baseball, but many people do. Having a baseball team creates value for the city and everyone benefits.

This is what it means to live in a society. Not everyone benefits directly from every tax dollar spent, but we all benefit when we pool our resources in order to fund big projects. Our politicians have lost sight of this, and they are being egged on by people who think they are special and shouldn’t have to contribute.

No, those opponents are entirely correct. It is not as if these people live near transit, but choose (for convenience’ sake) not to use it. Many people live in areas that have no credible mass transit option whatsoever. Generally, the farther you live from NYC, the more likely this is true. That is why taxing all 12 counties equally is arguably unfair.

Now, I do realize that every funding mechanism (other than the farebox) is somewhat inefficient, in that it may force people to pay for a service they either do not or cannot use. However, there is room for debate about what option minimizes the inefficiency, and in that sense critics of the 12-county tax do have a legitimate point. If you deny that, you are simply contributing to the misinformation and posturing that has caused this stalemate in the first place.

“In an ideal world, the MTA funding plan would require money collected in New York City to be reinvested in New York City; money collected upstate to be funneled back upstate; and money collected in Westchester and Long Island to go toward transit and infrastructure there.”

I don’t think there is anything ideal about that arrangement for MTA funding. I think what you propose balkanizes both the supply and the demand side of the equations. In my ideal world each region would trust each other and the MTA enough, and understand that transportation by its very nature transfers economic and social values from region to region, constituency to constituency. Trying to find some mathematical function that achieves social value equity is impossible and why we always revert into the turf protection and NIMBY responses in these matters driving us into a perfect circle of distrust.

The MTA, roads and bridges, ferrys, airports are tools for transferring economic value between political constituencies. When such distrust between the constituencies has been created over the years and the agency (MTA) is not considered an honest broker by the political handlers, it becomes impossible to come up with a common program that a democratic legislature can support.

Throw in the parochial interests of the far-removed members of the Senate and Assembly conferences and you have the perfect circle of distrust we find ourselves in.

And those opponents are lying. The benefits are there, they just choose not use them.