Say goodbye to your transit subsidies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the subsidies aren't ending. They will no longer be tax deductible for your employer.

Which means they'll end because employers will no longer give them out. Guaranteed.

Then you work for a crappy employer.

Most people do.

[Anonymous]

See: I hate the rich!

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/689574.page#12061818

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the subsidies aren't ending. They will no longer be tax deductible for your employer.

Which means they'll end because employers will no longer give them out. Guaranteed.

Then you work for a crappy employer.

C'mon. An employer who doesn't give a commuting subsidy is not a crappy employer. There are all sorts of components to a compensation package.

You are not entitled to a commuting subsidy. Plus, it's not like it's free to the employer....it's just deductible. I ran into this type of confusion all the time when I owned a business. If I wanted to buy a $1000 chair, the no-nothing's would say "but you can deduct it." So what? It still comes out of my profits and takes down the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

First....dumkopf kept auto-correcting. See? There it goes again.

Second, who says I'm in an elitist bubble? I was earning $80k at my last job, and took the metro. No subsidy. I also was earning around $35k at my first job, and also took the metro. No subsidy. I just had to pay for it myself. I didn't expect other taxpayers to subsidize me.

If people need more money to commute, then employers need to pay them more. Why should taxpayers have to offset the employer's compensation costs?

Metro receives government subsidies. Why should I have to subsidize your commute? Pay your own way and stop relying on subsidized fares to help you get to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I dare you to say that to the face of a single mother of 2 earning 50K for whom that extra $150 a month means the difference between being able to get to work and not. Would you do it? I bet you would, and I bet you would laugh at her, too, you Grinch.

People like you can't even fathom how difficult it is for a large sector of the American public, the working poor. Shame on you, especially in this supposed season of giving and charity.

We have so many single mothers as compared to the 50's and 60's. Why is that?


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/how-americas-marriage-crisis-makes-income-inequality-so-much-worse/280056/

Because most men are losers

[Anonymous]

Public infrastructure supports private business. That's fact.

Large corporations get A LOT of subsidies - someone find that thread about the competition for Amazon headquarters. Subsidies are part of every proposal.

But people have to buy Amazon. Without subsidies for people, the disposable income that gets spent on the Amazons goes away.

Subsidizing the infrastructure that supports people - healthcare, education, security, utilities, and yes transportation - frees up their money to spend on other things that private business provides.

Hatred of the poor has been a policy mainstay for decades. Now that more people are slipping from the middle class into poverty the anti-poor policy agenda seems to be getting more currency, not less.

That's going to drag us all down. Because the poor outnumber everyone else, and their number is growing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

First....dumkopf kept auto-correcting. See? There it goes again.

Second, who says I'm in an elitist bubble? I was earning $80k at my last job, and took the metro. No subsidy. I also was earning around $35k at my first job, and also took the metro. No subsidy. I just had to pay for it myself. I didn't expect other taxpayers to subsidize me.

If people need more money to commute, then employers need to pay them more. Why should taxpayers have to offset the employer's compensation costs?

"Then employers need to pay them more." Yeah, that'll work! Why don't you try telling your own employer you want to be paid more to offset your commute and see how that goes?

And speaking of why taxpayers should pay for businesses and corporations to get tax benefits, uh HELLO???? Have you NOT been paying attention to the tax bill the Republicans have been trying to shove down our collective American throat?

You can either give corporations huge tax cuts and hope pretty please they take that money and pass it along to their employees (hee hee) or you can give them incentives to do it by giving them tax credits for when they do more for their employees. You prefer to live in a society where we are at the mercy of corporations' goodness because for some reason you think corporations have our best interest at heart. Bless you. You'd probably go back to when there were no labor laws and children as young as 8 were working in factories with no safety measures. Because at least they were contributing to society, hey?

Companies have their obligations to the stockholders. Part of a corporate package usually involves 401K benefits AND the participation at a level of your choice in the stock program. A lot of times, you are given some stock as well (as a benefit). You don't generally get wealthy off your salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

First....dumkopf kept auto-correcting. See? There it goes again.

Second, who says I'm in an elitist bubble? I was earning $80k at my last job, and took the metro. No subsidy. I also was earning around $35k at my first job, and also took the metro. No subsidy. I just had to pay for it myself. I didn't expect other taxpayers to subsidize me.

If people need more money to commute, then employers need to pay them more. Why should taxpayers have to offset the employer's compensation costs?

Metro receives government subsidies. Why should I have to subsidize your commute? Pay your own way and stop relying on subsidized fares to help you get to work.

Says the Dummkopf who drives all day on federally subsidized roads -subsidies that far exceed those to public transportation.

[Anonymous]

Well, it's another reason for me not to accept a job in DC that doesn't keep commute subsidies. Maybe people who make 300k+ will be fine, but those of us making less than 80k would do well to go elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

How do we apply to get travel subsidies for driving to work each day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

First....dumkopf kept auto-correcting. See? There it goes again.

Second, who says I'm in an elitist bubble? I was earning $80k at my last job, and took the metro. No subsidy. I also was earning around $35k at my first job, and also took the metro. No subsidy. I just had to pay for it myself. I didn't expect other taxpayers to subsidize me.

If people need more money to commute, then employers need to pay them more. Why should taxpayers have to offset the employer's compensation costs?

Metro receives government subsidies. Why should I have to subsidize your commute? Pay your own way and stop relying on subsidized fares to help you get to work.

Says the Dummkopf who drives all day on federally subsidized roads -subsidies that far exceed those to public transportation.

If a teacher drives a long distance to get to a smaller, rural school, how can we get reimbursed for the drive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

First....dumkopf kept auto-correcting. See? There it goes again.

Second, who says I'm in an elitist bubble? I was earning $80k at my last job, and took the metro. No subsidy. I also was earning around $35k at my first job, and also took the metro. No subsidy. I just had to pay for it myself. I didn't expect other taxpayers to subsidize me.

If people need more money to commute, then employers need to pay them more. Why should taxpayers have to offset the employer's compensation costs?

Metro receives government subsidies. Why should I have to subsidize your commute? Pay your own way and stop relying on subsidized fares to help you get to work.

Says the Dummkopf who drives all day on federally subsidized roads -subsidies that far exceed those to public transportation.

Point is we all benefit from subsidies to infrastructure. Employer transit benefits encourage people to take metro which makes my drive better AND it helps you by keeping fares lower. Fewer riders will equal higher fares or less service for you.

[Anonymous]

Enjoy all the extra cars trying to get into DC and much higher tolls folks!

If a teacher decides to take job in a rural area, more times than not that teacher will try to get the cheaper housing as close to the school as possible. Their SO will commute to the big city, and will probably be losing their transit subsidy soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

Hey dumkopf....I know what the purpose is supposed to be. I just doubt that all these people earning $300,000 a year are going to change their transportation preferences based on a couple of hundred dollars, especially when driving - with the gas, tolls up to $40 on 66, downtown parking, etc. - will still be more expensive.

You think all those people on the metro are subsidized by other commuters? Definitely not.

DP here and first of all it's Dummkopf. Get your German right.

Seconf of all, there are tons of people earning below 75k -- the DC median income -- for whom that subsidy is a lifesaver. People without cars, even, who won't be able to switch to driving.

Get out of your elitist bubble. Just because you and everyone you know earns well over the median income, doesn't mean everyone does.

And everyone knows that people earning 300k don't use public transportation to get to work. They just don't.

First....dumkopf kept auto-correcting. See? There it goes again.

Second, who says I'm in an elitist bubble? I was earning $80k at my last job, and took the metro. No subsidy. I also was earning around $35k at my first job, and also took the metro. No subsidy. I just had to pay for it myself. I didn't expect other taxpayers to subsidize me.

If people need more money to commute, then employers need to pay them more. Why should taxpayers have to offset the employer's compensation costs?

Metro receives government subsidies. Why should I have to subsidize your commute? Pay your own way and stop relying on subsidized fares to help you get to work.

Says the Dummkopf who drives all day on federally subsidized roads -subsidies that far exceed those to public transportation.

If a teacher drives a long distance to get to a smaller, rural school, how can we get reimbursed for the drive?

The government is subsidizing the road you use. Many employers offer travel subsidies, talk to them. Some employers even provide free parking at their location parking lot or garage. That’s a subsidy too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Hey, dumb dumb..because it is in everyone's best interest. It reduces the cost of metro commute which means there are ~700K fewer people on the roads.. which means you have a better commute when you drive to work.

Dont just jump research and then talk.

What prevents you from paying for your own metro commute?

I have to buy my own gas. No one buys it for me. Why should someone else pay for your farecrard?