If it's really only a difference of a few cars then there should be a dozen other ways to get a similar effect without enacting a regressive tax.
Meanwhile doing it through financial deterrence requires that someone is actually deterred. And then is that going to be poor people and small businesses or rich people and major companies?
It's a compulsory fee charged by the government not based on income/consumption. That's the most regressive tax. Even sales tax is less regressive than that.
> it primarily assists commuters and small businesses
Relative to any alternative that reduces congestion without charging fees, it doesn't. Even relative to doing nothing, the people being deterred are the ones paying the cost, and the people being deterred are the most price sensitive ones, i.e. the poor.
> Relative to any alternative that reduces congestion without charging fees, it doesn't.
These? Don't exist. We're not going to sit here and argue against hypothetical, made-up solutions.
> and the people being deterred are the most price sensitive ones, i.e. the poor.
Sigh. No, the most price sensitive people are riding the subway, because the subway is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper and faster than owning and operating a car. This is targeting the people right above those people, who, because they have a bit more money, think they need to drive. They don't. They should be riding the subway. And now, they are. They might complain - but really, they're saving money.
Meanwhile doing it through financial deterrence requires that someone is actually deterred. And then is that going to be poor people and small businesses or rich people and major companies?