[Dog Gone]

There is a simple fact of economic theory that should be easy to understand.

You get more of what you subsidize, and less of what you tax

That applies to everything from farm subsidies to grants to the homeless.

You want more hobos in your town? Subsidize them like San Francisco does.

You want less commuters in your town? Tax them like Bloomberg intends.

[cgbg]

You want less commuters in your town? Tax them like Bloomberg intends

So true. Interestingly many of these public policy and tax moves have second, third, and fourth order implications that are not obvious to most observers. The question NYC should be asking (but probably won't be):

(1) If people don't want to commute here, will they be able to convince their company to relocate out of the city?

(2) If people decide to move into the city to avoid the tax won't that just further inflate the current outrageous cost of city housing with a negative effect on all city residents?

(3) Will strapped commuters spend less money in the city (in restaurants during lunch, for example) because of this tax?

etc., etc., etc.

There are probably many other effects, even critical ones, that noone has thought of that will come back and burn the city.