Is Mobility a Right or a Privilege?

Michael Lind, a co-founder of left-leaning New America, is urging the federal government to create universal mobility accounts that would give everyone an income tax credit, or, if they owe no taxes, a direct subsidy to cover the costs of driving. He argues that social mobility depends on personal mobility, and personal mobility depends on access to a car, so therefore everyone should have one.

This is an interesting departure from the usual progressive argument that cars are evil and we should help the poor by spending more on transit. Lind responds to this view saying that transit and transit-oriented developments “can help only at the margins.” He applauds programs that help low-income people acquire inexpensive, used automobiles, but–again–thinks they are not enough.

Lind is virtually arguing that automobile ownership is a human right that should be denied to no one because of poverty. While the Antiplanner agrees that auto ownership can do a lot more to help people out of poverty than more transit subsidies, claiming that cars are a human right goes a little to far.

Lind may not realize that there just aren’t that many poor people who don’t have cars anymore. According to the 2015 American Community Survey, 91.1 percent of American households have at least one vehicle and 95.5 percent of American workers live in a household with at least one vehicle. A lot of the households with no vehicles could afford to own one but choose not to, so the number of poor people without vehicles is very small. Of course, some two-worker families may have only one vehicle, but older used cars are affordable enough that the cost hardly seems a barrier to anyone with a job.

One implication is that adding a mobility credit to an already complicated tax system means that the vast majority of the credit will go to high-income people and people who already have cars. If only 2 to 3 percent (or even more) of people are both in poverty and lack access to cars, then why should everyone else also get a tax credit? Lind argues against means testing, saying that middle- and upper-income voters resent such programs, but non-means-tested programs always end up favoring the rich, if only because many poor people won’t file tax returns and so won’t know to ask for their credit or subsidy.

Lind makes no attempt to estimate how much the program will cost, but to make a different to low-income people I suspect it would have provide a credit of at least $500 per person per year. With 150 million workers (there were 146 million in 2015, but this program is supposed to increase employment), that’s $75 billion a year, or about 5 percent of personal income tax revenues.

The longer a studio is in business, the more that studio is likely interested in protecting its reputation with good results and satisfied clients. 100mg viagra online Men with impotence problem could turn out to be use of anti-impotence pills in proper way not in over or under amount or more habitual than asked for. cialis prescription To see if these drugs can have other long-term health effects, Sommer and colleagues studied men with benign prostatic generic levitra http://pamelaannschoolofdance.com/aid-2021 symptoms. With a cialis viagra view content view to get justice, the victims resorted towards credible lawyers capable of getting Propecia lawsuit. Which raises the question of how to pay for the program. Giving people either tax breaks or direct subsidies either means borrowing more money or raising some other taxes. Whether borrowed or taxed, someone is eventually going to have to pay for it, and that means middle- to high-income people. This pretty much destroys the argument that they will support this policy so long as they get some of the benefits.

More important questions are whether this program would even make a real difference and if there are other programs that could do better for less cost. Lind offers no evidence of the former, but I can think of a lot of ways to help low-income workers that would both cost less and not imply that mobility is some kind of a human right.

Most important would be to remove the barriers to mobility that have been erected by other left-leaning groups, namely the smart-growth crowd and other urban planners. Too much city planning for the past several decades has been based on increasing traffic congestion to try to force people out of their cars. Yet congestion is mostly likely to harm low-income people, because their jobs are less likely to allow flex time, working at home, or other escapes from traffic available to knowledge workers. Low-income people also have less choice about home locations, especially in regions that have made housing expensive, meaning their commutes can be longer than those of higher-income workers.

Relieving traffic congestion in every major urban area in the country would cost a lot less than $75 billion a year. This doesn’t necessarily mean building new roads. Instead, start by removing the so-called traffic calming devices that actually take more lives by delaying emergency service vehicles than they save by reducing auto-pedestrian accidents. Then add dynamic traffic signal controls that have been proven to cost-effectively save people’s time, energy, and clean air. Converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes greatly reduces congestion and actually produces revenue. At relatively little cost, steps like these would remove many of the barriers to automobility for low-income families.

I’m not going to do more than mention the effects of increased auto ownership on urban sprawl, highway safety, energy consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions other than to say that low-income people tend to drive cars that are least safe, least energy efficient, and most polluting. I think these problems are exaggerated by the left, but it is ironic that Lind wants to expand auto ownership when most other progressives want to restrict automobile use.

Ultimately, I have to reject any implication that mobility is some kind of a human right. Human rights include the rights not to be bothered by government for things that you want to do or believe that don’t harm other people–things like free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Human rights do not include the right to expect other people to pay for things that you would like but can’t or don’t want to work for.

Rather than invent new human rights, people who are concerned about poverty should first ask what kind of barriers government creates that prevent social mobility. Those barriers should all be removed before any thought is given to taxing some people in order to give money or resources to others.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

8 Responses to Is Mobility a Right or a Privilege?

  1. Frank says:

    Owning property is a fundamental right, but that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to property. It also doesn’t mean you’re entitled to take someone else’s property by force, either directly or through mob rule.

    It’s the same with marriage: while you have a right to get married, that doesn’t entitle you to a spouse.

    Is this really such a hard concept for statists and SJWs to grasp?

  2. OFP2003 says:

    This “expansion of rights” has got to stop. We have “protected classes” inside … **gasp** the United States of America. Your free speech is impaired when any of these “protected classes” are the subject matter. It’s crazy! People that believe the government is the solution…. not good!

  3. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    The Antiplanner wrote:

    Relieving traffic congestion in every major urban area in the country would cost a lot less than $75 billion a year. This doesn’t necessarily mean building new roads. Instead, start by removing the so-called traffic calming devices that actually take more lives by delaying emergency service vehicles than they save by reducing auto-pedestrian accidents. Then add dynamic traffic signal controls that have been proven to cost-effectively save people’s time, energy, and clean air. Converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes greatly reduces congestion and actually produces revenue. At relatively little cost, steps like these would remove many of the barriers to automobility for low-income families.

    Some of these make sense. A few thoughts:

    1. Traffic calming devices are usually on roads and streets intended for relatively light use, and some places expressly forbid such things on arterial-class roads.

    2. In most places, signal control is fragmented among more than one county, municipal or state agency. Where one agency is in charge of timing them all, then dynamic signal control can have some real benefit (as does a periodic re-timing of those signals).

    3. There are plenty of roads around that do not have HOV lanes, but still have severe congestion. Not sure this one works in most places (though I have nothing against converting HOV lanes to HOV/Toll lanes).

    I’m not going to do more than mention the effects of increased auto ownership on urban sprawl, highway safety, energy consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions other than to say that low-income people tend to drive cars that are least safe, least energy efficient, and most polluting. I think these problems are exaggerated by the left, but it is ironic that Lind wants to expand auto ownership when most other progressives want to restrict automobile use.

    Maybe Lind really cares about that part of the U.S. population? I am not sure that so-called limousine liberals do.

    Ultimately, I have to reject any implication that mobility is some kind of a human right. Human rights include the rights not to be bothered by government for things that you want to do or believe that don’t harm other people–things like free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Human rights do not include the right to expect other people to pay for things that you would like but can’t or don’t want to work for.

    But like it or not, working is something most adult people in the United States must do, unless they are students or retired. In that sense, I think Lind has made a valid point.

  4. markusmedusa says:

    In Seattle, traffic calming is used on main arterials for the sole purpose of making driving less convenient.
    They are modifying arterials throughout the city to make 4 lanes roads 2 lane roads.

  5. Frank says:

    “In Seattle, traffic calming is used on main arterials for the sole purpose of making driving less convenient.They are modifying arterials throughout the city to make 4 lanes roads 2 lane roads.”

    Yep. Barriers and road diets are a staple of Seattle’s war on cars. Other campaigns in the war include: not being able to park on the street for more than 72 hours; not repairing roads so that the average motorist has to pay $600 a year in repairs due to wear from terrible roads; the proposed reduction of speed limits on arterials (like it’s even possible to go the speed limit during rush hour, anyway); converting parking spaces into “mini-parks”; etc.

    This in a city where there is virtually no enforcement of traffic rules because police are too busy shooting Indians holding carving knives or arresting people for using a golfing club as a cane.

  6. JOHN1000 says:

    My assumption is that this program would cost a lot less than $75 billion because the government will phase people out of the credits based on income. Unfortunately these phase outs are usually so improperly done that they encourage people to stay on unemployment or welfare rather than get a job, in order to avoid being phased out of benefits.

  7. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    markusmedusa wrote”

    In Seattle, traffic calming is used on main arterials for the sole purpose of making driving less convenient.
    They are modifying arterials throughout the city to make 4 lanes roads 2 lane roads.

    Has this ever come up during the election season for the elected jobs that run Seattle?

  8. irandom says:

    Just go to downtown Portlandia during rush hour. All the lights change at the same time(Burnside?), no staggering. So much for the city that verks.

    http://freecharitycars.org/about/who-we-are

Leave a Reply