Are you considering the modifier here to be the word "male"?
If so, your statement is simply absurd. That's like saying the term "female cheaters" equally insinuates men and women as the cheating-gender being discussed.
> Are you considering the modifier here to be the word "male"?
Yes.
> If so, your statement is simply absurd. That’s like saying the term "female cheaters" equally insinuates men and women as the cheating-gender being discussed.
No, it is not. It is like saying that the using the phrase “female cheaters” to specify which cheaters are being discussed implies that female cheaters aren't the only kind, and that there are also male cheaters which are not currently being discussed.
Seem insanely low considering it's really just a for-profit business asking the general public to figure out a very difficult problem they aren't able to figure out on their own.
If every business's costs go up by the same amount, and they're all passing the costs on to customers, why are any of them going out of business?
Are some businesses able to plan better and reduce the amount they pay in tolls? Do some choose not to pass costs on? Definitely. But you can say that about any cost of doing business - labor, materials, licensing, insurance.
> There would be a base fee of $6.50 to enter the congestion pricing zone with eligible discounts based on income level. If you make more than $100,000 a year, you’d pay the full amount. Commuters who make less than $46,000 would not pay a fee.
This is how the upper classes gentrify the middle classes. They know most <$46k people already can't afford cars in a major city, so this isn't geared towards them at all. Simply slap a forced tax that's meaningless to the rich, and all of a sudden they get to drive around in a traffic-free city.
I'm aware guaranteed income isn't the same thing as collecting unemployment, but the fact there's major employee shortages (at restaurants, etc) the moment the lower classes are given some money (via Covid bailout money adding to unemployment benefits) certainly doesn't bode well for the basic-income argument.
The private cartel would never give up that power. So common sense tells you that if they ever appear to willingly give up that power (by use of the media propaganda, etc), there's a major catch to the whole thing.
Elected & appointed govt workers and their immediate families shouldn't be permitted to buy/sell any stock while in office or 5 years following.
And they shouldn't be allowed to take jobs/money (including "speaking fees", a.k.a. bribes) from publicly owned corporations for 15 years after leaving public office.