Ride-sharing services, like Uber and Lyft, provide transportation options that can be subsidized to make them more affordable for low-income individuals. Proponents argue that it increases mobility for low-income individuals, reduces reliance on personal vehicles, and can reduce traffic congestion. Opponents argue that it is a misuse of public funds, may benefit ride-sharing companies more than individuals, and could discourage public transportation use.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Political theme:
@B4BG8XP2mos2MO
Yes because it helps them, but it also effects the person giving the ride because will the company pay them the rest of the money.
@9VYMB4W7mos7MO
Yes, if it set up in way where the subsidization occurs on a ride to ride basis, so that the drivers themselves aren't being cheated out of earned income. For example, subsidization could occur in the form of a public transport style card that a low-income individual could charge the ride to. Additionally, there should be a safeguard in place to prevent the passengers from abusing the subsidization, such as: 1) Limiting the subsidization to a certain number of rides per month; 2) Subsidizing all rides under a certain distance; or 3) Subsidize rides by destination, so rides to employment, grocery stores and such can be subsidized but rides to casinos, sporting events, and such won't be subsidized.
@9VGFWK7 8mos8MO
Yes, but also increase public transportation funding and reduce the need for the day-to-day use of ride-sharing services.
@9TN4MWT8mos8MO
No, but the government should incentivize rideshare companies to set up nonprofit versions of their services, and then the government should look into subsidizing low income riders on those platforms.
@9S2TYBLIndependent10mos10MO
Public transportation is used, in large part, by low income families. In this case, government subsidies for ride-share companies are unnecessary.
@9NG23ZY12mos12MO
No, but make public transportation more affordable and accessible
@9RMVJSY10mos10MO
Government should not be held responsible for subsidizing ride sharing services. However, government should hold ride sharing companies responsible for proper wages for personnel working with said companies. As it stands, ride sharing/delivery services are not making enough for tasks given while inflated charges are being pocketed by the companies in question.
No, any money that would be used to subsidize ride-sharing should instead be directed to improving the already existing public transport and adding more options.
@9Q4DS4Q11mos11MO
No, increase public transportation in low income areas
@9WVY6QNIndependent7mos7MO
Create a partnership cost sharing. The government has an “Uber” of their own, the resident pays a very low income - based rate for the service. That money goes into a trust or savings and when the account reaches a threshold that is big enough to purchase a small vehicle, the funds get transferred to a car dealer of the resident’s choice. The government can earn off the interest to pay for the program. The resident gets to have a ride to work and important appointments.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
