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.
43% Yes |
57% No |
43% Yes |
57% No |
See how support for each position on “Ride-Sharing Subsidies” has changed over time for 2.2k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Ride-Sharing Subsidies” has changed over time for 2.2k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@9RD7VNS4 days4D
No, the government shouldn't be subsidizing exploitative corporations using subcontractors as employees to avoid labor regulations at all, and should instead regulate them the same way as taxi services. Low-income individuals should be provided with subsidies to use public transportation and public transportation infrastructure should be expanded to make this feasible.
@9R6ZJ3H6 days6D
Yes, in the event alternative rides are unavailable or unsafe
@oneroshi 1mo1MO
Yes, but only as a stopgap while improving access to public transit options.
@9PGYVS41mo1MO
No, there should be a focus on improving public transportation.
@9PGSXYZ 1mo1MO
If they put money into more public transit, than this wouldn't be a question worth asking.
@9PG5QVY1mo1MO
Only in areas where there is no public transportation available.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
