The Proximity Credit

[libertango]

This is something I sent to Darcy Burner recently. The trouble is... I can feel it being disjointed. I think the basic idea I'm trying to advocate here is sound, but this is not the best expression of it.

Does it make sense? What do you think needs to be done so it reads better?

I'd like to start shopping it around as an Op-Ed, but this is only a draft, if so.

*^*^*^*

I'd like to share with you some thoughts about a subject that's been
getting wide attention: How to address our dependence on oil,
especially now when it's likely we're seeing the peak of global oil
production.

About 2/3s of America's oil use is for transportation. Of that, a
substantial portion goes to people's daily commute, because of land
use policies that have strongly separated where people live, and where
they work.

What I'd like to propose to you is something clearly in the power of
Congress to do, that would directly address this: A tax credit for
people who live close to where they work. I'm thinking of something
modeled on the tax credit for mortgage interest, which has enabled so
many to afford houses of their own, even in the current credit crisis.
In a similar way, a tax credit for living in a place that makes one's
commute short – which I've come to think of the "proximity credit,"
for lack of a more focus group tested term – could help enormously in
reducing our oil use. I also think the credit should apply to both
the employer and the employee. My intention here is to provide
incentives to as many people as possible to cut oil use.

Such a credit could have many benefits:

* Small business owners talk about how they're "double taxed." That
is, their business is taxed on profit, and their own salary is taxed
as income. While this might make sense for large businesses, it feels
like a disproportionate bite to the small business owner. But since
this credit would apply to both employer and employee, it would be
very small business friendly.

* One sub-group of small businesses, of course, is family farms.
They also would get substantial benefits from this measure.

* Businesses in the retail sector – I'm thinking here not only of
shops, but also of restaurants, banks, etc. – who have many locations
could reap the benefits with intelligent coordination with their
employees.

* Large businesses who also have facilities throughout our region –
Boeing, or Microsoft – could also take advantage.

* Governments – city, state, and federal – could act on this very
quickly. A new president just taking office, for example, could
institute this through executive order for federal employees.

* This measure requires no new technology, and no new infrastructure.
It gets results through a simple matter of policy.

* Any measure that reduces oil consumption for transportation also
definitionally helps in traffic management.

* This could arguably be regarded as a measure that promotes family
values. Time spent in the daily commute is time not spent with one's
family. Reducing that commute also adds free time at home.

*^*^*^*

UPDATED TO ADD: "The P-I welcomes contributed essays of up to 550 words..." Using the Jim Fallows Memorial Word Counter in Word, this piece is currently at 447.

Comments

[ckd]

I'd certainly benefit from it (5 minute walking commute). I'm not sure it'd be practical, though. It seems open to some pretty simple gaming ("you're assigned to the office next door, but 'temporarily' working across town"); since both the employee and employer have an incentive to cheat, there's no inherent check built into the system. Also, with the housing market where it is, selling and moving is going to be significantly harder for people right now.

Favorable tax treatment for other measures like 4x10 work weeks, telecommuting, and transit-oriented development might be easier. My pet answer would be bumping up the maximum deduction for transit passes and/or decreasing that for providing parking.

[A nitpick: the mortgage deduction isn't a credit. Deductions lower your taxable income, indirectly lowering your taxes; credits directly lower your taxes, which makes them more valuable (to the taxpayer)/expensive (to the tax collector).]

[drplokta]

You already get a financial benefit for living near your workplace, in the form of lower fuel costs. If you want to make that benefit bigger, then increase taxation on fuel, which will also help to reduce the enormous budget deficit -- a new tax credit would make the deficit even worse.

[intelligentrix.livejournal.com]

As noted above, currently suburban-dwelling families would face difficulties in selling their current homes and moving closer to their work. Also, with the instability in the job market, there's no guarantee that the job they've moved closer to will exist for the indefinite future. I would prefer to see the money invested in hybrid-fuel mass transit designed to bring people from bedroom communities to transit hubs to encourage less of a dependence on individual vehicle commuting. If tax credits are to be given, they should go to developers who build more responsible communities in which the schools and shopping areas are within walking distance of residences.

p.s. When speaking of corporate entities, I believe it is proper to use "which" instead of "who". I use "who" above as I see developers as individuals rather than businesses.

Did you request editing?

[farmgirl1146.livejournal.com]

The idea is brilliant. I like it very much. In support of you and it, I am sending along some editing ideas. I hope they help. If you want clarification, you know how to contact me, or continue through LJ comments. Hope you don't mind a little editing.

1. You need to introduce the idea of the "proximity credit right off, even if you don't name it.

2, 'commute, because' These two ideas (leading up to "commute" and after "because") seem jammed together. I played with punctuation, a period, and new sentence, but it didn't work right, so I suggest adding more context for the ideas. You know all about this but other's don't.

3. 'strongly separated where people live, and where they work.'
The word "strongly" made me stop and think about the use of the word rather than what you are writing. It needs to be replaced.

4. Paragraph 3, I suggest you make you proposal, briefly in the first (and thesis) sentence of the paragraph. Second sentence -- give the background, which is now in the first sentence. Support the thesis in the following sentences, as you now are doing, and end with the last sentence you now have.

5. In the 'Such a credit could have many benefits:' section, add specific examples of how businesses and employees would benefit. This list of business types moves away from the central thesis. Make a general statement that applies to big business and one that applies to small business. Then finish with the benefits for the employee.

6. Summation. The last four stared point are really your summation. Separate the summation from the bullet (starred) points, and have it stand on its own. Tie it into the previous ideas with some segue such as "Other groups that could benefit are A, B, and C. The "proximity credit" would promote X, Y, and Z. It could be implemented quickly because governments could roll this out partially before it was approved by Congress.
An added benefit would be (finishing with the family values and what follows).

Generally, I cringe at the use of the phrase "family values" because it has gotten so screwed up. Oh well.

Good idea. Good luck getting it published. You have become one of those dreaded "community activists" like Barack Obama.