Blue and White Parking

Isn't there a problem of theft here? (More serious than disobeying the law)

And what about the categorical order?

I don't think there is any theft here. Land is not stolen, and I kept the money they demand for it with me, as is the way of humans, and for that reason I said that there is room for leniency here.
The categorical imperative says to do what you would like to be the general law. That is what that person is doing here. The general law is that the law is followed to the point of being followed. That is right and that is proper in the eyes of the majority of the public and in my eyes.

According to this, even those who raise taxes in a random manner are not committing theft?

There is room for this explanation, although there is a difference. Taxes are a payment for services you receive, and therefore there it is not only compliance with the law but a kind of robbery. In contrast, paying for parking in Blue and White is not a payment for a service but compliance with the law (even if the municipality represents the public that owns the land).

I didn't understand why parking in Kahol Lavan isn't a fee for service? Part of the municipality's budget is based on revenue from parking fees in Kahol Lavan, and this allows for a reduction in property taxes.

I don't think it works that way. It's a desire to get more income that will be added to the budget. But that doesn't mean it's a payment for a service. Is a traffic fine also a payment for a service? It's also added to the state budget.

Why park at ’Blue and White’ when there is ample parking at ’Zionist Camp’ where all the traffic has left 🙂

Best regards, Avi Gabbay

Continuing on this matter, how is parking in Blue and White different from parking in a private parking lot that charges an hourly fee for its parking?

In a private parking lot, there is an owner of the space and he rents it out for a fee. Like any rental. But blue and white parking lots are a type of tax and not a payment of parking fees to the owner. After all, I am also one of the owners, so it is possible to overlap from time to time like everyone else (when that is the accepted practice).

This argument is valid for any tax (VAT, income tax, etc.). Why is income tax considered a service charge and not a parking tax?

First, for any tax I would write something similar (and I did as far as I remember). But beyond that, income tax is determined by the total services versus the income you want. Parking is an opportunity and not part of the overall income calculation.

You wrote above that there is a difference between a parking tax and a regular tax:
“Taxes are a payment for services you receive, so there it is not just compliance with the law but a kind of robbery. In contrast, paying for parking in Blue and White is not a payment for a service but compliance with the law”
I think that the revenue from parking payments is also generally expected on an annual basis, and when they come to budget the expenses for the coming year, it is likely that they also take into account the revenue from parking payments.

Obviously, there is still a difference between the revenue that is taken into account and the payment for a service. After all, what is taken into account in the parking fee is also the actual payment, and if people tend to overlap, this is also the budget calculation that they make.

But people also tend to overlap income tax and VAT payments, and budget planning assumes that there will be a certain percentage of regular tax evaders. And regarding payment for a service, why is payment of income tax considered payment for a service, and payment of parking tax is not?

Let me clarify again. The tax calculation is based on the budget (taxes are generally imposed according to budget needs). Blue and White parking payments are an opportunity that the budget takes into account after it is collected.
Since this is the case with a regular tax, it is considered a return for a service and any overlap is theft, while with parking, overlap will only result in a low calculation for budget needs.
As mentioned, this distinction is only one side. I noted that there are also sides to not dividing in both directions (prohibiting overlap in both or allowing both)

I thought of suggesting a distinction that the purpose of paying for parking in Blue and White is not the same as the purpose of other taxes, but rather its purpose is to prevent one person from occupying public parking for a long time. In other words, in principle, parking in Blue and White was supposed to be free like any other public urban resource (parks, sports fields, playgrounds, etc.), only that in order to ensure the best possible fair distribution of this resource, a minimum symbolic payment should be required for it (and as evidenced by the fact that the price per hour of parking in Blue and White does not come close to the market price of an hour of parking in a private parking lot; if the goal was to collect taxes through parking spaces, the price should have been similar to the market price). Therefore, those who skimp on parking payments do not harm the public's tax collection efforts, but only the mechanism for managing the allocation of its parking resources.

There is indeed room for this explanation. It joins what I wrote above, since this "tax" is not imposed equally but according to who wants parking. This is the basis for my claim that it is not a tax but rather an exploitation of an opportunity. You now add the specific explanation for this exploitation of opportunities, and say that it is in order to divide up parking time. It is certainly possible.

If I'm not mistaken, there is no prohibition in law against parking in Blue and White without paying, but those who are caught pay a fine (and just as there is no prohibition against driving over the limit). Therefore, it would be possible to take a risk and park in Blue and White without paying, and that is not a prohibition.