From: Kenny McCormack on 3 Nov 2009 12:37 In article <7lau7gF3ctvkgU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Americans because it is what economists refer to as a "free good": the >>> consumer pays only a fraction of its true cost. The authors Stanley > >That is the purest nonsense. I assume that you've woken up and figured out what we adults mean by "free good", so I won't bother addressing that. >Does money grow on trees? Do you find it under rocks? (No, those >people are trying to stop mining.) Do you pump it out of the ground? >(Same problem). > >The consumer pays all of the cost and more. There is no free lunch. (Not really in response to your post, but rather to the thread-in-general) The real problem with car ownership is that most of the costs are sunk costs (aka, fixed costs) - that is, not "marginal". The marginal costs of me going on a trip are virtually zero, so there is no disincentive to my doing so. That major costs (which are, as I say, not determined much or at all by how much I drive) are: 1) Purchasing/maintaining the vehicle 2) Taxes (as the original article made clear - a lot of tax dollars go to subsidizing private vehicle ownership and usage) Note that I am not arguing any particular position here, w.r.t. the usual "car good/car bad" flamage of this NG. Just pointing out that the economics are muddied.
From: Larry Sheldon on 3 Nov 2009 18:53 Kenny McCormack wrote: > The real problem with car ownership is that most of the costs are sunk > costs (aka, fixed costs) - that is, not "marginal". The marginal costs > of me going on a trip are virtually zero, so there is no disincentive to > my doing so. Well, yeah. That is true. If somebody else (there is that point again!0 is paying for your fuel, lubricants. windshield washer fluid, insurance(some of which is mileage sensitive here), and tires. Did I mention fuel? Or parking? Or tolls? I have to pay $35 for no other reason that I live too close to Omaha.
From: hancock4 on 3 Nov 2009 23:11 On Nov 3, 10:17 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to > non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses > and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*. And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is built on what was once private productive land. And things like fire, rescue, and police when there are accidents or special circumstances. An accident on a major road can tie up multiple police cars for hours rerouting traffic, cleaning up, etc. That's all paid for by the general taxpayer. Indeed, at a recent town meeting, we were told a proposed expansion would require the town--at taxpayer's expense--to add four more police cars. > Drivers have to take care of the > vehicles themselves with very obvious direct costs. Actually, the vehicles themselves now get govt subsidies. > The problem is, the author refuses to see transit in the same light. > transit is very socialized, both infrastructure _and_ vehicles. It's > fare structure often has short trip riders subsidizing long trip riders. > The taxes that support it mostly come from those that never or very > rarely use it. Actually the author is pretty much on target. The benefits of transit are given to a large segment of the population, not just those themselves who ride it. The vast, vast amount of transportation taxes goes to support the motor vehicle, not transit.
From: Brent on 4 Nov 2009 01:23 On 2009-11-04, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:17�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to >> non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses >> and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*. > And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is > built on what was once private productive land. So long as there is property tax I'm not sure there is really anything as private land. > And things like fire, rescue, and police when there are accidents or > special circumstances. An accident on a major road can tie up > multiple police cars for hours rerouting traffic, cleaning up, etc. > That's all paid for by the general taxpayer. For the cops in that it takes away from their time writing traffic tickets. People are also very opposed to being charged for fire and rescue services. I think most people would be better off charged on a per event basis by a private company that competes with other private companies. That said, mention the end of socialized fire departments and most people will get rather upset. Just look what happened when some home owners and insurance companies started hiring private fire fighters to protect property from wild fires. Even worse cops started arresting people who protected their own property. > Indeed, at a recent town meeting, we were told a proposed expansion > would require the town--at taxpayer's expense--to add four more police > cars. well, that sounds like justifying putting more revenue gathering employees on the roads to me. >> Drivers have to take care of the >> vehicles themselves with very obvious direct costs. > Actually, the vehicles themselves now get govt subsidies. I was against cash-for-clunkers too. >> The problem is, the author refuses to see transit in the same light. >> transit is very socialized, both infrastructure _and_ vehicles. It's >> fare structure often has short trip riders subsidizing long trip riders. >> The taxes that support it mostly come from those that never or very >> rarely use it. > Actually the author is pretty much on target. The benefits of transit > are given to a large segment of the population, not just those > themselves who ride it. You know what, the 'benefits to a large segment of the population' argument is either bullshit or it's not. You can't use it for transit but not for roads or vice versa. > The vast, vast amount of transportation taxes goes to support the > motor vehicle, not transit. Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just taxes aimed at transportation.
From: rshersh on 4 Nov 2009 06:07
On Nov 4, 1:23 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2009-11-04, hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hanco...(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 3, 10:17 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> The costs of driving are mostly on the drivers. The bulk of what goes to > >> non-drivers to pay are things like the roads in front of their houses > >> and businesses who choose not charge separately for parking*. > > And things like lost property taxes when a new or expanded road is > > built on what was once private productive land. > > So long as there is property tax I'm not sure there is really anything > as private land. as well there should not be there is only so much land and for the most part no more is being created > > > And things like fire, rescue, and police when there are accidents or > > special circumstances. An accident on a major road can tie up > > multiple police cars for hours rerouting traffic, cleaning up, etc. > > That's all paid for by the general taxpayer. > > For the cops in that it takes away from their time writing traffic > tickets. People are also very opposed to being charged for fire and > rescue services. I think most people would be better off charged on a > per event basis by a private company that competes with other private > companies. > crapola, then you are going to be paying for some private company's profit which means you are going to get wal-mart type low wage workers doing the fire and rescue so this private company can low ball the contract wait until you wreck on the freeway and no govt rescue only a private contractor with minimum wage grunts > That said, mention the end of socialized fire departments and > most people will get rather upset. Just look what happened when some > home owners and insurance companies started hiring private fire fighters > to protect property from wild fires. Even worse cops started arresting > people who protected their own property. > > > Indeed, at a recent town meeting, we were told a proposed expansion > > would require the town--at taxpayer's expense--to add four more police > > cars. > > well, that sounds like justifying putting more revenue gathering > employees on the roads to me. > > >> Drivers have to take care of the > >> vehicles themselves with very obvious direct costs. > > Actually, the vehicles themselves now get govt subsidies. > > I was against cash-for-clunkers too. > > >> The problem is, the author refuses to see transit in the same light. > >> transit is very socialized, both infrastructure _and_ vehicles. It's > >> fare structure often has short trip riders subsidizing long trip riders. > >> The taxes that support it mostly come from those that never or very > >> rarely use it. > > Actually the author is pretty much on target. The benefits of transit > > are given to a large segment of the population, not just those > > themselves who ride it. > > You know what, the 'benefits to a large segment of the population' > argument is either bullshit or it's not. You can't use it for transit > but not for roads or vice versa. > > > The vast, vast amount of transportation taxes goes to support the > > motor vehicle, not transit. > > Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just > taxes aimed at transportation. crapola there is much more general taxation spent on roads then transit most local spending comes from general taxation rather then the gas tax, esp in NJ |