The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: George Conklin on 10 Nov 2009 17:40 <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:6b1f482c-8da7-4d94-b607-e02e1030d4c6(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Nov 7, 2:59 pm, John David Galt <j...(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > Scott in SoCal wrote: > > Automobile use is the intelligent choice for Americans because > > it is man's greatest enabling technology, and would continue to be worth > using at ten times the price. Well then it's time for the users of the automobile pay for the full price if providing it. Now automotive users are subsidized by general tax dollars, like property taxes. A Washington Post editorial, posted here not long ago, said auto user fees covered only 60% of the costs. Others say it's more, but at best it's 90%. ---- You can get this nonsense only by calling jails, police, city streets and health care all due to the use of the automobile. Why not call city streets "horse subsidies," since that is when the DC streets were laid down. >They are at war with your > right to enjoy life. Sitting in a traffic jam is not anyone's idea of enjoying life. Inventing strawmen "those who would ban automobiles" to blame for inadequate roads is ridiculous. Very, very few people want to ban automobiles and they're lumped in with the "earth is flat" or the "Martians have taken over" crowd; that is, not taken seriously at all. Roads are extremely costly to build. Land is finite and building a road today--as opposed to the 1950s--means bulldozing homes, stores, factories, and offices, which ain't cheap to do. Naturally the business people who will be shut down and the homeowners who will be kicked out (or worse, left against a busy highway outside their bedroom window) object to such projects and with good reason. Their quality life is worth something to them, you know. Raising tolls or taxes to pay for needed roads is political suicide.
From: Brent on 10 Nov 2009 18:10 > Well then it's time for the users of the automobile pay for the full > price if providing it. They already do. > Now automotive users are subsidized by general > tax dollars, like property taxes. The vast majority of payers are drivers. > A Washington Post editorial, posted > here not long ago, said auto user fees covered only 60% of the costs. > Others say it's more, but at best it's 90%. You'll note that the people doing such creative math have no intention of lowering those other taxes and replacing them with direct taxes related to driving. They actually want even more taxes on driving that they can use for OTHER purpose. It's a game to raise taxes and make us all poorer while feeding an anti-car agenda. Go ahead and eliminate all other tax money that goes to roads BUT end all diversion of taxes on motorists to other purposes. Also taxes on the sale of automobiles, parts, fuels, service etc go to the roads. That is all those things that are for driving or trucking nearly exclusively. Now see who is being subsidized. The amount of money currently flowing into even general taxes based on people driving should be an astoundingly huge figure that will have most of the 'true cost of driving people' scrambling to come up with excuses why those taxes can't be classified as driving related... maybe because someone somewhere might buy an alternator from an '89 buick to use in a science project from a junk yard. Odd exceptions like that. But we all know that those sales are entirely because people drive.
From: Brent on 10 Nov 2009 18:11 On 2009-11-10, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Well then it's time for the users of the automobile pay for the full >> price if providing it. > > They already do. > >> Now automotive users are subsidized by general >> tax dollars, like property taxes. > > The vast majority of payers are drivers. > >> A Washington Post editorial, posted >> here not long ago, said auto user fees covered only 60% of the costs. >> Others say it's more, but at best it's 90%. > > You'll note that the people doing such creative math have no intention > of lowering those other taxes and replacing them with direct taxes > related to driving. They actually want even more taxes on driving that > they can use for OTHER purpose. It's a game to raise taxes and make us > all poorer while feeding an anti-car agenda. > > Go ahead and eliminate all other tax money that goes to roads BUT end > all diversion of taxes on motorists to other purposes. Also taxes on the > sale of automobiles, parts, fuels, service etc go to the roads. That > is all those things that are for driving or trucking nearly > exclusively. Now see who is being subsidized. > > The amount of money currently flowing into even general taxes based on > people driving should be an astoundingly huge figure that will have most > of the 'true cost of driving people' scrambling to come up with excuses > why those taxes can't be classified as driving related... maybe because > someone somewhere might buy an alternator from an '89 buick to use > in a science project from a junk yard. Odd exceptions like that. But we > all know that those sales are entirely because people drive. ^almost
From: Jim Yanik on 10 Nov 2009 18:20 "George Conklin" <nil(a)earthlink.net> wrote in news:gd-dnexkfaOVcWTXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com: > ><hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message > news:6b1f482c-8da7-4d94-b607-e02e1030d4c6(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com. > .. On Nov 7, 2:59 pm, John David Galt <j...(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> > wrote: >> Scott in SoCal wrote: > >> > Automobile use is the intelligent choice for Americans because >> >> it is man's greatest enabling technology, and would continue to be >> worth using at ten times the price. > > Well then it's time for the users of the automobile pay for the full > price if providing it. Now automotive users are subsidized by general > tax dollars, like property taxes. A Washington Post editorial, posted > here not long ago, said auto user fees covered only 60% of the costs. > Others say it's more, but at best it's 90%. > > ---- > > You can get this nonsense only by calling jails, police, city > streets and > health care all due to the use of the automobile. Why not call city > streets "horse subsidies," since that is when the DC streets were laid > down. > > > >>They are at war with your >> right to enjoy life. > > Sitting in a traffic jam is not anyone's idea of enjoying life. > > Inventing strawmen "those who would ban automobiles" to blame for > inadequate roads is ridiculous. Very, very few people want to ban > automobiles and they're lumped in with the "earth is flat" or the > "Martians have taken over" crowd; that is, not taken seriously at all. > > Roads are extremely costly to build. Land is finite and building a > road today--as opposed to the 1950s--means bulldozing homes, stores, > factories, and offices, which ain't cheap to do. Naturally the > business people who will be shut down and the homeowners who will be > kicked out (or worse, left against a busy highway outside their > bedroom window) object to such projects and with good reason. Their > quality life is worth something to them, you know. > > > Raising tolls or taxes to pay for needed roads is political suicide. > > > sorry,but EVERYBODY benefits from our road systems. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: hancock4 on 10 Nov 2009 21:35
On Nov 10, 6:10 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Well then it's time for the users of the automobile pay for the full > > price if providing it. > > They already do. No, they do not. > > > Now automotive users are subsidized by general > > tax dollars, like property taxes. > > The vast majority of payers are drivers. > > > A Washington Post editorial, posted > > here not long ago, said auto user fees covered only 60% of the costs. > > Others say it's more, but at best it's 90%. > > You'll note that the people doing such creative math have no intention > of lowering those other taxes and replacing them with direct taxes > related to driving. They actually want even more taxes on driving that > they can use for OTHER purpose. It's a game to raise taxes and make us > all poorer while feeding an anti-car agenda. Considering those who state the 90% figure (meaning 10% of road costs are subsidized by the general taxpayer) are passionate automobile advocates, your argument doesn't hold up. In a recent discussion, someone quoted a Federal Govt website giving a figure of 72% coverage (28% subsidy). These figures include diversions in both directions and represent the net subsidy. Obviously there is some variation by state because some states with a low gasoline tax have a greater subsidy from other soures, such as property taxes. > Go ahead and eliminate all other tax money that goes to roads BUT end > all diversion of taxes on motorists to other purposes. Also taxes on the > sale of automobiles, parts, fuels, service etc go to the roads. That > is all those things that are for driving or trucking nearly > exclusively. Now see who is being subsidized. > > The amount of money currently flowing into even general taxes based on > people driving should be an astoundingly huge figure that will have most > of the 'true cost of driving people' scrambling to come up with excuses > why those taxes can't be classified as driving related... maybe because > someone somewhere might buy an alternator from an '89 buick to use > in a science project from a junk yard. Odd exceptions like that. But we > all know that those sales are entirely because people drive. |