From: hancock4 on 10 Nov 2009 21:40
On Nov 10, 6:20 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote:
> sorry,but EVERYBODY benefits from our road systems.
Everybody benefits from colleges. Should colleges be free and covered
From: Brent on 10 Nov 2009 23:06
On 2009-11-11, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 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.
Motorists pay all the taxes directly on driving.
Motorists also pay all the other taxes that aren't about driving.
So, yes they 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.
> 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.
And yet federal and state highway funds are openly raided and automobile
related businesses are great generators of taxed commerce.
Go ahead, put all the taxes collected directly on driving and all the
taxes collected on commerce directly from driving (sales taxes on auto
parts, auto service, tires, gasoline, etc) to the roads and only the
roads. The loser will be everything else tax money is spent on.
>> 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: Larry Sheldon on 10 Nov 2009 23:51
> On 2009-11-11, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Motorists pay all the taxes directly on driving.
> Motorists also pay all the other taxes that aren't about driving.
> So, yes they do.
It is a concept that is impossible to get through--I think I'm about
done with the attempts with this.
Every thing that is done--boring holes in the earth, laing tracks or
pavement, you name it--has to be paid for. There is no "free" anything.
The value comes from people and organizations who create stuff. There
is no other source.
Sometimes the value flows efficiently from the person that wants
something to the person that can deliver it, sometimes we have stupidly
put in lossy paths where thieves steal some of the value but add nothing.
But in every case a good or service that is provided has to be paid for,
and the value to pay for it comes from, can come only from the providers
or other goods and services.
It is barter and trade, sometimes with middlemen who add value,
sometimes with politicians and bureaucrats that add none.
From: Orval Fairbairn on 10 Nov 2009 22:54
In article <es0jf5tu4dvhf28eigdsgh2759afk36o0s(a)4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Orval Fairbairn
> <o_r_fairbairn(a)earth_link.net> said:
> >Slaves to the automobile??? Far better than being slaves to the
> >fixed-guideway and somebody else's schedules!
> So I take it you drive everywhere you need to go, and never travel by
> commercial aircraft?
Sometime by commercial, sometimes by private aircraft, too. The GA plane
is the ultimate liberator -- no security nonsense, go when you want
(weather permitting, of course).
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
From: Matthew Russotto on 11 Nov 2009 00:17
In article <680if5tdsm4dssulp1t6qp9db9e23uucs6(a)4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>Owning and operating a car costs many thousands of dollars per year.
>Most American families own more than one. Imagine how much higher your
>standard of living could be if you could save the costs of owning,
>licensing, insuring, maintaining, and parking even one of your cars.
You mean _lower_? Because the few grand we'd save wouldn't nearly make
up for the inability for me and my wife to simultaneously have the
freedom of movement our automobiles provide.
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.