The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Matthew Russotto on 11 Nov 2009 00:26 In article <7luanvF3ffi5sU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >We need a USENET for roundabouts. > >"well then the cars users ought to pay one hundred percent of their own >way" (as if they were not already paying for it now, either directly or >through taxes)." They are. >"well then the train users ought to pay one hundred percent of their >own way" (as if they were not already paying for it now, either directly >or through taxes)." They are not. They are heavily subsidized by drivers. >"well then the airplane users ought to pay one hundred percent of their >own way" (as if they were not already paying for it now, either directly >or through taxes)." Not sure about this one; it's pretty muddy. Certainly less subsidized than transit, though. >(How come walkers and bicycle riders get off scot-free?? Negligible costs for bicycle riders, and no one objects to paying for sidewalks with general taxes (though anti-car folks like to put in mandates for sidewalks by roads and charge the resulting expense to drivers) -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Scott M. Kozel on 11 Nov 2009 00:27 Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Brent wrote: >> hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> 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. You have to realize who you are dealing with ... these posters who constantly harp about the "car subsidy" are posting from the railroad newsgroup, most of them live in the concrete jungle, and they are victims of one-dimensional railroad-like thinking patterns ... -- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
From: Larry Sheldon on 11 Nov 2009 00:42 Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article <7luanvF3ffi5sU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> We need a USENET for roundabouts. > They are. > They are not. They are heavily subsidized by drivers. Circulating arguments meet Charlie on the MTA.
From: Bolwerk on 11 Nov 2009 01:14 Larry Sheldon wrote: > elmer wrote: >> Scott in SoCal wrote: >>> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth >>> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.] >>> >>> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours >>> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a >>> manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing, > > Since we know at this point that we have a typical > bigcityeastcoastcommunist rant, I stopped reading at this point. Have you sent a letter of thanks to those bigcityeastcoastcommunists for all the transfer payments taxed from them to go to red staters? Didn't think so.
From: Jim Yanik on 11 Nov 2009 08:19
Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn(a)earth_link.net> wrote in news:o_r_fairbairn- 7B2B8B.23543710112009(a)70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net: > 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). > smart people take the mode of transportation that best suits them for the particular instance.THEY get to choose,not you or anyone else. When I resided at Hanscom AFB(outside RT128 beltway),I took the subway into Boston when I needed to go there,but had my car for trips to other places. Sometimes I rode my bicycle. Now,when I need to go to the airport,I drive to Park N Fly,leave my car with them(for a fee),and take a shuttle to the airport.My car is safer there than in airport parking.Although I'm more likely these days to drive a long trip than use air travel,due to the TSA security mess and new luggage fees. I ride my bike to the store for small purchases,use the car for big grocery trips. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |