The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Robert Heller on 4 Nov 2009 06:14 At Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. The key word is 'productive'... -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller(a)deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
From: Brent on 4 Nov 2009 08:35 On 2009-11-04, Robert Heller <heller(a)deepsoft.com> wrote: > At Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> 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. > > The key word is 'productive'... Which is hardly unique to road use. Government can take land for practically any purpose it decides now, including giving it to other people. An expansion of transit would take a lot of land as well. It is rather rare that a rail right-of-way is just the width of the tracks too. Also, if north americans would learn how to drive properly fewer lanes would be needed.
From: Dave C. on 3 Nov 2009 21:42 On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:35:26 +0000 (UTC) Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2009-11-04, Robert Heller <heller(a)deepsoft.com> wrote: > > At Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Brent > > <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> 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. > > > > The key word is 'productive'... > > Which is hardly unique to road use. Government can take land for > practically any purpose it decides now, including giving it to other > people. That's only because the Supreme Court of the United States has misinterpreted the Constitution in a 5-4 ruling where only 7 of the voting members were present to hear arguments in the case. The ruling was based on precedents where other courts had also ruled incorrectly on the Constitutionality of eminent domain to take private land and give it to other private landowners for private purposes. -Dave
From: Brent on 4 Nov 2009 09:46 On 2009-11-04, Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:35:26 +0000 (UTC) > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2009-11-04, Robert Heller <heller(a)deepsoft.com> wrote: >> > At Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Brent >> > <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> > The key word is 'productive'... >> >> Which is hardly unique to road use. Government can take land for >> practically any purpose it decides now, including giving it to other >> people. > > That's only because the Supreme Court of the United States has > misinterpreted the Constitution in a 5-4 ruling where only 7 of the > voting members were present to hear arguments in the case. > The ruling was based on precedents where other courts had also ruled > incorrectly on the Constitutionality of eminent domain to take private > land and give it to other private landowners for private purposes. That's the nature of the system. The original error was allowing the council of 9 the power they have today. The system of constitutional interpetation started to be rigged a long time ago. The loss of productive private property to roads is really very minor in the productive loss of land and wealth of land owners. Property tax itself is a great loss of productive resources. Then there is all the land held by the federal, state, and local governments. Whatever loss there may be for land being used roads, rail, etc is very minor as transportation itself is a productive use. It may be a less productive use than the free market would have put it to, but it is at least still productive.
From: Brent on 4 Nov 2009 10:36
On 2009-11-04, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>Yeah, because transit is supported by all forms of taxation, not just >>taxes aimed at transportation. > And you think roads are not? I've been over this already. You could try to pay attention. |