The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent on 11 Nov 2009 17:51 On 2009-11-11, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Brent wrote: >> On 2009-11-11, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Brent wrote: >>> >>>> Nice editing. But it is a fair argument to point out that transit is >>>> mostly funded by people who don't use it. >>> This is a just-grabbed-out-of-my......hat opinion, but I would very >>> surprised if most things that "tax-supported" are in fact supported by >>> tax-payers who derive either no benefit or little benefit compared to >>> amounts paid, even if you include indirect or secondary benefits. >> >> That's the point of using government. To get what you want while having >> someone else pay for it. If benefit matched what was paid government >> would not be needed, it could all be private. > > > You are going to hurt yourself twisting like that. Huh? twisted what? I was agreeing with you. Drivers of private autos subsidize trucking, but that's still better than nothing which is what many people get from the taxes they pay for transit.
From: Matthew Russotto on 11 Nov 2009 19:17 In article <kdkkf5lrg9taqcb96veu5j10gfumrqo81r(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Last time on rec.autos.driving, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >Russotto) said: > >>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. > >Heh - you call sitting in a traffic jam "freedom of movement?" What an idiotic straw man. As if sitting in a traffic jam is the main thing I do with my car. On Monday, I drove a little over 100 miles in my car in about 2 hours, while my wife drove 300 miles in a different direction, in about 5 hours, carrying in the vehicle some large pieces of art. That's freedom of movement. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: jim on 11 Nov 2009 20:14 Brent wrote: > > On 2009-11-11, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Brent wrote: > >> On 2009-11-11, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Brent wrote: > >>> > >>>> Nice editing. But it is a fair argument to point out that transit is > >>>> mostly funded by people who don't use it. > >>> This is a just-grabbed-out-of-my......hat opinion, but I would very > >>> surprised if most things that "tax-supported" are in fact supported by > >>> tax-payers who derive either no benefit or little benefit compared to > >>> amounts paid, even if you include indirect or secondary benefits. > >> > >> That's the point of using government. To get what you want while having > >> someone else pay for it. If benefit matched what was paid government > >> would not be needed, it could all be private. > > > > > > You are going to hurt yourself twisting like that. > > Huh? twisted what? I was agreeing with you. Drivers of private autos > subsidize trucking, but that's still better than nothing which is what > many people get from the taxes they pay for transit. First of all there is no equity or fairness that exists amongst auto drivers themselves. A driver that has a gas guzzling car and who drives mostly on local roads is paying a lot more money for his highway use compared to someone with a fuel efficient car that spends most of his time on the federal highway system. The guy who drives on local roads is not getting much benefit in return from road use taxes. A motorist capable of independent thought might look at the cost/benefit of mass transit in a different light. The existence of mass transit means some number of people are not on the highway contributing to congestion that otherwise would be. By using other means of transportation they are also not contributing to wear and tear on the highways. In a sense mass transit makes highways more cost effective. Many people who use mass transit do so during peak highway usage and use the highways during off peak usage. Subsidy to truckers contributes to more congestion on the highways more wear and tear on the highways and gives nothing in return unless you like diesel exhaust. You have to wonder where the notion comes from that it is more in a motorists best interest to subsidize trucking than it is to subsidize mass transit. You also have to wonder where the idea comes from that that government entities are diverting money to mass transit to increase government revenues. If the only thing the government was interested in was maximizing revenues then killing off mass transit would be the way to go. Forcing all the people who use mass transit to switch to automobile travel would generate more taxes. -jim
From: Sancho Panza on 11 Nov 2009 20:16 <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:03f7b726-1c09-4485-8b2b-7c9873b12e76(a)d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > Speaking of New Jersey, it should be noted that while NJ has the > lowest gasoline taxes in the country, it has the highest property > taxes. No surprise there because in NJ counties use that property tax > money to pay for a massive road network. Two-thirds of property taxes in New Jersey are for education. The remaining one-third of property tax revenues is for all other county and municipal functions, including law enforcement, public works, recreation, welfare and so on and so on. > In other states those types > of roads would be state roads, paid for by the state. In New Jersey, the state pays for all state-designated roads. For county and municipal roads, Trenton sends significant grants, usually for what it considers major improvements.
From: Matthew Russotto on 11 Nov 2009 20:20
In article <03f7b726-1c09-4485-8b2b-7c9873b12e76(a)d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >Speaking of New Jersey, it should be noted that while NJ has the >lowest gasoline taxes in the country, it has the highest property >taxes. No surprise there because in NJ counties use that property tax >money to pay for a massive road network. In other states those types >of roads would be state roads, paid for by the state. Nice try. New Jerseys low gas tax is historically due to the large presence of the petroleum industry in that state; taxes on that industry make up for the lower gas tax. It doesn't hurt that most of the major highways in New Jersey -- the Turnpike, the Parkway, and the Atlantic City Expressway -- are all toll roads. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. |