The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Clark F Morris on 11 Nov 2009 20:22 On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:06:31 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Here in NOva Scotia, they collect both provincial and federal excise taxes on motor fuel plus Harmonized Sales Tax (13 percent of which 5 percent is federal and 8 provincial) on the cost of the fuel plus the excise taxes. They also collect HST on bus, rail and air tickets. The HST should and does go into general revenues. I would agree that the excise taxes should go toward roads but thing get murky or very murky there. In the United States, in general transportation is excluded from the sales taxes so the United States favors or subsidizes transportation as opposed to other goods and services. (In many states groceries but not restaurant meals are similarly favored.) In short, I would agree that transportation excise taxes and targeted taxes like the tire tax to promote recycling of tires should go to the related transportation purpose and general sales taxes should go into general revenues. > >>> 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: Clark F Morris on 11 Nov 2009 20:26 On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:47:01 -0500, Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn(a)earth_link.net> wrote: >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?" > >..... if you don't live in a people kennel in an urban jungle, breathing >smog! > >There is a whole BIG country out there that is accessable only via >private automobile or aircraft! There is little to compare with flying >along the Bitterroot Range east of Jackson Hole, looking at the contrast >of snoe, red-brown earth, clouds and sky. For scenery try taking the California Zephyr from San Francisco to Denver or vice versa. The Empire Builder also should be an eye opening experience. Just as there are highway drives with breath taking scenery, there are rail trips that are well worth taking. >Public transport gives a VERY poor facsimile of the experience.
From: Clark F Morris on 11 Nov 2009 20:51 On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:27:51 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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 ... From my readings of US FHWA web pages, things from the Texas Transportation think-tank, and other places I don't think ANYONE really knows the state of transportation funding. There are various taxes on all modes. There are various examples of subsidy for all modes and I know that I got very confused when trying to figure out how governments in New Jersey fund roads. The cross subsidies and shifting of responsibility among levels of government are mind boggling. Just look at the discussions here on whether all roads should be funded out of the federal and state pool of road related taxes. There are major disagreements as to whether property taxes should be used to fund local streets and roads. If a street or road isn't on the state/federal highway system what should the source of funds be to build and maintain that road? As a railfan and transportation policy student I am confused by the data. Things are murky at best and the arguments on all sides don't address the incoherent land use and funding policies that we have. My personal belief is that all streets and roads should be paid for by fuel excise taxes, vehicle and operator taxes and tolls. On the other hand the value of the property I live on is enhanced by the fact it is on a paved road so what part of the cost of maintaining access should be on the property tax? I don't believe in diversion such as is done in New Jersey and on the federal level of the aforementioned funds to transit or long distance bus/rail. On the other hand, the Government of Ontario made the investment in GO Transit Lakeshore lines to avoid building two lanes (I'm not certain if that is a total figure or two lanes each direction) on the Gardiner expressway and having to provide the parking in downtown Toronto. Given that GO is currently running 6 12 car trains per hour into Union Station in the peak two hours from both the east and the west with a total capacity of 9600 people per hour or more, they have met that goal. If the net system cost per year is less than the net cost of providing the lanes (building, snow plowing and other maintenance) after highway associated revenues, then someone can make a case for that being a good diversion of highway funds. If anyone has those figures, I would be extremely interested. Two things that color our views of both transit and highway costs are the escalation of both due to inflation (especially construction inflation) and due to environmental and mitigation requirements (think sound barriers for starters). Then there is gold-plating by consultants for all modes.
From: hancock4 on 11 Nov 2009 21:04 On Nov 11, 7:17 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >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. It sure is what I do. Unless I schedule my trips to go at offpeak hours--not when it's convenient for me to go. Commuting to work I don't have that choice. I just love sitting in intersections that are backed up, waiting through multiple signal cycles. That's normal heavy volume. What about accidents? Construction? Water main breaks? Police chases? Fires? I took a trip out west, figuring I'd get to drive in the wide open spaces. Ha ha. The Interstate was backed up for miles. Since it was an isolated area, there were no alternate routes. > 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. I once went somewhere 100 miles in two hours. No prob. Until I got there. Then it took a half hour just to get into the parking lot. Then a long walk from the outer reaches of a rough field to the building. Going home there was a jam up and I managed only ten miles in two hours.
From: hancock4 on 11 Nov 2009 21:08
On Nov 11, 8:20 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > In article <03f7b726-1c09-4485-8b2b-7c9873b12...(a)d21g2000yqn.googlegroups..com>, > > <hanco...(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. Except there are many freeways and Interstates in NJ that are not toll roads. If the petroleum industry contributes so much, why is the state broke? Pennsylvania has oil refineries, too. Why then does it have a higher gas tax. |