The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Clark F Morris on 12 Nov 2009 16:57 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:46:54 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2009-11-12, Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote: >> jim wrote: >>> Contrary to what Brent believes all the money collected for road use >>> taxes is spent on roads. >> >> No, 15% of federal fuel excise taxes is diverted to pay for transit, and >> many states also divert part of their fuel excise taxes to other uses >> (e.g. education). OTOH, plenty of money collected via _other_ taxes is >> spent on roads; it's a gigantic shell game that is virtually >> impenetrable to the average citizen. > >Don't forget the diversions to bike trails, police check points, and >much more. > >>> He refuses to look at the simple fact that the total sum of money spent >>> on roads exceeds the total collected in vehicle and fuel taxes/fees by >>> users of the roads. > >> This is undeniably true; even the FHWA's own statistics demonstrate this. > >No, it's not. FHWA is government. It has an agenda, more money, more >control. It wants to show that so it does. Yank all the taxes collected >on anything to do with driving or trucking that go into the general >fund. Not just the diversions, the taxes you pay on tires, the sales >tax on a car, all of it and put it to roads only. Watch the elected >office holders scream. City governments want car dealerships in their >towns for the tax revenue. Why should a general sales tax be applied just to roads. In the Canadian context I am familiar with, the fuel excise taxes should go to roads but don't necessarily so there you would have a legitimate gripe. The HST (or GST plus PST) which is also collected on bus, rail and air tickets goes to the general coffers. Should that tax when collected on clothing go to helping clothing manufacturers. Actually I question the degree to which we subsidize transportation and the distortions that subsidy causes. If we didn't subsidize harbors, would there be as much production shifted out of Europe, the United States and Canada to other countries? > >Also, even with the indirect taxes those are paid mostly by people who >drive. So drivers pay it ANYWAY. That's the point that I made that my >new personal troll is looking to ignore. Non-drivers are such a tiny >fraction of taxpayers that eliminating their contribution to roads is >like taking a cup of grain out of a silo. >
From: Miles Bader on 12 Nov 2009 17:45 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes: >>> > In developed areas, many transit routes run very frequently, like >>> > every 2-3 minutes. >>> >>> NYC subway in rush hour? Where do you get this 'many'? I never saw the >>> CTA running that frequently. > >> I just checked the CTA web page. Some rapid transit routes run every >> 3 minutes during the rush hour, and some lines run 24/7. > > Some, a few, maybe for a few hours... exceptions made into rules. The line I take most often runs every 2-3 bin during rush, and downgrades to maybe every 5-6 min in the slow periods. Horrors...! Anyway, the effect is, there's no point to trying to plan which train to take, you just go there whenever you're ready, and get the next one. -Miles -- 97% of everything is grunge
From: Brent on 12 Nov 2009 17:59 On 2009-11-12, Clark F Morris <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:46:54 +0000 (UTC), Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On 2009-11-12, Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote: >>> jim wrote: >>>> Contrary to what Brent believes all the money collected for road use >>>> taxes is spent on roads. >>> >>> No, 15% of federal fuel excise taxes is diverted to pay for transit, and >>> many states also divert part of their fuel excise taxes to other uses >>> (e.g. education). OTOH, plenty of money collected via _other_ taxes is >>> spent on roads; it's a gigantic shell game that is virtually >>> impenetrable to the average citizen. >> >>Don't forget the diversions to bike trails, police check points, and >>much more. >> >>>> He refuses to look at the simple fact that the total sum of money spent >>>> on roads exceeds the total collected in vehicle and fuel taxes/fees by >>>> users of the roads. >> >>> This is undeniably true; even the FHWA's own statistics demonstrate this. >> >>No, it's not. FHWA is government. It has an agenda, more money, more >>control. It wants to show that so it does. Yank all the taxes collected >>on anything to do with driving or trucking that go into the general >>fund. Not just the diversions, the taxes you pay on tires, the sales >>tax on a car, all of it and put it to roads only. Watch the elected >>office holders scream. City governments want car dealerships in their >>towns for the tax revenue. > Why should a general sales tax be applied just to roads. I was talking about taxes collected in relationship to autos. > In the > Canadian context I am familiar with, the fuel excise taxes should go > to roads but don't necessarily so there you would have a legitimate > gripe. The HST (or GST plus PST) which is also collected on bus, rail > and air tickets goes to the general coffers. Should that tax when > collected on clothing go to helping clothing manufacturers. Actually > I question the degree to which we subsidize transportation and the > distortions that subsidy causes. If we didn't subsidize harbors, > would there be as much production shifted out of Europe, the United > States and Canada to other countries? first I already gave an explaination on how sales tax often is a composite of taxes. Including a transit tax in NE IL. If drivers were really being subsidized by general taxes on non-drivers then the 'drivers don't pay their way' crowd should take me up on that division. The general fund would be better off by excising the driving related costs and revenue. That is if drivers are being subsidized. But, we know they aren't. It's just a game to try and extract more from drivers because that's where the money is. What I am saying is that general taxes collected on automotive transactions are such a huge part of the revenue government collects that if people want to be nit-picky about 'drivers' getting a 'subsidy', you'll find tax revenues vanishing all over the place if people stopped driving. Just consider that when moaning about 'drivers not paying their share'. The fact is they do. If taxes were rearranged to make all the taxes for roads directly on driving the cost to drivers wouldn't increase. Look at what happened to detroit when it lost so much in tax revenue it gathered on automotive businesses. It's a lot of money. The complainers should really consider that before complaining that too much from the general taxes goes to roads.
From: Brent on 12 Nov 2009 18:17 On 2009-11-12, Miles Bader <miles(a)gnu.org> wrote: > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes: >>>> > In developed areas, many transit routes run very frequently, like >>>> > every 2-3 minutes. >>>> >>>> NYC subway in rush hour? Where do you get this 'many'? I never saw the >>>> CTA running that frequently. >> >>> I just checked the CTA web page. Some rapid transit routes run every >>> 3 minutes during the rush hour, and some lines run 24/7. >> >> Some, a few, maybe for a few hours... exceptions made into rules. > > The line I take most often runs every 2-3 bin during rush, and > downgrades to maybe every 5-6 min in the slow periods. Horrors...! I just looked at the PDF of every L line. Best I could find is a blue line train leaving ohare every 3 to 8 minutes between 5:50am and 9:23am. There are one's faster than 8, but I can't find any other claim that there is ever a 3 minute or less spacing. All others are longer in the morning rush. Now I didn't look at every single delta between trains at every stop, but if there are trains running every '2-3minutes' it's clearly an exception and not a rule. Not many, not most.
From: gpsman on 12 Nov 2009 18:19
On Nov 12, 3:01 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > gpsman wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 11:03 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > > gpsman wrote: > > > > > On Nov 11, 8:14 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Right about here it appears you had a stroke. Might wanna get that > > > > checked out. > > > > Are you disputing the statement or just attempting to ignore it? > > > It is obviously false. > > But it isn't false. the more you subsidize trucking the more trucks on > the road you will get. Or put it the opposite way, if you increase fuel > and other fees on trucks it will tend to reduce the number of trucks on > the road. The number of trucks on roads is directly proportional to the demand for trucks on roads. Fee increases are passed on to the consumer. > Subsidizing trucking doesn't benefit a motorists any more than it > benefits someone who never drives. Except for how convenient it is to find fuel...? The US economy rides on trucking and cheap freight rates. "Trucks carry almost all the manufactured and retail goods in the country from refrigerators to lumber, detergents to toys. Many economists gauge how fast assembly lines are running, and how much consumers are buying, by the volume of goods hauled by trucks." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30728469/ >Subsidizing trucking would tend to > put more trucks on the road. It should be obvious, that if you collect > more taxes from trucks there is less need for tax collected from car > drivers. Taxes, higher prices, only the route differs. > And then there is the little thing of trucks have an advantage > when they collide with motorists. So very clearly the thinking motorist > would find his interests to be at odds with trucking. Unless he likes to eat and prefers to not "farm", or live near farms... where they move farmed goods from the fields in... trucks. > OTOH, Subsidizing mass transit can reduce traffic congestion I guess it could, but I'm not familiar with anyone I think would choose mass transit over driving unless it was among their last options. > It may > even be more cost effective to put some money into mass transit than put > it all into expanding roads. It may, I don't care. Whether mass transit might catch back on, I think, is more or less proportional to the ability of the transportees to afford to drive instead of sharing small enclosed spaces with strangers. It seems like a sure bet we need more road, and will need more road. > The thinking motorist might find its a good > idea to support some level of mass transit. That mass transit is going to require infrastructure. That seems to indicate real estate that is not available or ridiculously expensive where it is most needed, or take at least a lane of street. The local plan is completely preposterous in this economic time with the city budget blanketed in red. http://www.cincystreetcar.com/ > It is very little different > than a motorist supporting another road built somewhere else that he > doesn't use, if the result is it takes some of the traffic off the road > that he uses. Except for the probabilities. > > > Fuel travels far more efficiently in pipelines and goods can arrive and > > > leave factories by rail.... > > > Not in passenger rail cars. > > > Whether or not they might move "far more efficiently" (by undefined > > measure) by pipeline and/or rail is irrelevant. > > > Practicality trumps efficiency. It is simply not practical to ship > > many if not most goods by rail, plane or pipeline. > > Yeah so? We know it is practical to ship some things not in a truck. And > when trucking is more costly there are more things that fall into that > category. It's going to have to become pretty costly before they start laying rails to every retail outlet. Trucks will get you through times of no rail or air or bus transport better than they combined will get you through times of no trucks. We'll just load you all up in military-style cattle cars, take you wherever you need to go. ----- - gpsman |