The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Miles Bader on 12 Nov 2009 18:29 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> 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. I'm not in Chicago. -Miles -- Erudition, n. Dust shaken out of a book into an empty skull.
From: Stephen Sprunk on 12 Nov 2009 18:36 Brent wrote: > 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: >>>>> 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. Why should general sales taxes on autos or auto supplies (such as fuel) be applied only to autos rather than put into the general fund? Fuel excise taxes _in addition to_ the general sales tax are different. However, in most states the fuel excise tax is _substituted_ for the general sales tax, which is a subsidy from the general fund 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. Very true; I disagree with a transit-specific sales tax. The idea makes little sense. Unfortunately, it seems to be a fairly common mechanism. > 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. Fine, I'll take you up on it. In Texas and many other states, local roads (i.e. all roads other than state highways and tollways) are funded over 99% by city or county property or sales taxes. Aside from a tiny, tiny amount of CMAQ money, that is pure subsidy. Tollways are funded 100% with toll revenues, though they're exempt from property and sales taxes so they're still receiving subsidies from general funds. Finally, all the people driving on those subsidized local roads or toll roads are still paying the federal and state fuel excise taxes, which only fund free state highways. That is another subsidy. Claims that "drivers pay their own way" are therefore blatantly untrue; people who do not drive are also paying for those roads. Yes, they get direct value for non-driving uses and indirect value from the use of others (e.g. delivery trucks, cabs, etc.), and that is why I don't have a serious objection to that system; my real objections are to (a) the false claims (such as yours) about how funding works, and (b) the subsidy from non-highway drivers to highways. > If taxes were rearranged to make all the taxes for roads directly on > driving the cost to drivers wouldn't increase. It's not so much a matter of who pays as it is of the artificially low marginal costs of driving. Right now, most of what we pay to fund roads is coming out of our pockets regardless of how much we drive, therefore we want to drive as much as possible to get our money's worth. If we had to pay the full cost of each trip separately, demand for roads would naturally go down (because people either eliminated those trips or switched to a lower-cost mode), which would reduce the amount we would need to spend on roads in the first place. It would also make transit and intercity rail more price competitive while requiring less (or perhaps even no) subsidy of their own. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
From: jim on 12 Nov 2009 20:04 Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > jim wrote: > > Stephen Sprunk 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, > > > > No it isn't. Something like 13% of the HTF goes to mass transit, but > > look at how much is put into trust fund from general revenues - a whole > > lot more. If you look at totals the fuel excise and other fees and taxes > > for road use do not cover the expenditures on roads. > > I said nothing either way about subsidies _into_ the HTF; I only > mentioned the most egregious subsidy _out of_ the HTF. No you didn't mention HTF at all you mentioned fuel taxes which are only part of that fund. > > Rather than putting general funds into the HTF, then taking money out of > the HTF to pay for transit, we should simply put general funds into > transit. Presto, one thread in the Gordian Knot removed. > > >> and many states also divert part of their fuel excise taxes to other > >> uses (e.g. education). > > > > You say that as if it is some sort of moral sin which is an > > interesting commentary of your belief system. > > A moral sin? You're reading things into what I said that simply aren't > there. Am I > > I do think it's dishonest to claim fuel excise taxes are "user fees that > go into a highway trust fund" and then use that money for other > purposes. I feel the same way about how some toll bridge authorities do > the same thing. The trust fund for highways is about as sacred as it gets for using money to the benefit of a special interest. For comparison look at another trust fund - 26 years ago the doubled the SS tax to build up the social security trust fund. But all the extra money collected went into the general fund and was spent. > > > And second the total expenditure at all levels of government on roads > > far exceeds the fuel excise taxes paid. > > Indeed it does. The _net_ subsidy to roads is an inflow. > > >> 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. > > > > It is not as if you have to trace the path of every dollar. All you need > > to do is look at the totals. the federal Highway administration is a lot > > more transparent than the local expenditures are. At the state and local > > level there is less of a tendency to map a particular revenue stream to > > a particular expenditure. However, you can still examine the totals. > > Luckily, the FHWA has collected all the figures and done all the math > for us, though it's such a gigantic pain that they don't do it every > year. 2004 figures: > > http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hf1.htm > > 21% of total road spending in the US comes from property taxes and other > general funds, 11% from bonds, 6% from "other imposts", and 5% from > "miscellaneous receipts" (including interest). Only 57% comes from fuel > excise taxes and tolls, which is far lower than Big Oil and their > advocates such as the Reason Foundation will admit to. Well things are different today. Fuel consumption has been dropping for last 2 years and road construction costs have taken a sharp upturn in the same period. > > >>> 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. > > > > So why did you in your first sentence claim money is being diverted? > > Have you never heard the term "net"? > > If you give Bob $5, and he gives you $3, then the _net_ flow of money is > from you to Bob in the amount of $2. It doesn't mean that Bob never > gave you any money. It makes no difference to you if Bob and I are the same entity? > > >> whereas the estimate road wear is _ten thousand times_ that of a > >> passenger car. Road wear is proportional to the _cube_ of the vehicle's > >> weight. > > > > Well that's your opinion. Trucks cause more wear, but ten thousand times > > is certainly an exaggeration. > > *shrug* That's what the civil engineers say, and I don't have the > domain knowledge to say that they're wrong. > > >>> Like everything else in government today some of the current > >>> expenditures on roads is coming from borrowing from the future. That to > >>> me looks like both car drivers and truckers are getting a subsidy. > >> > >> "Borrowing from the future" is not a subsidy per se if it will be paid > >> off by the people that benefit from it. > > > > How are the future taxpayers going to benefit from roads that are being > > worn out by today's vehicles? > > A road _should_ have a lifetime of around 30 years; therefore it is > appropriate to fund it with 30-year revenue bonds. When the road is > "worn out" and no longer benefits people, they will no longer be paying > for it either. > > > They will end up paying for today's maintenance costs as well as those > > in the future. > > One should never use bond funds to pay for operating expenses (e.g. > maintenance), only capital expenses (e.g. construction, land, equipment). > > > And they will have to do this in an economy run on more expensive fuel. > > Maybe, maybe not. My crystal ball gets fuzzy on that more than a few > years out, considering all the drastic changes that _might_ take place > due to future political interference in the energy and automotive > markets being discussed today. How is that going to make fuel cheap? > > >> Aside from toll roads, though, what jurisdiction actually uses debt to > >> fund roads? > > > > I'm talking about the federal dollars that are spent on road > > maintenance. The general fund is already in the red. Any new dollars > > taken from the general fund for road construction are borrowed dollars. > > The amount taken from the general fund and put into the HTF started to > > grow rapidly about 2 years ago and there is every indication will > > continue to grow. > > Since you said federal, exactly how many dollars were taken from the > _federal_ general fund to pay for highways, net of all the dollars taken > out of the federal HTF for other purposes? I think it was around 12 billion last year and will be more this year. That is just what goes through the HTF and doesn't count some 40-60 billion in stimulus money that's going to road construction. -jim > > The net subsidy to roads is mostly at the state and local level, where > the governments are required to have balanced budgets. > > S > > -- > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
From: hancock4 on 12 Nov 2009 20:32 On Nov 12, 6:36 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...(a)sprunk.org> wrote: Excellent points. >Tollways are funded > 100% with toll revenues, though they're exempt from property and sales > taxes so they're still receiving subsidies from general funds. And the interest in tollway bonds is tax exempt, while private railroad bonds are taxable. These various taxes were the tipping point between government operated road facilities and private railroads. The book "Empire on the Hudson" describes this in detail; it was the tax exemption, eagerly sought for by toll authorities, that allowed them to grow. At the same time, the tax burden imposed on passenger railroads caused them to lose moeny.
From: jim on 12 Nov 2009 20:44
gpsman wrote: > > 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. That's not very meaningful. If you double the taxes on trucks the number of trucks on the road will decrease because less will be shipped by truck. Sure that cost will be added to the products but not in full. Some of the added tax would be covered by eliminating inefficiency that aren't going to be eliminated until the cost goes up. > > > 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...? Yes transporting fuel would cost a little more. But very little fuel is trucked very far. Other commodities would also tend to follow that same model and be trucked less far. > > The US economy rides on trucking and cheap freight rates. Certainly, but that doesn't mean the citizens are better off in the long run. Subsidizing transportation creates distorted economies. Cheap transportation of goods is significant factor in many jobs moving overseas. And inefficiencies it creates mean US is not well prepared for the future. > > "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. I live in a rural county and in the 20's and 30's there used to be 360 miles of rail lines in this county. The milk trains ran every day that carried all the milk the 1000's of farms produced to the dairy plants in the county seat. And all the other farm goods were shipped by rail too. All those rail lines are now gone. But no one is suggesting that a concerted political effort be made to eliminate the trucking industry like the effort that was made to get rid of the rail lines. > > > 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. Some people don't like sitting in small enclosed spaces alone. And more than likely some day you will be old and unable to drive a car. > > It seems like a sure bet we need more road, and will need more road. Right now it seems like a good bet there will be problems finding the money to keep up the roads that already exist. -jim > > > 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 |