The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: gpsman on 14 Nov 2009 21:22 On Nov 14, 6:35 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > gpsman wrote: > > If your idea is to reduce the number of trucks by deliberate reduction > > of trade, that's just silly. > > I said if you reduce taxes there would be more trucks on the road. How > does your pea brain interpret that to mean "your idea is to reduce the > number of trucks by deliberate reduction of trade" It would be refreshing if you could remember what you write: "If you double the taxes on trucks the number of trucks on the road will decrease because less will be shipped by truck." (I suspect you have no idea of the average tax burden on a truck.) "<> as costs go up some goods will find other ways to get to their destinations and some will be replaced by goods that don't need to travel so far and some will be deemed not worth transporting at all)". Your assumption that there exists another mode of shipping that even approaches the value trucking offers in efficiency, speed, flexibility, availability and reliability conspicuously lacks as much specification as it does mass. ----- - gpsman
From: rshersh on 14 Nov 2009 21:29 > (I suspect you have no idea of the average tax burden on a truck.) > > "< pray tell, what exactly is it, currently? It was about $8000 a year
From: jim on 14 Nov 2009 22:09 gpsman wrote: > > On Nov 14, 6:35 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > gpsman wrote: > > > If your idea is to reduce the number of trucks by deliberate reduction > > > of trade, that's just silly. > > > > I said if you reduce taxes there would be more trucks on the road. How > > does your pea brain interpret that to mean "your idea is to reduce the > > number of trucks by deliberate reduction of trade" > > It would be refreshing if you could remember what you write: > > "If you double the taxes on trucks the number of trucks on the road > will decrease because less will be shipped by truck." > > (I suspect you have no idea of the average tax burden on a truck.) > > "<> as costs go up some goods will find other ways to > get to their destinations and some will be replaced by goods that > don't need to travel so far and some will be deemed not worth > transporting at all)". Those are statements of fact. As statements go they are about as profound as saying if you eat to much you get fat and if you eat too little you get skinny. And don't bother asking, i'm not going to cite any evidence for those statements either. > > Your assumption that there exists another mode of shipping that even > approaches the value trucking offers in efficiency, speed, > flexibility, availability and reliability conspicuously lacks as much > specification as it does mass. I never stated that assumption. I did say that if taxes rise one of many consequences of that would be some goods would find other modes of transport. Now maybe in some world where no goods have ever been shipped by anything other than trucks that may seem like a radical incomprehensible statement, but I don't live in such a world. -jim > ----- > > - gpsman
From: John S on 14 Nov 2009 22:42 hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Nov 11, 9:10 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) > wrote: >>> Except there are many freeways and Interstates in NJ that are not toll >>> roads. >> Sure, there's I-295 in the northwest, and I-195 across the center. >> But a rather large proportion of NJs major highways are toll. > > A very quick look at a road map of NJ shows: > > I-80, I-287, I-280, I-78, free segment of GSP > > NJ 15, NJ 21, NJ 3, NJ 18, NJ 42, NJ 55 > > Notably, many of these roads carry extremely high volumes of traffic. Listing random route numbers is very interesting, but doesn't change the fact that toll lanes make up a very high percentage of overall freeway lane miles, relative to other states, which helps explain the points made a few posts ago.
From: gpsman on 14 Nov 2009 22:45
On Nov 14, 10:09 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > gpsman wrote: > > > On Nov 14, 6:35 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > > gpsman wrote: > > > > If your idea is to reduce the number of trucks by deliberate reduction > > > > of trade, that's just silly. > > > > I said if you reduce taxes there would be more trucks on the road. How > > > does your pea brain interpret that to mean "your idea is to reduce the > > > number of trucks by deliberate reduction of trade" > > > It would be refreshing if you could remember what you write: > > > "If you double the taxes on trucks the number of trucks on the road > > will decrease because less will be shipped by truck." > > > (I suspect you have no idea of the average tax burden on a truck.) > > > "<> as costs go up some goods will find other ways to > > get to their destinations and some will be replaced by goods that > > don't need to travel so far and some will be deemed not worth > > transporting at all)". > > Those are statements of fact. Those are unsupported assertions. > As statements go they are about as > profound as saying if you eat to much you get fat and if you eat too > little you get skinny. And don't bother asking, i'm not going to cite > any evidence for those statements either. Why violate your established tradition? > > Your assumption that there exists another mode of shipping that even > > approaches the value trucking offers in efficiency, speed, > > flexibility, availability and reliability conspicuously lacks as much > > specification as it does mass. > > I never stated that assumption. I did say that if taxes rise one of > many consequences of that would be some goods would find other modes of > transport. Which...? > Now maybe in some world where no goods have ever been shipped > by anything other than trucks that may seem like a radical > incomprehensible statement, but I don't live in such a world. Straw man. Appeal to ridicule. You're out of argument. You've nothing to resort to but substantiating your assertions or <plonk>. ----- - gpsman |