The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Matthew Russotto on 5 Nov 2009 13:41 In article <pbh4f51398ahqso254bnd8dtknq6sk8hhb(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: > >>Trying to focus on the various costs which can be claimed (fairly or >>unfairly) as "subsidies" to drivers misses the big picture. Which is >>that there are so many drivers that any such subsidies _must_ come >>mostly _from_ drivers as well. So if you were to wave a magic wand >>and all these "subsidies" would disappear, with the money going back >>into the pocket of those providing them, and the costs charged >>directly to drivers, _driving would not become unaffordable_. > >You are absolutely correct. Instead of taking our money while our >backs are turned, we would all pay that money directly and be fully >conscious of every dollar we spend. The fundamental change would be >this: roads, parking, highway patrol, etc. would no longer appear to >be "free goods." People could finally make the correct economic >decisions about which modes of transport to employ and when to employ >them. If we got rid of all transportation subsidies -- let's say including those derived from user fees -- and just bolt a magic meter in each car, transit would disappear almost entirely. So I'm not sure what "correct economic decisions" people could make, besides driving. Oh, if they're walking or riding bicycles, that gets metered too, though at a much lower rate. But in fact the lion's share of roads are already paid for by direct user fees, and the other things you claim are subsidies, like parking for customers and employees, are not subsidies. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 5 Nov 2009 13:43 In article <37i4f5p2m4lspuc1ppibkfqso3ukfqt7ci(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 <2adve591vdcglu72k7lfhrba6gbat7ej25(a)4ax.com>, >>Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>[Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth >>>Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.] >>> >>[...] >>>THE AUTOMOBILE SUBSIDY >>>To what extent is automobile use a "free" good? According to Hart and >>>Spivak, government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to >>>between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent >>>of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon. >> >>It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers. > >Are you claiming that their numbers are made up? If so, you'll >cheerfully supply the correct numbers as well as your source for them, >right? I'm not going to go through such lengths to argue with a hit-and-run poster quoting from whatever his latest holy book is. At least not until he posts his own sources and calculations so _I_ can verify them. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 5 Nov 2009 13:46 In article <hctmr2$ks8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2009-11-05, Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote: > >>> Then the rest of you need to get off your lazy asses and get your >>> elected representatives to enact similar legislation. If we could do >>> it, you can, too. >> >> Exactly. If one isn't happy with the laws, talk to the people who are >> responsible for writing them, not a bunch of random nobodies on the >> Internet. > >I have to wonder if the people who write the above have ever written >their so-called representives. Eventually one learns it's pretty >pointless. Especially when said representives vote entirely different >than nearly everyone who wrote and called them to express their views. Naa. Whatever you do, they'll claim you should be doing something else. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: James Robinson on 5 Nov 2009 13:53 russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > > If we got rid of all transportation subsidies -- let's say including > those derived from user fees -- and just bolt a magic meter in each > car, transit would disappear almost entirely. So I'm not sure what > "correct economic decisions" people could make, besides driving. Oh, > if they're walking or riding bicycles, that gets metered too, though > at a much lower rate. > > But in fact the lion's share of roads are already paid for by direct > user fees, and the other things you claim are subsidies, like parking for > customers and employees, are not subsidies. I wonder how much the magic meter would charge for driving through the Big Dig in Boston, if the fee is intended to recover the full cost of the facility? Perhaps you see that partially being charged to someone driving a few blocks in North Adams who never uses the Big Dig in his life?
From: Matthew Russotto on 5 Nov 2009 13:57
In article <hcuumb$hu6$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >I don't know about the state you live in, but all forms do not go to >roads here in IL where the road funds are raided for other purposes year >after year. Chicago gets it's yearly state support for the CTA though. >People down in carbondale pay for transit in chicago even if they've >never been on a bus or a train in their lives. Here in Pennsylvania, the Governor attempted to get tolls on Interstate 80 (runs E-W across the middle of the state) to provide money for SEPTA (SouthEast Pennsylvania Public Transit Authority or similar -- serves the Philadelphia suburbs, not including any part of I-80). Fortunately the feds wouldn't go for it, but the audacity of it was really something. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. |