Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, those are tax breaks. A subsidy is money handed out. A tax break is just that, although I may not agree with it. Now, do you have anything where the government has sent a check to any of the oil companies?
This is a perfect example of the problem I'm trying to point out. Redefining the terminology might woo the "progressives," but it just irritates everyone else to the point they tune it out and the problem isn't corrected. It would be much better to point out that the there is a problem with the way the tax liability is allocated.
Of course, the problem here is "progressives" will never be happy with the amount of taxes everyone else pays.
Figuring gasoline at $3.30 a gallon over the next year, 22 mpg, that's 15 cents a mile just for gas. Add another cent for oil and tires. If you drive 20 miles each way, that's $6.40 a day * 21 days/month = $134.40. A monthly train pass in this area runs $116.10 for that distance, so you save $18, plus maintenance, increased insurance, etc. probably around $100/month. Even more if you have to pay tolls or parking. Using the IRS standard rate ($.51/mile) you'd pay $428.40 so you'd save about $300. I think that rate is based on trading in for a new car every two years, so it is a bit on the high side. And with the emphasis on energy I doubt that subsidies for oil production will be eliminated any time soon.
KC6ZLV, you're saying that I, as a non driver, am paying for roads and highways with income, property, and/or sales taxes, because the government is funding mass transportation with gas taxes?
KC6ZLV: A tax break is actually better--you don't have to count a tax break as taxable income, whereas a check from the government does.
One thing you may have noticed in your travels are the number of road and highway projects paid for with ARRA funds. Was ARRA paid for with gasoline taxes?
Sorry, those are tax breaks. A subsidy is money handed out. A tax break is just that, although I may not agree with it. Now, do you have anything where the government has sent a check to any of the oil companies?
This is a perfect example of the problem I'm trying to point out. Redefining the terminology might woo the "progressives," but it just irritates everyone else to the point they tune it out and the problem isn't corrected. It would be much better to point out that the there is a problem with the way the tax liability is allocated.
Of course, the problem here is "progressives" will never be happy with the amount of taxes everyone else pays.
Probably the most subsidized industry is commercial broadcasting. Everyone who transmits on the electromagnetic spectrum, CBers, Hams, dispatching services, pays a licensing fee. But commercial broadcasters pay a proportionally lower fee than everyone else. If they weren't grandfathered in and had to pay market rates for their spectrum use they would be socked with huge increases. Is this a topic for another forum?
Sorry, those are tax breaks. A subsidy is money handed out. A tax break is just that, although I may not agree with it. Now, do you have anything where the government has sent a check to any of the oil companies?
This is a perfect example of the problem I'm trying to point out. Redefining the terminology might woo the "progressives," but it just irritates everyone else to the point they tune it out and the problem isn't corrected. It would be much better to point out that the there is a problem with the way the tax liability is allocated.
Of course, the problem here is "progressives" will never be happy with the amount of taxes everyone else pays.
I can appreciate you wanting to properly defining buzz-words that get carelessly thrown around, and I don't want to digress into a debate on semantics. But I would argue that a subsidy is not explicitly handing over money. Handing out money is the most odious form, which is why clever politicians find ways to effectively give away money that does not upset the electorate. Perhaps the word "subsidy" is not being used correctly, but a lesson in economics just doesn't bring the same impact as such a strong word as "subsidy." Let me give an example, for argument's sake:
In Florida, we have sugar producers who are protected by high tariffs on imported sugar. Because foreign competitors have to factor the tariffs into their prices, domestic producers can sell their sugar for comparably high prices. In turn, we consumers must pay a higher price for sugar than we would without the tariff. So the government gets money from sugar importers (an expense which is passed through to us), and domestic producers get more money for their sugar. In a market as big as the U.S. this could affect the global price for sugar. How is that different than a subsidy, exactly? (This is why we have high fructose corn syrup in soft drinks instead of more sugar. American corn producers love this tariff on sugar.)
Though the cost may be indirect, someone always has to pay. A protected industry is a subsidized industry.
Intersting that the study (Well not realy) uses the highest costs for cars, and lowest costs to the transit.
Agreed. This study is a*s*s*uming that everyone pays for parking, buys a new car every two years, etc.
I'd like to see a study showing the total cost of being car-less. For example, how does a carless person get to a social event in the suburbs on a Saturday night? (Well, they probably don't do such pedestrian things; they're all out volunteering for peace and love.) Do they take a cab to the airport when they're laden down with suitcases and small children? Do they have to take the Greyhound bus to the next town if they need/want to go there? And so forth.
I'd like to see a study showing the total cost of being car-less. For example, how does a carless person get to a social event in the suburbs on a Saturday night?
Some combination of bike, bus, train, or car-sharing program.
Quote:
Do they take a cab to the airport when they're laden down with suitcases and small children?
Sure. Why wouldn't they? This is how I remember going to the airport as a small child, and my parents owned 2 cars!
Quote:
Do they have to take the Greyhound bus to the next town if they need/want to go there?
Bus is one option, and again, I know many people who own cars that prefer to take the bus or train to other cities.
Some combination of bike, bus, train, or car-sharing program.
Sure. Why wouldn't they? This is how I remember going to the airport as a small child, and my parents owned 2 cars!
Bus is one option, and again, I know many people who own cars that prefer to take the bus or train to other cities.
I thought all you urbanites believed that buses don't go to the burbs. In truth, they're often limited on Saturday nights. Ditto trains. By car-sharing do you mean bumming a ride?
Well, I'm just saying, the cost of the cab should be included in transportation costs then.
I don't know anyone who "prefers" the Greyhound, USA transit, etc, not to mention, not every city has such service. Again, "car share", ie, bum a ride with a friend that has a car. Think you're being very generous by offering to split the cost of gas.
Agreed. This study is a*s*s*uming that everyone pays for parking, buys a new car every two years, etc.
I'd like to see a study showing the total cost of being car-less. For example, how does a carless person get to a social event in the suburbs on a Saturday night? (Well, they probably don't do such pedestrian things; they're all out volunteering for peace and love.) Do they take a cab to the airport when they're laden down with suitcases and small children? Do they have to take the Greyhound bus to the next town if they need/want to go there? And so forth.
They probably don't go to social events in the suburbs much. Why would someone in the city go out to the suburbs for a Saturday night? In the times when they "need" a car, they can always rent one. Renting say, once a month, still comes out cheaper. And, yes, they probably do take a cab if laden with lots of things, public transportation if not. Even if you have a car, parking a car long-term at an airport is expensive. Next town over would probably be a local bus (or train). I don't see any of these issues as major. Do you know anyone carless? I have friend who joked the reason he doesn't have a car is if he had one he'd get less work done (he'd mostly use it for road trips out of the city, mostly for hiking or climbing)
Also, the sarcasm was unnecessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the times when they "need" a car, they can always rent one. Renting say, once a month, still comes out cheaper. And, yes, they probably do take a cab if laden with lots of things, public transportation if not. Even if you have a car, parking a car long-term at an airport is expensive. Next town over would probably be a local bus (or train). I don't see any of these issues as major. Do you know anyone carless? I have friend who joked the reason he doesn't have a car is if he had one he'd get less work done (he'd mostly use it for road trips out of the city, mostly for hiking or climbing)
