U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-18-2014, 09:43 PM
 
9,536 posts, read 14,988,820 times
Reputation: 9793

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The infrastructure is also used for far more than cars. What percentage of the "infrastructure" should be borne by all non-car uses?
The 50% number is nonsense -- it was posted a while back, with source, and even that source showed that road-related taxes paid for 70% (not 50%) of road costs.

 
Old 08-18-2014, 10:17 PM
 
2,834 posts, read 3,382,461 times
Reputation: 3055
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
The 50% number is nonsense -- it was posted a while back, with source, and even that source showed that road-related taxes paid for 70% (not 50%) of road costs.
I don't claim to be the source of the percentage nor agree with the percentage. The 50% number came from the poster. I was simply exposing the poster as little more than an anti-car zealot.

The poster was specific to cars. However there are plenty of non-car users of the road. His complaint was that cars didn't pay for 100% of the infrastructure. The rebuttal is: there are users other than cars - why should cars be responsible for 100%? Of course there is also the rebuttal of "so what" why should road related taxes pay for 100% of the infrastructure? Those car owners are also paying property taxes and income taxes so why shouldn't they expect government to provide some benefit for the money taken.
 
Old 08-18-2014, 10:37 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,332,555 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
The 50% number is nonsense -- it was posted a while back, with source, and even that source showed that road-related taxes paid for 70% (not 50%) of road costs.
No, the number is 50.4%.

That poster was me.
 
Old 08-18-2014, 10:41 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,332,555 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Because the whiner was asking to impose even more taxes - and it was clear that the taxes were already high - some of the highest in the nation. It was also apparent that more taxes were not going to solve the problem in his area.Says who? The infrastructure is also used for far more than cars. What percentage of the "infrastructure" should be borne by all non-car uses? Where do you think the other 50% is coming from? Car drivers. You can make the claim that everything is a liability but just because you make the statement doesn't make it so. Housing is a liability. After all the owner has a liability for property taxes, right?

You have made no logical case nor provided any facts for your claim that cars are a liability nor indicated to whom they are a liability. For most folks cars are an economic asset or an enabler for economic improvement for the owner or user. Based on your "logic" higher unemployment is desirable because it results in reduced congestion, gets people off the roads, and frees up parking. Without employment you don't need mass transit. Shipping people around in high volume along government-mandated paths and destinations is hardly a reason in and of itself to promote free rides for transit zealots. Transit serves a fraction of the populace expected to pay for it.
Actually I have at least a half dozen posts in this thread on why cars are a liability. I have no need to repeat myself to someone who can't read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
Anyone can feel free to critique my numbers. But, really… gas tax pays for the roads.

No, they don't.
 
Old 08-18-2014, 10:43 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,332,555 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Now, because this is CD, I always have to explain myself. I personally am not opposed to public transit, and I think one good reason for having a good PT system is that some people can't afford private autos. But I do not believe there is a right to subsidized transit. When transit systems were first built, they were run by for-profit companies. As fewer people used them,they started losing money and even failing, so the govt. stepped in. My "inner Libertarian" sneaking out to say hello!
That's because certain industries (transportation, education, and health care) are more efficient under control of the government. Privatization of those industries always leads to increased costs with no improvement to service.

Yes, no one has a right to public transit. The point of public transit is to allow low-income people an opportunity to get around (hopefully to their place of employment). I guess we would rather have more people on welfare!
 
Old 08-19-2014, 06:48 AM
 
2,834 posts, read 3,382,461 times
Reputation: 3055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
That's because certain industries (transportation, education, and health care) are more efficient under control of the government. Privatization of those industries always leads to increased costs with no improvement to service.

Yes, no one has a right to public transit. The point of public transit is to allow low-income people an opportunity to get around (hopefully to their place of employment). I guess we would rather have more people on welfare!
What is your measure of efficiency? From an energy standpoint, another poster already illustrated that transit is at best only marginally more efficient than some cars. Even then it was only some forms of transit. Of course, the energy efficiency of transit drops pretty drastically when the transit vehicle isn't full.


Folks would be better off keeping their cars than buying into your false efficiency argument.
"Welfare transit" does not assist low-income people.
 
Old 08-19-2014, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,905 posts, read 7,708,877 times
Reputation: 4538
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Folks would be better off keeping their cars than buying into your false efficiency argument.
Public transit becomes more efficient, as more people use it.

Quote:
"Welfare transit" does not assist low-income people.
Tell that to the low-income people I ride the bus with everyday.
 
Old 08-19-2014, 07:35 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,332,555 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
What is your measure of efficiency? From an energy standpoint, another poster already illustrated that transit is at best only marginally more efficient than some cars. Even then it was only some forms of transit. Of course, the energy efficiency of transit drops pretty drastically when the transit vehicle isn't full.

Folks would be better off keeping their cars than buying into your false efficiency argument.
"Welfare transit" does not assist low-income people.
For one, those statistics presented by the poster apply to operational costs only.. they don't account for long-term economic effects. I am sick of repeating what we already know; cars are a net economic drain on society. Health care, pollution, climate change, congestion / loss of economic output, affects housing, etc.
 
Old 08-19-2014, 07:37 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,332,555 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Public transit becomes more efficient, as more people use it.
Yes... and in major cities, efficiency is certainly not a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Tell that to the low-income people I ride the bus with everyday.
The right-wingers would rather see them on welfare.
 
Old 08-19-2014, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,153 posts, read 16,251,117 times
Reputation: 12770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Actually I have at least a half dozen posts in this thread on why cars are a liability. I have no need to repeat myself to someone who can't read.
No, they're both since they are generally debt financed and the use of which exposing you to liability. You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face but it won't make you any less wrong. All it does is make you repeatedly wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(economics)
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:16 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top