Federal spending done in other states on items such transportation infrastructure, agricultural research, water and power infrastructure and so forth both directly reduces the day-to-day cost of living for Californians, allows many of them to live in a desert, and enable substantial increases in the California economy.
So if Californians weren't taxed to pay for those things, not only would they pay less in taxes but the providers of those things would be forced to compete for our discretionary dollars and lower their prices?
What's the downside to this revolutionary form of capitalism you are describing?
Sure, California should contribute the most to support its own needy. In fact, let's abolish the IRS and have the federal government send each state an itemized bill for services rendered including the state's fair share of national defense (i.e. fiscal federalism). California's state income tax would rise but taxpayers would pay less overall when they are no longer compelled to support failed fiscal policies in red states. Self-reliance is still a conservative virtue, isn't it?
The reason California taxes everything else so high is partly because of its social and environmental protections, partly because it has such a low property tax and must make up the difference, and partly because it and other blue states subsidize most of the red states.
The one thing this would do is decrease the time it takes to deliver those goods
Thereby decreasing the cost to deliver them, thereby decreasing the cost for people to purchase them, thereby increasing demand for them. Thus, the amount of traffic on the road between A and B affects the amount of product that travels on the road from A to B.
Why shouldn't the neighbor who cycles or walks to work help pay for the roads?
They already do through prices paid at the store which pays the trucker who pays fuel taxes which pays for the roads. Why should cyclists be double taxed by paying through the roads again through sales or other taxes?
Truck traffic also will not increase because of less crowded roadways...there's no reason to believe that less crowded roads would suddenly require more products to get to more places.
Listen to yourself. You're saying that demand for freight transport on (asphalt) roads is perfectly inelastic with respect to traffic congestion.
often we see these comparisons being made with cars where an $80,000 Corvette gets a poor review as it's in the same performance/use class as a Porsche 911 Turbo while the turbo costs $200,000. In reality most people aren't making a decision between these two products
I want them in the same category so I can sort by rating from best to worst and then scan down the list until I find one I can afford.
And if that Corvette were a better car than the Porsche,
people might want to know that, even wealthy people, because everyone likes a good deal. Separating those two cars into different categories by price makes that information more opaque.
Especially the silly 5 star rating system, which means something slightly different to each person. For example, if a phone is rated 4 stars, is it better than a phone rated 3 stars? "Of course it is," you say. But then the seller reduces the price of the 3-star phone and it quickly gets enough 5-star reviews to make it a 4.5-star phone! Is the 4-star phone no longer as good as the one previously rated 3 stars?
They make it practical for investors to 'park' their money into real estate and keep houses off the market.
Then allow rentals only in owner-occupied units.
And switch at least partially from property taxes to land value taxes in order to discourage banking of vacant land and end the reverse subsidy of suburban middle-class single-family homes at the expense of poor inner-city residents.
And if you're really concerned about home affordability, allow cities to upzone heavily trafficked residential streets (the ones you don't want your children to play on anyway) for multifamily homes in order to drive down home prices by flooding the housing market. You can further reduce rents by about $100-200 per month by abolishing minimum parking requirements.
If speeding makes the roads red with blood, then speeding is unsafe.
Speeding does not make the roads red with blood.
Therefore, speeding is not unsafe.
Here's another example:
If Rex is a chicken, then he is a bird.
Rex is not a chicken.
Therefore, Rex is not a bird.
Maybe the reason the streets are not red with blood is not because speeding is safe but because we've scared away anyone who isn't protected by a cage of steel and glass.
'everybody' speeds and the roads aren't red with blood so [speed limits aren't] for safety
Hah! That's a good example of the logical fallacy called modus tollens:
If speeding is unsafe, then speeding will make the roads red with blood.
The roads are not red with blood.
Therefore, speeding is not unsafe.
Here's the example from Wikipedia:
If Rex is a chicken, then he is a bird.
Rex is not a bird.
Therefore, Rex is not a chicken.
Maybe the reason the streets are not red with blood is not because speeding is safe but because we've scared away anyone who isn't protected by a cage of steel and glass.
Yes, I purchased a goodtogo pass, even after the savings of the fees, still cost $75 per week which is $3900 per year. Even in the toll lane, her commuter was 45min to an hour per way.
With so many people eager to pay the toll that the freeway was still congested, it sounds like the price was too low!
Without the toll lane, in regular traffic lanes...it's 1-2 hours per way for 25 miles... That's obscene.
Or in the words of Yogi Berra, "nobody takes the 405 anymore. It's too crowded."
Is the 405 paying for itelf? It was passed into law under the conditions...that the toll lanes...collect at least enough money to meet operating costs
Ok but what about maintenance costs, construction costs (including land acquisition costs) and opportunity costs (including the lost property and sales taxes the city would earn if they used the land for something else)? Will tolls cover all of the cost of building the new tunnel or will it also require a tax subsidy?
The far left "extortion" lane, you know, rather then add more driver lanes to an traffic system over capacity - State DOT added "toll" lanes and charges $12 per pass, or $24 per day (2 ways)
This page says it costs between 75 cents and $10 based on real-time traffic conditions. How did you get $12?
If paying market rates is"extortion", then is eBay "extortion bay"? Have you ever felt cheated when you won an auction?
Meanwhile, does the freeway finally pay for itself now, or is it still being subsidized by taxpayers? Who's extorting whom?
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that. Windows XP seems pretty stable now, and someday Windows 10 will be just as stable.
So if Californians weren't taxed to pay for those things, not only would they pay less in taxes but the providers of those things would be forced to compete for our discretionary dollars and lower their prices?
What's the downside to this revolutionary form of capitalism you are describing?
Not just U.S. citizens but illegal immigrants also.
So I pay less in taxes and the shipping company has a greater financial incentive to find cheaper ways of moving stuff around and save me money?
That sounds great! How do we get this started?
Sure, California should contribute the most to support its own needy. In fact, let's abolish the IRS and have the federal government send each state an itemized bill for services rendered including the state's fair share of national defense (i.e. fiscal federalism). California's state income tax would rise but taxpayers would pay less overall when they are no longer compelled to support failed fiscal policies in red states. Self-reliance is still a conservative virtue, isn't it?
Thanks, inflation!
22.84 million (1978) to 39.54 million (2017) is an increase of 73%.
California has more active duty military (184,540 in 2017) than any other state including Texas (#2 at 164,234) and Virginia (#3 at 115,280).
Except property taxes!
The reason California taxes everything else so high is partly because of its social and environmental protections, partly because it has such a low property tax and must make up the difference, and partly because it and other blue states subsidize most of the red states.
Thereby decreasing the cost to deliver them, thereby decreasing the cost for people to purchase them, thereby increasing demand for them. Thus, the amount of traffic on the road between A and B affects the amount of product that travels on the road from A to B.
They already do through prices paid at the store which pays the trucker who pays fuel taxes which pays for the roads. Why should cyclists be double taxed by paying through the roads again through sales or other taxes?
Listen to yourself. You're saying that demand for freight transport on (asphalt) roads is perfectly inelastic with respect to traffic congestion.
I want them in the same category so I can sort by rating from best to worst and then scan down the list until I find one I can afford.
And if that Corvette were a better car than the Porsche, people might want to know that, even wealthy people, because everyone likes a good deal. Separating those two cars into different categories by price makes that information more opaque.
If value for money is part of the phone's rating, then the rating doesn't really tell you which is the better phone.
Why does value for money need to be part of the rating when the price is usually listed right next to the rating?
Especially the silly 5 star rating system, which means something slightly different to each person. For example, if a phone is rated 4 stars, is it better than a phone rated 3 stars? "Of course it is," you say. But then the seller reduces the price of the 3-star phone and it quickly gets enough 5-star reviews to make it a 4.5-star phone! Is the 4-star phone no longer as good as the one previously rated 3 stars?
Why would Tennessee and portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia be less qualified than the federal government to own "the transmission assets of the Tennessee Valley Authority"?
Also economically depressed cities like Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, etc. But for the most part you are correct.
"42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes."
Not for long! So it's a shame that Detroit has put up a barrier to prevent them from escaping the cycle of poverty.
Then allow rentals only in owner-occupied units.
And switch at least partially from property taxes to land value taxes in order to discourage banking of vacant land and end the reverse subsidy of suburban middle-class single-family homes at the expense of poor inner-city residents.
And if you're really concerned about home affordability, allow cities to upzone heavily trafficked residential streets (the ones you don't want your children to play on anyway) for multifamily homes in order to drive down home prices by flooding the housing market. You can further reduce rents by about $100-200 per month by abolishing minimum parking requirements.
Thanks! Fixed.
Hah! That's a good example of the logical fallacy called denying the antecedent!
If speeding makes the roads red with blood, then speeding is unsafe.
Speeding does not make the roads red with blood.
Therefore, speeding is not unsafe.
Here's another example:
If Rex is a chicken, then he is a bird.
Rex is not a chicken.
Therefore, Rex is not a bird.
Maybe the reason the streets are not red with blood is not because speeding is safe but because we've scared away anyone who isn't protected by a cage of steel and glass.
Hah! That's a good example of the logical fallacy called modus tollens:
If speeding is unsafe, then speeding will make the roads red with blood.
The roads are not red with blood.
Therefore, speeding is not unsafe.
Here's the example from Wikipedia:
If Rex is a chicken, then he is a bird.
Rex is not a bird.
Therefore, Rex is not a chicken.
Maybe the reason the streets are not red with blood is not because speeding is safe but because we've scared away anyone who isn't protected by a cage of steel and glass.
With so many people eager to pay the toll that the freeway was still congested, it sounds like the price was too low!
Or in the words of Yogi Berra, "nobody takes the 405 anymore. It's too crowded."
Ok but what about maintenance costs, construction costs (including land acquisition costs) and opportunity costs (including the lost property and sales taxes the city would earn if they used the land for something else)? Will tolls cover all of the cost of building the new tunnel or will it also require a tax subsidy?
This page says it costs between 75 cents and $10 based on real-time traffic conditions. How did you get $12?
If paying market rates is"extortion", then is eBay "extortion bay"? Have you ever felt cheated when you won an auction?
Meanwhile, does the freeway finally pay for itself now, or is it still being subsidized by taxpayers? Who's extorting whom?
Which the drivers should pay for because they are the ones who benefit from getting bicycles out of their way!