I think you're getting a tad too literal there. Perhaps the statement would be better phrases as: "If you don't use the roads . .." Although, I don't pay a specific "bike-tax", so I guess there are exceptions.
But you pay property tax. Yes, even if you rent and don't own you still pay property tax, that's part of the owner's expenses.
The fact that otherwise stand-up countries have failed in countries like Bolivia seems to me more an indictment of Bolivian politics and society than the companies themselves.
Stand-up countries? Do you mean stand-up companies? Like say Bechtel, who was building a chemical plant for Saddam after Saddam was caught gassing Kurds?
Or at least require a certain amount of work (even a token) in order to receive benefits.
It's not so much as requiring those on welfare to work as welfare is set up to keep those on welfare dependent. If you're on welfare and you get a job you risk losing the aid you're receiving. By working you can have less money than not working. Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out. Allow people to work without losing the assistance they're getting until they can stand on their own.
Years ago I worker full time at a job that only paid a little more than minimum wages and my employer didn't offer health insurance. So I looked to buy some myself and the cheapest I found cost more than 1/3 of my monthly pay. Someone told me I should check with the county where I lived for medical assistance and they told me I made too much to qualify. One of the workers there said that if I quit I'd qualify. So I could work and pay my expenses except health care, or I could quit and have health care but not be able to support myself.
Not to mention that *bikers* use roads all the time, and I'm sure the four or five of you out there who are bicycle riders will agree that better roads make for better biking.
Better drivers make for better biking. There's little that is as dangerous for bikers on the roads as bad or inattentive drivers.
So the benefit of the road is greater than the simply the ability to drive on them. Therefore, those who benefit, even indirectly, should help to pay for them.
They do, or can, by higher prices and higher property tax.
Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.
And your precept that only drivers pay for roads is both shortsighted and incorrect. Workers A and B do similar types of work, but A travels 30 miles to work whereas B walks across the street. Worker A will demand more, which drives up the cost of the product he makes, so B pays more. Not having A's travel expenses B still has to pay fuel taxes, because what she wants to buy still uses the roads as does A.
Yes. Then I want cuts in other taxes. If instead of getting a gas guzzling SUV I get a fuel sipping hybrid I should be able to spend the money I save on something else, or invest it. No, actually I'd rather pay a user fee for how many miles I drive. Though my hybrid sips fuel it still causes wear and tear on the roads. Because I don't drive much I still wouldn't pay much.
Asking the rail users to completely fund rail use doesn't work, and the road users benefit from less traffic.
You don't want to fund rail, don't use rail. I drive but the tax I pay for fuel does not cover the costs of the roads and I am willing to pay more. Just don't take money I pay to lower someone else's transportation costs.
Most people here in the USA are bred to be against public transportation. They think it's "icky" and they see them belching black smoke so it's "dirty"...
It is icky or dirty. At least those buses I've ridden in the US. I hated riding buses here but when I rode buses in Germany they weren't bad.
Right, the rest is covered by use taxes on commercial trucks and shipping services. Just like they would be under a free market. Individuals would be able to use the road for little or no cost, perhaps a hundred dollar a year pass (which they would save in gas).
Wrong, fuel tax, taxes on commercial trucks, and shipping services does not fully cover the costs of roads. Here's a page from the Oregon state government: Road User Fee Task Force. In it they propose using a mileage fee to cover the cost of the roads. From Popular Mechanics, Should the US Tax Mileage or Fuel?: Guest Analysis. Heck some of the so called stimulus money is going to roads. A few miles from me a road is being repaired and there are signs all along it saying the work is being supported by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, notice how core investments are being made in roads
At least public roads are directly funded by those who use them (drivers). If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
No, drivers don't pay all the costs of roads, tax payers pay. The fuel tax collected from gas does not cover the costs of roads so money from the general fund, which everyone pays who pays income tax pays into, is used. Fuel tax would have to be much higher for it to pay all cost of roads, constructions and maintenance.
tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Why should a group of "concerned citizens" be able to block development on someone else's property? If there were an accident or a meltdown, or whatever other problem might come about from it, let the aggrieved party sue the daylights out of them. That is the free market feedback mechanism preventing harm to people.
Do you also support the removal of the subsidiesnuclear powergets? Nuclear Power is Hooked on Subsidies. Wall Street would not fund nuclear power without subsides. Notice how at the bottom of the Forbes article, hosted on a free markets institutes's servers, it says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Now if you had said that about offshore wind farms, like the one Ted Kennedy opposed, I'd agree.
I suggest you look at what happened at the beginning of the industrial age before government intervention.
Like what?
If you prefer more recent examples, look at what removing restriction from the financial system did.
What restrictions? Like the restrictions on redlining neighborhoods with bad credit histories, thus making it easier for those who could not pay their mortgages to get one? Like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac guaranteeing loans for those who could not pay them back? Fact is is the financial system was not deregulated, it had more regulations added.
Quite simply governments pressured mortgage originators to make loans to those who could not afford them.
We SHOULD let private industry run the interstates, let people pay the actual cost of driving.
You don't need to privatize the road to make those who use the road pay for them. Al that needs to be done is to charge a mileage fee. Last month I renewed my license plate tags, it wouldn't be hard t have a place on the form to record the mileage driven. Then using a chart the mileage fee could be set.
No privatizing needed.
End the government subsidy of the Private car. End the government subsidy of the suburb.
Let's end all subsidies, including the subsidy on the food you eat and the energy you use.
That has nothing to do with the use of toll roads in a free society, however, where there are no such restrictions, and all you have to do to avoid paying a given toll is travel by a different route.
That's fine when you have a choice as to your route, but how many people live in the center of a spiderweb, with lots of choices as to which road to take? How many would want to live there? And without the governmental power of eminent domain how did those who own the roads get them?
That is a point worth keeping in mind, but it doesn't explain why the US has more gang problems than other countries.
Could that be because it is a big melting pot? What other nation has as many different ethnic groups? Don't ethnic groups who feel isolated form their own groups?
I think most people would get behind privatizing roads, so long as it was done in a fair way (ie sold to the highest bidder
A fair way, by selling to the highest bidder? Guess what, the highest bidder is going to have to have high tolls to pay for it. Thus you'd be paying more.
How do you think the railroads got built without being owned by the government?
By the government taking land away from those who owned it and giving it to robber barons. If those businesses who built railroads had to buy the land from those who owned it instead of using government force most if not all railroads who never have been built. You deplore what government has done but don't acknowledge what government did for those railroads.
I agree. Private corporations can mess up just as easily. It's just that corporations have no power to tax people regardless of their results. People give them money voluntarily.
But if roads are privatized I have no choice but to pay the corporation that bought the road where I live. All I can do is move, but I'd still have to pay for it, when I already paid via taxes. At least with government I can vote for who represents me, I have no capacity like that with private roads.
People should only pay for what they use. They should not be forced to subsidize others, especially when they do not use those resources for which they pay.
So make people pay depending on how much they drive on the roads. Privatization of roads not needed for that.
There's no free lunch. Those roads will be paid for by someone. Who would you prefer to manage these roads, people who have no vested interest in the roads (public officials who get paid regardless) or private individuals whose livelihood depends on providing quality service?
I certainly don't want another class of robber barons. Nor do I want private property taken away from citizens and given to those robber barons. And don't say it doesn't happen, ask those in Kelo v City of New London. The city took people's property away and gave to a multinational business. And not a century ago but several years ago.
I note you don't mention nuclear, which is the only power source that doesn't produce CO2 and costs the same as coal.
I have to disagree with you here. Nuclear power is not cheap, it only seems cheap because it get massive subsidies. Fact is is Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. Without subsides Wall Street would not fund nuclear power. Not even in China, France, India, or Russia does the market decide what and where nuclear power is built, governments do. Take away all subsidies, including for coal and oil, and alternative energy source prices will be more comparable.
Oh, and nuclear power does produce CO2. Producing the fuel creates CO2, as does building the plants.
The road system in the USA is a complete waste of money and resources.
I see you're using a computer, how would you have gotten it without roads? Do you see doctors? How? How did they get trained? Without roads how would you get your power, electricity? Or you heating or AC? How do you get to work? Do you work on your farm, so you can just step out your door? Do you do everything by hand? Or do you use machines? Do you save your own seeds, or do you buy new seeds?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're getting a tad too literal there. Perhaps the statement would be better phrases as: "If you don't use the roads . . ." Although, I don't pay a specific "bike-tax", so I guess there are exceptions.
But you pay property tax. Yes, even if you rent and don't own you still pay property tax, that's part of the owner's expenses.
Falcon
The fact that otherwise stand-up countries have failed in countries like Bolivia seems to me more an indictment of Bolivian politics and society than the companies themselves.
Stand-up countries? Do you mean stand-up companies? Like say Bechtel, who was building a chemical plant for Saddam after Saddam was caught gassing Kurds?
Falcon
Or at least require a certain amount of work (even a token) in order to receive benefits.
It's not so much as requiring those on welfare to work as welfare is set up to keep those on welfare dependent. If you're on welfare and you get a job you risk losing the aid you're receiving. By working you can have less money than not working. Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out. Allow people to work without losing the assistance they're getting until they can stand on their own.
Years ago I worker full time at a job that only paid a little more than minimum wages and my employer didn't offer health insurance. So I looked to buy some myself and the cheapest I found cost more than 1/3 of my monthly pay. Someone told me I should check with the county where I lived for medical assistance and they told me I made too much to qualify. One of the workers there said that if I quit I'd qualify. So I could work and pay my expenses except health care, or I could quit and have health care but not be able to support myself.
My situation is even worse now.
Falcon
The problem with the welfare system is that there isn't enough oversight taking place
No, the problem with welfare is that it is set up to keep those on welfare dependent.
Falcon
etc
How do you feel about cutting corporate welfare? Do you support cutting corporate welfare as well or only cutting support for those who need it?
Falcon
Not to mention that *bikers* use roads all the time, and I'm sure the four or five of you out there who are bicycle riders will agree that better roads make for better biking.
Better drivers make for better biking. There's little that is as dangerous for bikers on the roads as bad or inattentive drivers.
Falcon
So the benefit of the road is greater than the simply the ability to drive on them. Therefore, those who benefit, even indirectly, should help to pay for them.
They do, or can, by higher prices and higher property tax.
Falcon
Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.
And your precept that only drivers pay for roads is both shortsighted and incorrect. Workers A and B do similar types of work, but A travels 30 miles to work whereas B walks across the street. Worker A will demand more, which drives up the cost of the product he makes, so B pays more. Not having A's travel expenses B still has to pay fuel taxes, because what she wants to buy still uses the roads as does A.
Falcon
Yes. Then I want cuts in other taxes. If instead of getting a gas guzzling SUV I get a fuel sipping hybrid I should be able to spend the money I save on something else, or invest it. No, actually I'd rather pay a user fee for how many miles I drive. Though my hybrid sips fuel it still causes wear and tear on the roads. Because I don't drive much I still wouldn't pay much.
Falcon
BTW I don't have a hybrid
Asking the rail users to completely fund rail use doesn't work, and the road users benefit from less traffic.
You don't want to fund rail, don't use rail. I drive but the tax I pay for fuel does not cover the costs of the roads and I am willing to pay more. Just don't take money I pay to lower someone else's transportation costs.
Falcon
Most people here in the USA are bred to be against public transportation. They think it's "icky" and they see them belching black smoke so it's "dirty"...
It is icky or dirty. At least those buses I've ridden in the US. I hated riding buses here but when I rode buses in Germany they weren't bad.
Falcon
Right, the rest is covered by use taxes on commercial trucks and shipping services. Just like they would be under a free market. Individuals would be able to use the road for little or no cost, perhaps a hundred dollar a year pass (which they would save in gas).
Wrong, fuel tax, taxes on commercial trucks, and shipping services does not fully cover the costs of roads. Here's a page from the Oregon state government: Road User Fee Task Force. In it they propose using a mileage fee to cover the cost of the roads. From Popular Mechanics, Should the US Tax Mileage or Fuel?: Guest Analysis. Heck some of the so called stimulus money is going to roads. A few miles from me a road is being repaired and there are signs all along it saying the work is being supported by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, notice how core investments are being made in roads
Falcon
At least public roads are directly funded by those who use them (drivers). If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
No, drivers don't pay all the costs of roads, tax payers pay. The fuel tax collected from gas does not cover the costs of roads so money from the general fund, which everyone pays who pays income tax pays into, is used. Fuel tax would have to be much higher for it to pay all cost of roads, constructions and maintenance.
Falcon
tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Why should a group of "concerned citizens" be able to block development on someone else's property? If there were an accident or a meltdown, or whatever other problem might come about from it, let the aggrieved party sue the daylights out of them. That is the free market feedback mechanism preventing harm to people.
Do you also support the removal of the subsidies nuclear power gets? Nuclear Power is Hooked on Subsidies. Wall Street would not fund nuclear power without subsides. Notice how at the bottom of the Forbes article, hosted on a free markets institutes's servers, it says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Now if you had said that about offshore wind farms, like the one Ted Kennedy opposed, I'd agree.
Falcon
I suggest you look at what happened at the beginning of the industrial age before government intervention.
Like what?
If you prefer more recent examples, look at what removing restriction from the financial system did.
What restrictions? Like the restrictions on redlining neighborhoods with bad credit histories, thus making it easier for those who could not pay their mortgages to get one? Like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac guaranteeing loans for those who could not pay them back? Fact is is the financial system was not deregulated, it had more regulations added.
Quite simply governments pressured mortgage originators to make loans to those who could not afford them.
Falcon
50-100 years ago we had this collective dream of free markets, capitalism, solving our problems.
More than 100 years ago we had robber barons. We haven't had free markets since. What we've had is a corporate aristocracy.
Falcon
We SHOULD let private industry run the interstates, let people pay the actual cost of driving.
You don't need to privatize the road to make those who use the road pay for them. Al that needs to be done is to charge a mileage fee. Last month I renewed my license plate tags, it wouldn't be hard t have a place on the form to record the mileage driven. Then using a chart the mileage fee could be set.
No privatizing needed.
End the government subsidy of the Private car. End the government subsidy of the suburb.
Let's end all subsidies, including the subsidy on the food you eat and the energy you use.
Falcon
That has nothing to do with the use of toll roads in a free society, however, where there are no such restrictions, and all you have to do to avoid paying a given toll is travel by a different route.
That's fine when you have a choice as to your route, but how many people live in the center of a spiderweb, with lots of choices as to which road to take? How many would want to live there? And without the governmental power of eminent domain how did those who own the roads get them?
Falcon
That is a point worth keeping in mind, but it doesn't explain why the US has more gang problems than other countries.
Could that be because it is a big melting pot? What other nation has as many different ethnic groups? Don't ethnic groups who feel isolated form their own groups?
Falcon
I think most people would get behind privatizing roads, so long as it was done in a fair way (ie sold to the highest bidder
A fair way, by selling to the highest bidder? Guess what, the highest bidder is going to have to have high tolls to pay for it. Thus you'd be paying more.
How do you think the railroads got built without being owned by the government?
By the government taking land away from those who owned it and giving it to robber barons. If those businesses who built railroads had to buy the land from those who owned it instead of using government force most if not all railroads who never have been built. You deplore what government has done but don't acknowledge what government did for those railroads.
Falcon
I agree. Private corporations can mess up just as easily. It's just that corporations have no power to tax people regardless of their results. People give them money voluntarily.
But if roads are privatized I have no choice but to pay the corporation that bought the road where I live. All I can do is move, but I'd still have to pay for it, when I already paid via taxes. At least with government I can vote for who represents me, I have no capacity like that with private roads.
Falcon
People should only pay for what they use. They should not be forced to subsidize others, especially when they do not use those resources for which they pay.
So make people pay depending on how much they drive on the roads. Privatization of roads not needed for that.
There's no free lunch. Those roads will be paid for by someone. Who would you prefer to manage these roads, people who have no vested interest in the roads (public officials who get paid regardless) or private individuals whose livelihood depends on providing quality service?
I certainly don't want another class of robber barons. Nor do I want private property taken away from citizens and given to those robber barons. And don't say it doesn't happen, ask those in Kelo v City of New London. The city took people's property away and gave to a multinational business. And not a century ago but several years ago.
Falcon
As of right now, and for the last couple decades, proven reserves have risen faster than consumption.
Citation needed.
>>Because nuclear is unsafe and produces waste that is also dangerous.
Bullshit. Pure and simple.
No, simply this is pure bullshit.
Falcon
I note you don't mention nuclear, which is the only power source that doesn't produce CO2 and costs the same as coal.
I have to disagree with you here. Nuclear power is not cheap, it only seems cheap because it get massive subsidies. Fact is is Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. Without subsides Wall Street would not fund nuclear power. Not even in China, France, India, or Russia does the market decide what and where nuclear power is built, governments do. Take away all subsidies, including for coal and oil, and alternative energy source prices will be more comparable.
Oh, and nuclear power does produce CO2. Producing the fuel creates CO2, as does building the plants.
Falcon
The road system in the USA is a complete waste of money and resources.
I see you're using a computer, how would you have gotten it without roads? Do you see doctors? How? How did they get trained? Without roads how would you get your power, electricity? Or you heating or AC? How do you get to work? Do you work on your farm, so you can just step out your door? Do you do everything by hand? Or do you use machines? Do you save your own seeds, or do you buy new seeds?
Falcon