Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Hawk518, Jul 7, 2015.
That was the crux of the marketing campaign launched in the 1950's by GM, Firestone and Standard Oil. It's still working.
Well, the landscape has only expanded. The parts that existed in 1950 are still here.
Today from Kankakee, you'd take Amtrak to Union Station, then either a Metra train from Olgivie Transportation Center, or a Blue Line 'el' to O'Hare - or an Orange Line 'el' to Midway. The train stations and elevated lines are all a few blocks from each other.
A pain with lots of luggage to carry.
The elevated stub that connected to Union Station was removed over 50 years ago.
It is still true, IMHO.
That does not indicate I have an opposition to public transportation.
First, posting an article from uspirg is useless. It's an agenda piece.
All users of the roads pay taxes to maintain them, some much more than others. Those taxes are also siphoned off for public transportation projects, whose users pay no taxes at all to use them, nor do they pay for the cost of them.
You might have a comparison if my car was paid for by the government, including the fuel and upkeep and any taxes, and I could just pay $5 any time I wanted to use it to go anywhere.
But that's not how it works. It's totally one-way, with a positive cash flow to the train-users from the road users.
This was the one that caught my eye. So because gas is taxed less in the US than other places in the world you are considering that a "subsidy"? Thats an interesting point of view...
It's not your money, it's a public resource. When will you get that through your head?
IDK where you come up with this stuff. You think the NY subway is 100% subsidized by the income tax and not partially paid for by the fares? Last time I was there, it was $10 for 4 rides. They have no shortage of riders.
Income tax is used for both roads and public transportation in the real world of the United States, and part of the money comes from the users of both as well. I'm not sure what fantasy land you're talking about with this "totally one way cash flow."
I don't follow the argument that we pay less here.
We pay what our markets can bear.
The price that we pay is a function of our landscape and the freedom.
The idea to tax gasoline more to get off gasoline is without alternative. It will kill our economy. We are designed to move, and often.
We challenge logic when we compare ourselves to countries that don't have equitable comparison.
This question I asked because I don't know the answer and I am to lazy to google -what rate of taxation is generally incurred per gallon in Europe?
When the price of gasoline goes up, the only one not complaining is government. The moment we adhere to conservation (driving less), government hurts and cries.
The system is short 14 billion dollars in funding and over 30 billion in debt (and that was several years ago), so I'd say the fares need to be a bit higher. Shit, a surcharge on taxi fares contributes almost 90 million a year to the MTA.
The riders aren't paying for the service. Not even close.
On the other hand, huge numbers of people who don't use the service and have no need for it have to pay to support it, while paying 100% of their own transportation costs.
It probably would not be too much of a leap to assume that overall tax rate is about 50%, globally?
Edit - Thanks!
Some interesting history on NYC Subway:
Gatically myopic. While someone who commutes via car may not persaonally be using the MTA, I guarantee you that he/she is using the goods and services of estanblishments whose employess do/must, because they cannot afford to do otherwise... Unless you pack your own lunch every day, never shop on your breaks, etc.
I already acknowledged that the operating revenue covers only somewhere around 50% of the operating expenses for the NY MTA. Your original contention is that the other the percentage that is paid for by tax payers is a waste of money. It isn't a waste of money by any means, other than any portion of the money that is lost to corruption, which I don't doubt could be significant.
Not to mention how much easier their drive is without all those train riders driving cars.
Unless the employer of such person contributes to the MTA Payrol Tax.
The uncostitutionality of the MTA Payroll Tax has been ruled upon and appealed.
What you cite is the reason that stand today. So, a good number of folks that do not use the system do pay for it. The rich mainly.
If the NYCTA and New York MTA shut down, Manhattan would close. There is no way the workers could get to and from work. The city would collapse. And all those poor drivers that IYC thinks are paying twice? They'd not get a mile from their house before getting stuck in gridlock. And gas prices would double due to higher demand and not enough pumps or storage to support it.
People who receive a subsidised service can always find a hundred reasons why it's a good idea.
No one has yet answered the question. Why must non-users subsidise it?
Just charge the actual cost of the service.
Which is perfectly fine. Unless you're taking the garbage you generate during the day home with you. Because whoever is emptying your garbage can, checking your ID in the commercial building you work in, parking your car in the lot, making your sandwich, working the register at the CVS where you knocked out a couple errands, etc etc does not live in Manhattan. And Scotty is not beaming them over. I am happy to pay up. I don't have a clue why 80% of the people who live here do.
Separate names with a comma.