South Carolina Passes 5 Million (Greenville, York: sales, how much, sales tax)
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.
ClemVegas, unfortunately general taxpayer funds support both roads and airports (and tax dollars for police support road safety), although dedicated gas taxes and dedicated user fees provide a majority of total road costs and (as you correctly state) most of the total costs of airports.
I have no objection to your assertion that "it doesn't make sense to fund...provided in the form of roads". People can disagree about whether or not tax dollars should be used to fund another transportation option (I think that they should, and you think that they don't, but each is a reasonable position to take).
What irks me is when Republicans (and I used to be one) say that there should be a free market in transportation--but then are fine with significant government intervention and funding of roads and airports, but not rail. It's not an ideologically consistent position to take.
Unfortunately mass transit generally doesn't turn a profit (usually due to high capital costs for systems that are primarily used during rush hour but less at other times). I'm eager to see how a new privately-funded rail line in Florida, Brightline, makes it--not hoping for a profit, but it is an example of a private operator building and operating a passenger rail line.
What irks me is when Republicans (and I used to be one) say that there should be a free market in transportation--but then are fine with significant government intervention and funding of roads and airports, but not rail. It's not an ideologically consistent position to take.
.
I have never heard Republicans say that tax revenue should not be used to fund roads. The position is taxes should be used to fund roads but not additional means of transportation for middle class people. Everybody uses roads. Most people don't use mass transit.
To me, your position is inconsistent in that you are not willing to pay for mass transit but expect others who are not using it to pay for it.
if you think taxes should be used to fund mass transit, why not also fund cars, gas, etc for people as well. Car ownership is much more expensive than riding a train.
I have been involved in government, with mass transit, and local Republicans said, "Transportation should be a completely free market, so there shouldn't be any taxpayer support of mass transit"--but then supported taxpayer support of mass transit.
I am willing to pay for all modes of transportation (rail, airports, highways, water, etc.). Even if I don't use one mode, I still benefit from taxpayer support of that mode because it removes traffic from the modes that I do use (i.e., there are fewer trucks on the highway if government helps fund a rail line).
I think that taxes should be used to fund mass transit, and I am also fine with taxes supporting auto travel: by using tax funds to build roads, to pay for police protection and lighting, to support research into emissions-free cars, to support the military that helps keep shipping lanes (for oil) safe, etc. Taxpayer support of mass transit doesn't include actually buying tickets to ride for people, just as it doesn't include actually buying a car for people--there are limits to both.
I never heard any Republican say "transportation should be completely free market'. Roads will either have to be paid for with user fees or taxes so there is no difference there. Roads are a necessity. Trains are not. Everybody has used roads at some point in their life.
The reality is most mass transit people don't seem to want to pay for a service that they use and a majority of people don't use.
As I said, I never hard any of the mass transit fans suggest taxpayer money be used to fund the costs of car ownership which is much more expensive.
I definitely have. See Wendell Cox, the CATO Institute, etc.
Most passenger transportation in SC is by road, so most people there would say roads are a necessity. I'd agree that roads are a necessity, but I'd say that passenger rail is beneficial to many and a necessity to some.
Users of mass transit certainly don't pay the total cost of it via fares, but users of roads and airports don't pay the total cost via gas taxes/user fees, either. General tax revenues support all of those.
Whatever mode of transportation we prefer, hopefully it won't help that liberal Clemson-bashing bigot come to SC.
CATO isn't a Republican outfit. They are libertarian.
Most Republican politicians have never said roads shouldn't be funded.
The role of government is not to provide everything that every person might want. People are entitled to keep most of the fruit of their labor. Other people are not entitled to it.
I don't think there is any evidence that person is a bigot. I think he's wrong about the prevalence of white racism in the south. I saw that you accused the scandalous DJT of bigotry on that thread, and then you deleted it. I think that is also baseless.
CATO isn't a Republican outfit. They are libertarian.
Most Republican politicians have never said roads shouldn't be funded.
If trains are beneficial and there is heavy demand for them, then they would be provided by the private sector.
Correct: I've never heard a Republican politician disagree with funding roads. They say, however, "transportation should be a free market" but then favor heavy government intervention and funding for some modes but not others. E.g., John McCain.
Rail passenger transportation is a public good that provides benefits to society. It doesn't make money, though (it requires a lot of capital expenses).
If roads and airports are beneficial and there is heavy demand for them, why aren't they provided by the private sector? Shouldn't someone in the private sector be able to make money by owning and operating I-85 and the Charlotte airport?
Correct: I've never heard a Republican politician disagree with funding roads. They say, however, "transportation should be a free market" but then favor heavy government intervention and funding for some modes but not others. E.g., John McCain.
Rail passenger transportation is a public good that provides benefits to society. It doesn't make money, though (it requires a lot of capital expenses).
If roads and airports are beneficial and there is heavy demand for them, why aren't they provided by the private sector? Shouldn't someone in the private sector be able to make money by owning and operating I-85 and the Charlotte airport?
It isn't a public good if most people don't use it. Simply because you and others want it doesn't make it a public good. You aren't entitled other people's money.
It doesn't make money because there is no demand. There is no way rail transit is that expensive and car ownership is much more expensive. Mass transit people don't demand that be funded with taxpayer dollars.
The reality is mass transit people want other people to eseentially provide them free transportation even though most of them have the ability to pay their own transportation costs.
It is not equitable cost sharing for car owners to be forced to pay for middle class people to ride trains.
Airliners are private sector and most of the costs for airports are funded by passengers.
I've already pointed out that roads are paid by taxes because everybody uses or has used the roads in the past. You are making a false equivalence with mass transit which is a special interest by a minority of people.
People are willing to pay taxes for roads because they use the roads. They are willing to pay taxes for schools because they want their kids to get an education.
ClemVegas, unfortunately general taxpayer funds support both roads and airports (and tax dollars for police support road safety), although dedicated gas taxes and dedicated user fees provide a majority of total road costs and (as you correctly state) most of the total costs of airports.
I have no objection to your assertion that "it doesn't make sense to fund...provided in the form of roads". People can disagree about whether or not tax dollars should be used to fund another transportation option (I think that they should, and you think that they don't, but each is a reasonable position to take).
What irks me is when Republicans (and I used to be one) say that there should be a free market in transportation--but then are fine with significant government intervention and funding of roads and airports, but not rail. It's not an ideologically consistent position to take.
Unfortunately mass transit generally doesn't turn a profit (usually due to high capital costs for systems that are primarily used during rush hour but less at other times). I'm eager to see how a new privately-funded rail line in Florida, Brightline, makes it--not hoping for a profit, but it is an example of a private operator building and operating a passenger rail line.
To pay for mass transit sc should just pass law to smoke marijuana and tax it to the death
It isn't a public good if most people don't use it. Simply because you and others want it doesn't make it a public good. You aren't entitled other people's money.
There are plenty of government-provided things that aren't used by most people. Libraries? Scientific research and development funds? Funding for public health (the CDC)? Lots of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemVegas
It doesn't make money because there is no demand.
There is plenty of demand. The Amtrak train to Greenville is regularly sold out (and Amtrak basically breaks even on operating costs). The Greenville transit system carries people on about 1,000,000 rides per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemVegas
The reality is mass transit people want other people to eseentially provide them free transportation even though most of them have the ability to pay their own transportation costs.
I've never seen anyone ask for free mass transit. They ask for it at a fare that they can afford, and the transit agency is willing to provide it at a fare that maximizes revenues (if the fares were higher, fewer people would ride).
I doubt that all Greenlink riders could afford cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemVegas
It is not equitable cost sharing for car owners to be forced to pay for middle class people to ride trains.
So just because someone buys a car should exempt the person from having his or her taxes used for mass transit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemVegas
Airliners are private sector and most of the costs for airports are funded by passengers.
The government subsidizes wide swaths of the aviation industry. Boeing, for example, gets support through the Export-Import Bank and through military research. Most of the costs of airports are funded by passengers, but some airport costs come from general tax dollars--just like Amtrak, of which 80% of the annual costs are paid by riders, but the rest are paid by general tax dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemVegas
I've already pointed out that roads are paid by taxes because everybody uses or has used the roads in the past. You are making a false equivalence with mass transit which is a special interest by a minority of people.
People are willing to pay taxes for roads because they use the roads. They are willing to pay taxes for schools because they want their kids to get an education.
First, there are plenty of parts of the US where more people use mass transit than drive--NYC, for example. Should residents of Manhattan be exempt from having their tax dollars be used for roads in suburbs and upstate NY? I think not. But based on your logic (you don't use it, you don't pay for it), they would?
Second, I wouldn't send my kids to public schools. Nor would (or do) most of my neighbors. By the logic of "few people use something, thus nobody should pay for it", my neighborhood should be exempt from paying taxes for public schools. That isn't a good idea.
Not sure why there's such disagreement here. We both agree:
1. Roads/cars are the overwhelming mode of transportation in SC and should be publicly supported.
2. Airports also need public support.
3. Mass transit is lightly used in SC.
It seems like the disagreement is how to treat mass transit in SC. 1,000,000 rides per year are taken on Greenlink. That's only a small part of Greenville's transportation, but I think it's worth giving it some public support--while certainly keeping roads as the major recipient of tax dollars. I think that we all benefit from Greenlink even if we don't use it--for example, plenty of low-paid people take Greenlink to get to work for jobs that we benefit from (directly or indirectly).
Are you saying that Greenlink should not be funded by tax dollars at all? If not, how would those 1,000,000 rides per year be taken? I'm all for whatever would make Greenlink as efficient as possible, but it receives only a few hundred thousand dollars per year from the county and city--a tiny fraction of what they spend on roads. Seems fair to me.
Hopefully we also both agree that the Clemson-hating liberal bigot should not receive transportation to SC.
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.
