You've completely mangled the attributions. That should have been
> Rod Speed >> Scott in SoCal >>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because >>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. >> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. > I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque > array of funding serves to keep most of us from > thinking about the true cost of driving.
In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure.
> The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging > one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per > person is going to involve more resources, no matter > how accountants distribute the numbers.
Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant claim about SUBSIDYS.
When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice.
> When point A and point B are so much further > apart because so much land area is devoted to > cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), > that, too, is going to involve more resources.
Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS.
> Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources > all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all.
Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax.
And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway, who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead.
> You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, > but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose.
Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either.
Jym Dyer wrote: >>> = Scott in SoCal >> = Rod Speed
>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >>> LESS than automobiles are. >> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array > of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the > true cost of driving.
??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
The only thing we really don't know is the true cost of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one > or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is > going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants > distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much > further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars > (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, > is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land > area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of > maintaining it all.
But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never makes money.
> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing > 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, > and guess what? You lose. > <_Jym_>
<lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote: >Jym Dyer wrote: >>>> = Scott in SoCal >>> = Rod Speed
>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >>>> LESS than automobiles are. >>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array >> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the >> true cost of driving.
>??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks >very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>The only thing we really don't know is the true cost >of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one >> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is >> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants >> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much >> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars >> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, >> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land >> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of >> maintaining it all.
>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise >be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never >makes money.
Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like the idea of owning my own home.
>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing >> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, >> and guess what? You lose. >> <_Jym_>
krw wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill > <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Jym Dyer wrote: >>>>> = Scott in SoCal >>>> = Rod Speed >>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >>>>> LESS than automobiles are. >>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. >>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array >>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the >>> true cost of driving.
>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks >> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of > income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash, I'm willing to subsidize that some.
>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost >> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics > pushing their collectivist propaganda.
Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over carbon offsets are.
>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one >>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is >>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants >>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much >>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars >>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, >>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land >>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of >>> maintaining it all.
>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise >> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never >> makes money.
> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations > own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like > the idea of owning my own home.
Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can really sock in a good down payment.
If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater sucker.
>>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing >>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, >>> and guess what? You lose. >>> <_Jym_>
<lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote: >krw wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill >> <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Jym Dyer wrote: >>>>>> = Scott in SoCal >>>>> = Rod Speed >>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >>>>>> LESS than automobiles are. >>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. >>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array >>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the >>>> true cost of driving.
>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks >>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of >> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If >you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash, >I'm willing to subsidize that some.
Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost >>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics >> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood >by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over >carbon offsets are.
Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A higher income tax isn't going to work. The states have maxed out sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one >>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is >>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants >>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much >>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars >>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, >>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land >>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of >>>> maintaining it all.
>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise >>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never >>> makes money.
>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations >> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like >> the idea of owning my own home.
>Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can >really sock in a good down payment.
Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home is still the way to long-term financial security.
>If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its >speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater >sucker.
Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The equity in my house isn't income either.
>>>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing >>>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, >>>> and guess what? You lose. >>>> <_Jym_>
krw wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill > <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> krw wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill >>> <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Jym Dyer wrote: >>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal >>>>>> = Rod Speed >>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are. >>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. >>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array >>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the >>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks >>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. >>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of >>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>> Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If >> you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash, >> I'm willing to subsidize that some.
> Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's > better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write those people off. Can private efforts replace public transport? I don't know.
Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us to compete. That places the burden of care for them somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope doesn't seem realistic.
>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost >>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. >>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics >>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood >> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over >> carbon offsets are.
> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A > higher income tax isn't going to work.
It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.
> The states have maxed out > sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The > only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health > care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax > the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending altogether.
Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.
Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon and still claim the high moral ground.
>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one >>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is >>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants >>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much >>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars >>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, >>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land >>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of >>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise >>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never >>>> makes money. >>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations >>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like >>> the idea of owning my own home.
>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can >> really sock in a good down payment.
> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is > forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many > can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.
> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment > renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home > is still the way to long-term financial security.
Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well, the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income. But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership.
>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its >> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater >> sucker.
> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The > equity in my house isn't income either.
but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation, the only way to win is not to play.
<lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote: >krw wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill >> <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> krw wrote: >>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill >>>> <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Jym Dyer wrote: >>>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal >>>>>>> = Rod Speed >>>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >>>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are. >>>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >>>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. >>>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array >>>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the >>>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks >>>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. >>>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of >>>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>>> Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If >>> you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash, >>> I'm willing to subsidize that some.
>> Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's >> better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
>Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor >enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write >those people off. Can private efforts replace public >transport? I don't know.
So you're going assist people in their own helplessness? ...even force it? How positively Johnsonian of you.
>Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us >to compete. That places the burden of care for them >somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of >creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope >doesn't seem realistic.
Then why not pay the largesse out of general funds rather than highway funds? Answer: Because it doesn't control the productive enough. The unproductive are already under control.
>>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost >>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. >>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics >>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood >>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over >>> carbon offsets are.
>> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A >> higher income tax isn't going to work.
>It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.
By "work" I meant "fly". Higher taxes will kill the golden goose, no mater what color you paint them. People know this, but what they can't see they don't understand. Let me put it another way... Do you suppose taxes would be as high as they are if you had to fork over a check for the *total* amount of _all_ taxes every April 15?
>> The states have maxed out >> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The >> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health >> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax >> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the >deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear >projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending >altogether.
Look at the revenue side before you take such broad strokes.
>Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the >last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not >even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much >ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since >writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.
>Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or >fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon >and still claim the high moral ground.
>>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one >>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is >>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants >>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much >>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars >>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, >>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land >>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of >>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise >>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never >>>>> makes money. >>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations >>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like >>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can >>> really sock in a good down payment.
>> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is >> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many >> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of >cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.
How are "land rents" any different than land ownership? Please elaborate.
>> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment >> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home >> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and >only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is >strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do >is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well, >the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
If you can't afford a McMansion, buying one isn't smart, no. Buying if smart if you can afford it, and a 20% down (pick your number) isn't necessarily the hallmark of "affordability". I bought my first house with less than 1% down.
>This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is >more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
Said like someone who believes that leasing a car is a financial winner.
>Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good >time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income. >But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of >ownership.
Much of the peripheral costs are voluntary. Maintenance is pretty small, over the life of a house.
>>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its >>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater >>> sucker.
>> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The >> equity in my house isn't income either.
>but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation, >the only way to win is not to play.
The only way to win is to live in a house your entire life. That isn't done by saving a huge down payment before getting the feet wet.
> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the > deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear > projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending > altogether.
Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what they can take in without using a gun. The government ought to try that sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut. I work for them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three. Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile, instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save millions right there. A drop of piss in the ocean, I know, but every drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could cut expenses bigtime. Note that I blame congress as much or more than whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy train. Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in the hole, the less they take home.
>Les Cargill wrote: >(snip) >> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the >> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear >> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending >> altogether.
>Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the >deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what >they can take in without using a gun. The government ought to try that >sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut. I work for >them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three. >Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile, >instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save >millions right there. A drop of piss in the ocean, I know, but every >drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could >cut expenses bigtime. Note that I blame congress as much or more than >whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill >would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy >train. Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in >the hole, the less they take home.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:22:24 -0800, Scott in SoCal
<scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> >said:
>>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise >>be able to.
>Same is true of transit. In fact, it was true of transit even before >there were cars. Ever heard of "Streetcar Suburbs?"
Nonsnese. Try streetcars in any major city now. Try affording them in any small city.
>>What we see with public transport is that it never >>makes money.
>OK, so show me a road that makes money.
Don't be an idiot. They all do. If you want one that makes a (huge) profit, try the NYS Thruway.
>The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car >users "free" roads and "free" parking without even the hope of a >payback, let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected >to earn a profit at the farebox.
They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
> They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public > transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no > issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
Is little Scottie still whinging on about car owners? Does he REALLY not get that roads are not just for cars? He'd starve to death without roads, since without them trucks wouldn't be able to bring his food into the city. Also, buses need roads, too, or does he really think people shouldn't travel AT ALL?
> That's ok, once people have to pay the full cost of driving, many will > decide it isn't worth the cost. > And when they can't drive anymore, they'll all get back on the buses.
>> They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public >> transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no >> issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
>Is little Scottie still whinging on about car owners? Does he REALLY not get >that roads are not just for cars? He'd starve to death without roads, since >without them trucks wouldn't be able to bring his food into the city. Also, >buses need roads, too, or does he really think people shouldn't travel AT >ALL?
Sure, he's still whining. He's no different than any of the little leftist who want to own your soul.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Jym Dyer wrote >>>>> = Scott in SoCal >>>> = Rod Speed >> You've completely mangled the attributions. That should have been >>> Rod Speed >>>> Scott in SoCal >>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because >>>>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. >>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. >>> I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque >>> array of funding serves to keep most of us from >>> thinking about the true cost of driving. >> In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect >> in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure. > I've yet to hear of one that doesn't
Then you need to get out more and look at western europe where they heavily tax fuel etc.
> - most spend FAR more.
Thats a lie.
>>> The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging >>> one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per >>> person is going to involve more resources, no matter >>> how accountants distribute the numbers. >> Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant claim about SUBSIDYS. >> When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of >> transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra >> mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice. > And the government obligingly pays for the cost > of constructing sufficient roadway to accommodate it. > THAT'S a subsidy.
Not when its only part of what is raised in car taxes.
>>> When point A and point B are so much further >>> apart because so much land area is devoted to >>> cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), >>> that, too, is going to involve more resources. >> Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate >> matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS. > So try driving without a roadway.
Dont need to, they are paid for with road taxes.
> If you're using the roadway, you're accepting the subsidy.
There is no subsidy if its only part of what is raised in road taxes.
>>> Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources >>> all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. >> Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax. > Nowhere near.
Wrong, as always.
>> And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway, >> who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact >> subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead. > How much maintenance do you think a cycleway > or footpath needs compared to a roadway?
None needs much when its done properly in the first place.
> Just as a clue, the damage caused by traffic rises in > proportion to the 4th power of the axle weight of the vehicle.
So its the trucks that do most of the wear and tear on roads.
>>> You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, >>> but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose. >> Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and >> I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either. > Guess you'd better find your own planet then,
This one is fine.
> but I don't think you'll have much luck redesigning the laws of physics anywhere in this universe.
No laws of physics involved in whether the road taxes are used to pay for the roads.
> Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote >> What we see with public transport is that it never makes money. > OK, so show me a road that makes money.
Plenty of private toll roads do.
> The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car users "free" roads
They aint free, they pay road use and fuel taxes.
> and "free" parking
They aint free, they pay road use and fuel taxes.
> without even the hope of a payback,
Thats a lie.
> let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected to earn a profit at the farebox.
Because they dont pay the road use and fuel taxes.
Phil W Lee wrote: > Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> considered Sun, 08 Nov 2009 > 01:54:14 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>> Jym Dyer wrote: >>>>> = Scott in SoCal >>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >>>>> LESS than automobiles are. >>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array >>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the >>> true cost of driving.
>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks >> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. > Not even close. I don't know of any government that > doesn't subsidise road infrastructure from central taxes.
Your pig ignorance is your problem.
Try western europe.
> Maybe you do, but I'm talking about the planet earth.
>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost >> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. > Studies have been done, and you're right, the market price is much > less than the actual cost, particularly if you include the cost of > clearing up after it. >>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one >>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is >>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants >>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much >>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars >>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, >>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land >>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of >>> maintaining it all.
>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise >> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never >> makes money.
> Only because so many people use cars. > Once they have to pay the full cost of that, most will stop.
Pure fantasy.
> That will make public transport viable.
Pure fantasy.
> Then the majority will get sick of the yuppies > driving around on public roads, and stop them.
Pure fantasy.
> That will make public transport profitable.
Pure fantasy.
> The only real question is how long that will take,
Forever, you watch.
> and how much of the planet will be left by the time it happens.
>>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing >>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, >>> and guess what? You lose. >>> <_Jym_>
krw wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:46:15 -0500, Les Cargill > <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> krw wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill >>> <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> krw wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill >>>>> <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Jym Dyer wrote: >>>>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal >>>>>>>> = Rod Speed >>>>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >>>>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are. >>>>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >>>>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. >>>>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array >>>>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the >>>>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks >>>>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies. >>>>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of >>>>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>>>> Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If >>>> you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash, >>>> I'm willing to subsidize that some. >>> Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's >>> better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
>> Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor >> enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write >> those people off. Can private efforts replace public >> transport? I don't know.
> So you're going assist people in their own helplessness? ...even > force it? How positively Johnsonian of you.
*Much* worse than that. Yes, I will. There is a founding principle of economics of "the declining marginal value of money" which had very few exceptions. I will encourage less entropy in the world with that small subsidy than without it.
>> Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us >> to compete. That places the burden of care for them >> somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of >> creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope >> doesn't seem realistic.
> Then why not pay the largesse out of general funds rather than highway > funds? Answer: Because it doesn't control the productive enough. The > unproductive are already under control.
Because as these things go, it's one large lump. I am sure that whatever the reasons to take it out of highway funds comes from somebody reading symmetry between waiting on the bus until I Cadillac.
>>>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost >>>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it. >>>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics >>>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood >>>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over >>>> carbon offsets are. >>> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A >>> higher income tax isn't going to work. >> It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.
> By "work" I meant "fly". Higher taxes will kill the golden goose, no > mater what color you paint them.
I suppose you've been asleep the last ten years. What golden goose? You can only remain accountable for so much willing suspension of disbelief for so long. After all, Greenspan said his mea culpa last year.
If people drawing cartoons of production is that standard, then...
> People know this, but what they > can't see they don't understand. Let me put it another way... Do you > suppose taxes would be as high as they are if you had to fork over a > check for the *total* amount of _all_ taxes every April 15?
I always have when I did not properly withhold. It does not matter. I was glad to do it, too. it is a privilege.
>>> The states have maxed out >>> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The >>> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health >>> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax >>> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the >> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear >> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending >> altogether.
> Look at the revenue side before you take such broad strokes.
Unfortunately... I am doing exactly that. It's not very good. You want to reify the jumped-up pseeudo event of "revenue" since about, oh 1982?
>> Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the >> last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not >> even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much >> ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since >> writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.
>> Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or >> fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon >> and still claim the high moral ground.
> No, the problem with capitalism is government.
Well, if you really *want* to agree with me, that's fine. Government pretty much made the fratboy capitalist standard subject to Iron Law.
They'll accept privilege so we don't have to....
Are you specifically *denying* the fratboy capitalist standard? Because I have such a significant cannon loaded for that event.... even Obama embraces it.
>>>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one >>>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is >>>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants >>>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much >>>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars >>>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, >>>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land >>>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of >>>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise >>>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never >>>>>> makes money. >>>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations >>>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like >>>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can >>>> really sock in a good down payment. >>> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is >>> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many >>> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>> No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of >> cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.
> How are "land rents" any different than land ownership? Please > elaborate.
Find Henry George. it's a caricature of itself when land value, so abused in the recent falls like a stone.
>>> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment >>> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home >>> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and >> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is >> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do >> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well, >> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
> If you can't afford a McMansion, buying one isn't smart, no. Buying > if smart if you can afford it, and a 20% down (pick your number) isn't > necessarily the hallmark of "affordability". I bought my first house > with less than 1% down.
Then you gambled on a rise in equity to make up for what you did not have going in. Fine if it works; sucks when it fails.
>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is >> more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
> Said like someone who believes that leasing a car is a financial > winner.
No, just someone who understands that renting is much more efficient. Unless you're up to owning. But isn't what we see around us the Great Lie - ownership is Better? It is if the numbers say it is, but in the presence of the Cult of the Greater Sucker...
>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good >> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income. >> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of >> ownership.
> Much of the peripheral costs are voluntary. Maintenance is pretty > small, over the life of a house.
Whoo boy. I am speaking to someone who did not keep good records. And peripheral costs are not completely encapsulated by maintenance.
>>>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its >>>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater >>>> sucker. >>> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The >>> equity in my house isn't income either.
>> but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation, >> the only way to win is not to play.
> The only way to win is to live in a house your entire life. That > isn't done by saving a huge down payment before getting the feet wet.
So never have to move, and you're OK. That's fine if you don't work for a living.
aemeijers wrote: > Les Cargill wrote: > (snip) >> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the >> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear >> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending >> altogether.
> Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the > deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what > they can take in without using a gun.
But gummint ain't people. Understand that first.
> The government ought to try that > sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut.
It mostly cannot.
> I work for > them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three.
but thats for reasons of the support of transparency. Instrumentation is expensive, *objective* instrumentation even more so.
> Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile, > instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save > millions right there. A drop of piss in the ocean, I know, but every > drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could > cut expenses bigtime.
No, not really. Every man jack of the bureaucracy lives mostly in fear of being noted on the pages of history.
> Note that I blame congress as much or more than > whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill > would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy > train.
But it's much bigger than they are.
> Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in > the hole, the less they take home.
you first have to understand that the standards for public debt are radically different than for private or encorporate debt.
Done properly,GDP growth erases public debt like it never happened. It is like buying shoes for your chlidren two sizes too large, because they will grow into it. The problem is that the standards of appropriate debt shift with the wind.
> h <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote >> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote >>> That's ok, once people have to pay the full cost >>> of driving, many will decide it isn't worth the cost. >>> And when they can't drive anymore, they'll all get back on the buses. >> Assuming they live where there are buses. > Once the demand is there, the buses will come.
On Nov 8, 11:30 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> >The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car > >users "free" roads and "free" parking without even the hope of a > >payback, let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected > >to earn a profit at the farebox.
> They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public > transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no > issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
Here in TX road taxes only pay for about 1/3 of the costs of building the roads that are (partially) funded by road taxes, those being the state highways and farm-to-market roads. Federal highways (interstates) are built with mostly gas taxes that are derived mostly from not driving on the Interstates, and county roads and city streets are entirely funded from the general funds of those jurisdictions. So all of the roads and streets in TX are built from general funds in all or part. And aside from a few private lots in downtown most parking in Dallas County is required to be free by law, with minimum areas set by law for each building, In my travels I found similar situations in most cities.
So, even though I don't own a car, I pay for the roads through my taxes to the general fund, and I pay for "free" parking because my taxes are higher because parking lots are required to not be revenue generators by law. And the roads I have to ride my bicycle on are not safe because the cars go too fast on them because there is not enough money to pay for police officers to enforce the speed limit, because the state has said that 50% of the fines will go to them, so nobody writes tickets any more.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Phil W Lee wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Jym Dyer wrote >>>>> Rod Speed >>>>>> Scott in SoCal >>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because >>>>>>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. >>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. >>>>> I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque >>>>> array of funding serves to keep most of us from >>>>> thinking about the true cost of driving. >>>> In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect >>>> in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure. >>> I've yet to hear of one that doesn't >> Then you need to get out more and look at >> western europe where they heavily tax fuel etc. > Since you clearly can't read headers, I'll spell > it out for you - I LIVE IN WESTERN EUROPE!
THEN YOU ARE A PIG IGNORANT CLOWN.
>>> - most spend FAR more. >> Thats a lie. > Ah, the ad-hominem.
You wouldnt know what real ad hominem was if it bit you on your lard arse.
THAT IS A STATEMENT OF FACT, NOT AD HOMINEM.
> No figures though,
How odd that we havent seen even a single figure from you, ever.
> as they'd disprove your argument.
Thats a lie.
>>>>> The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging >>>>> one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per >>>>> person is going to involve more resources, no matter >>>>> how accountants distribute the numbers. >>>> Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant >>>> claim about SUBSIDYS. >>>> When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of >>>> transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra >>>> mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice. >>> And the government obligingly pays for the cost >>> of constructing sufficient roadway to accommodate it. >>> THAT'S a subsidy. >> Not when its only part of what is raised in car taxes. > Car taxes have never even come close to paying the cost of > building and maintaining the road infrastructure. Not anywhere.
Wrong, as always.
>>>>> When point A and point B are so much further >>>>> apart because so much land area is devoted to >>>>> cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), >>>>> that, too, is going to involve more resources. >>>> Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate >>>> matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS. >>> So try driving without a roadway. >> Dont need to, they are paid for with road taxes. > Figures please,
How odd that we havent seen even a single figure from you, ever.
> or admit that you are wrong.
Nothing to admit.
>>> If you're using the roadway, you're accepting the subsidy. >> There is no subsidy if its only part of what is raised in road taxes. > But there is, as it is far more than is paid in road taxes.
Thats a lie.
>>>>> Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources >>>>> all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all. >>>> Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax. >>> Nowhere near. >> Wrong, as always. > Figures please,
How odd that we havent seen even a single figure from you, ever.
> or FOAD.
You're one thats always been dead from the shoulders up.
>>>> And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway, >>>> who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact >>>> subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead. >>> How much maintenance do you think a cycleway >>> or footpath needs compared to a roadway? >> None needs much when its done properly in the first place. > And the cost of building it properly for the expected load scales similarly,
Irrelevant to your lie. Have fun producing the figures that show that cycleways or footpaths are paid for by cycle taxes or pedestrian taxes.
>>> Just as a clue, the damage caused by traffic rises in >>> proportion to the 4th power of the axle weight of the vehicle. >> So its the trucks that do most of the wear and tear on roads. > Not on residential roads,
Wrong, as always.
> but yes, trucks should be taxed far higher > to reduce the level of subsidy they receive.
And they are. And when the roads have to be there for the trucks, the cars get them for free, fool.
>>>>> You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card >>>>> Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess >>>>> what? You lose. >>>> Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and >>>> I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either. >>> Guess you'd better find your own planet then, >> This one is fine. >>> but I don't think you'll have much luck redesigning the laws of physics anywhere in this universe. >> No laws of physics involved in whether the road taxes are used to pay for the roads. > If you can't see the connection, then you're clearly beyond educating.
You never ever could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>Not when its only part of what is raised in car taxes.
> Car taxes have never even come close to paying the cost of building > and maintaining the road infrastructure. Not anywhere.
Bullshit. Maybe 30 years ago California had a surplus of gas tax money such that the other voters (not me or my friends, I don't know anybody that dumb) voted to transfer some amount of it into the general fund. Years later it was determined that there wasn't enough gas tax money to maintain the roads properly, so the other voters voted to add an additional gas tax to be devoted to "transit" or "transportation", which included public transportation.
They do it with smoke and mirrors, and so few see the tricks that the public always gets screwed.
-- Cheers, Bev ====================================================================== "Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft[0], recently referred to LINUX as a cancer. Unsurprisingly, that's incorrect; LINUX was released on August 25th, 1991 and is therefore a virgo." -- Kevin L
aemeijers wrote: > Les Cargill wrote: > (snip) >> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the >> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear >> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending >> altogether.
> Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the > deficits.
And you would be wrong. It was reducing revenue while at the same time increasing spending. No one actually believed that Reaganomics had any basis in reality, but enough people wanted to party for a few years with the realization that they wouldn't be the ones having to pay the bill when it came due.
