edler (12/01/82)
Most of the discussion about the gas tax has centered on federal versus state issues. Has it occurred to anyone that a gas tax is inherently regressive (affects poor people more than rich people)? It seems to me that social assets like the highways and roads should be funded the same way we fund most other things: through income tax. I think the problem is that we don't have a progressive enough income tax. I hate to upset any of you millionaires out there, but you should be taxed more, and those at the low end should be taxed less. I see no reason to support the highways with a usage tax; once there is a suitable transportation alternative then we can consider ways to discourage driving. I'm have doubts about how fruitful a discussion of tax philosophy can be. Lets discuss what can be done to replace the whole highway and automobile system with a rationally planned public system. Can there be any doubt that even conventional railroads are more efficient (in total social cost, not just fuel cost)? Does anyone know what the real annual cost is of maintaining the national automobile and truck fleet? Is there any doubt that the railroad system is in far worse shape in this country than it was in the past? Not to mention urban transportation systems!! If you want to respond to this, send it to net.politics. If it isn't good enough for all net.politics readers, then I probably don't want it in my mailbox. Stirring things up, Jan Edler cmcl2!edler (nyu) pyuxll!jse (btl piscataway)
soreff (12/02/82)
In response to Edler's proposal that additional gas tax be avoided because it is a regressive tax: There are at least two political questions here:
leichter (12/02/82)
RE: Call for a "rational" transportation system It always amazes me how people who call for a "rational" system - based on fixing up our railroads and cutting back on cars, or whatever - ignore the element of choice in all this. The fact is, people made a choice: They decided that they liked cars better than trains. They voted with their feet. Sure, this choice has gotten locked in by a positive feedback effect - as less people use trains, they have less money for improvements, hence they get worse, hence less people use them - but how do you explain the fact that, back in those "golden days" that everyone wants to return to, when the passenger railroads were in great shape and cars were new, roads non-existent, etc. - people STILL chose cars? That's how we got here, you know. "Rational" has many elements - it's very nice to have a car that is IMMEDIATELY available, right outside my door, ALWAYS has seating, lets me play the music I want as loud as I want, has room for the groceries in the back, etc. Sure, you can TALK about sophisticated public transportation systems, plus Walkmen maybe, plus who knows what else, that will give this to me; but, sorry, railroads are not and will never be that, and the fact is that no one knows how to build such a system today. Don't assume that YOUR idea of "rational" is the one everyone else has in mind - or that other peoples' ideas - in particular, the ideas of good ol' blue-collar Joe or Jane - are just unreasonable and need to be changed. -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!yale (oops) decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
soreff (12/06/82)
A portion of the "rational" choice to go to cars rather than to trains was due to the building of the interstate highway system, which I'd heard was partly designed for wartime needs. I'm not convinced that the choice to go to cars rather than trains was mostly the sum of many individual choices, rather than effects of this government program. Does anyone out there have some good evidence, one way or the other? -Jeffrey Soreff
courtney (12/07/82)
#R:cmcl2:-2205300:hp-pcd:17400001:000:540 hp-pcd!courtney Dec 6 13:21:00 1982 Has anyone been thinking about the future? There are many choices available to us today that severely limit the availability of good choices in the not-too-distant future . Personally, I don't think that our society has shown itself to consider the future in their decisions of today (our president for instance?). How long will we be able to drive automobiles to the extent that we do today? ...and can we afford to fail to support and develop those technologies which appear to be more appropriate for the future (like rail systems!) ?
jcw (12/08/82)
Railroads, automobiles, and aircraft all started as private ventures but
were subsequently subsidized in one or more ways by the government. Who
knows the reasons? Some possibilities:
1. The new means of transportation should be available to more people.
2. The new means should be available more quickly.
3. The new means is better than the old means but "can't compete" yet...
so we'll help it along a little.
4. We (read government) know what's best for you (read me) and we'll
therefore force it upon you.
Whatever the reasons were/are, it is difficult to separate the effects of
subsidies from the effects of the free market. I am inclined to believe
that if the government had stayed out of it entirely, we would probably
have more 'public' transportation... and that transportation would probably
be on rails.