Area Transportation At A Crossroads
AMENDMENT TO CREATE 10-YEAR, HALF-CENT SALES TAX FOR MORE FOUR-LANE ROADS TO BE ON BALLOT
Posted: June 26, 2011 at 5:25 a.m.
America’s carcentered transportation system puts us at a disadvantage. Other nations do far more pedestrian, bicycle, bus and train travel, resulting in fewer accidents, less pollution, more exercise, better health, less sprawl, less oil consumption, reduced expenses and better mobility for the elderly and disabled.
This story is only available from the archives. Click here to contact the online desk.
Opinion, Pages 15 on 06/26/2011
(Advertisement)
« Previous Story
Texan Wooed By Arkansas Kook Caucus
Texas Gov. Rick Perry represents everything that 20 of the most extreme rightwing Republicans in the Arkansas State House of Representatives want in their next president. Read »
Next Story »
Time Of Year To Swim, Bike, Read And Sleep La...
Idon’t think I would have survived childhood if it had not been for summer. Due to certain “learning disabilities” — you know all those ADD’s, ADHD’s, OCD’s and PDQ’s — sch... Read »
Comments
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.
Ok, let's start the debate. What a bogus and contradictory argument. At first Art claims we should only tax those using the transportation system to fund the same. Then he turns coat and proposes a sales tax to fund public transportation. So, which is it Art? It seems that when it is a democratic initiative (such as public transportation which only serves a small percentage of the population) it is legitimate to tax all public citizens through a sales tax. But when we are talking about public transportation that is pivotal to our economy and serves the average American citizen, then only those using such services should pay for same.....
Public transportation will only serve a small percentage of the population, yet you propose that a sales tax should fund the same. I hate to break it to you, but most citizens of Arkansas do not live within a few blocks of their employer. In fact, many live 20-30 miles from their place of employment. You cannot build enough train or bus routes to accommodate these individuals. At least not from an economically feasible perspective. To state that "Northwest Arkansas is at a transportation crossroads. On the one hand, there’s a blossoming of alternative transportation. Trails have appeared in Fayetteville and elsewhere, and there will soon be a 36-mile trail from south Fayetteville through Bentonville." is a liberal pipe dream. Do you really think that a mother of three young children is going to use the bike trail to carry her kids and groceries home via a bicycle in 10 degree temperatures with 5 inches of snow on the ground? Let's be realistic about this argument. If most people taught at a university and lived within a mile of same, they could surely walk or ride a bike to work. Reality is that is not the case. For metro areas, public transport makes some sense. Do we really think that Walmart employees who live in Fayetteville are going to ride the bike trail to Bentonville to go to work? Let's apply come common sense here. Just because Europe does it dose not make it gospel. The geography and shear size of our country vs. the ones you quote are so different they are not even in the same league. Let's apply some physics here from the physics professor. Density of population in Europe vs. the US is like night and day. In order to economically institute a mass-transit system between our population and their work centers, you need a different model. A train from West Fork to Fayetteville is not economically feasible, nor will it be in the near future. Those people must drive to work......
Posted by: commonsense96
June 28, 2011 at 1:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Poor "commonsense" he really just doesn't grasp Art's points.
COM: "For metro areas, public transport makes some sense.">>
Public transportation makes sense when there are enough people in an area. Is NWA big enough? Probably, and if not, we will be soon:
"From 1990-2000 the Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers MSA was the sixth fastest growing area in the nation."
Might be an idea to plan for the future? That's what Fayetteville did with its brilliant trail system. Might be an idea to be a little more prepared for $4-$5+ gas? Rather than short term silliness, like giving tax credits for the purchase of extra heavy, extra inefficient gas guzzlers, as we did under Bush, Art's suggestion to subsidize long term efficiency is imminently reasonable and smart. But it does clash with our very bad habits of thinking a car must be used at all times. It's just a bad habit that our peer countries have shown us we don't need.
CM: "[Are Fayetteville] Walmart employees... going to ride the bike trail to Bentonville">>
No, but they might ride a bus or a train. These are all just habits. America is very much in the habit of being exceedingly wasteful with energy. Being wasteful is dumb. And the dumbness is revealed in spades when your economy takes it in the sorts because of entrenched inefficiency.
CM: "Just because Europe does it dose not make it gospel.">>
No mention of gospel was made. But as usual, we have lots to learn from countries that are vastly more efficient and smarter with energy than us. Art's references to the stats are very appropriate here. Plus, getting off of the behind and getting some exercise would really do Arkansans a world of good, obesity epidemic and all.
CM: "The geography and shear size of our country vs. the ones you quote">>
Nonsense. With over 300 million people, four times that of Germany, we have lots of areas that could benefit from more use of public transportation and emphasis on non-auto commuting. Is NWA one of them? If not at the moment, it will be very shortly. But this requires thinking further ahead than the next quarter.
CM: "Density of population in Europe vs. the US... night and day.">>
Again, we are not talking about Wyoming here but rather the NWA region which has a population of 464,623 [2009], and a population density of
"1,336.6 people per square mile."
Here is a density map of Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pop...
Notice that at least 95% of Germany has a lower density of pop. than Fayetteville. (the country has 609 people per sq. mile).
Art said: "America subsidizes car dependence in all sorts of ways..">>
That needs to be pointed out more. Gas taxes pay for less than 1/2 the cost of just building and maintaining roads. They should pay for all of it.
Being efficient and taking actions that are smart, should be subsidized. For some reason conservatives, as usual, seem to have this backwards.
D.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
June 30, 2011 at 11:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsense96(wmatTP)--
RE "At first Art claims we should only tax those using the transportation system to fund the same. Then he turns coat and proposes a sales tax to fund public transportation. So, which is it Art?"
It's both. Dr. Hobson also points out that "the $9,500 (according to AAA) average annual cost of a car is too much for poor and working people." A quarter-cent sales tax funding public transportation would allow poor and working people to lower their automobile costs, which a sales tax for road construction would not do. Further, while some taxpayers have no car, and so no means to take advantage of the increased road surface they would pay for with a sales tax, the entire taxpaying public would have access to the public transportation system they would pay for (that's why they call it "public transportation")-- in other words, those using public transportation would pay for it. Those who did not use public transportation would do so by choice-- a choice that the working poor would not have in the case of a sales tax for roads.
A good public transit system has compensations even for those who do not use it, though: it reduces traffic and travel time during peak hours, reduces gasoline use and pollution, and reduces wear and tear on roads as well as the need for more pavement.
Posted by: AlphaCat
July 1, 2011 at 12:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I will address FFT and Alpha points in a minute. First, Art says "A 5-cent diesel fuel tax will probably come up for election this fall. This tax makes sense, as it puts highway expenses where they belong, namely on drivers."
This is classic liberalism at it's best. The trucks that bring Art's food to his grocery store run on diesel. So do the trucks that transport nearly all of the goods Art purchases. So does one believe that the trucking companies will just 'eat' this cost? No, they will pass the cost along. And guess who pays for it....the general public. So either way you slice this, the average Arkansan pays for the increase...no different than a sales or property tax. That is the problem with the liberal thought process...it typically only goes one step. Think a little deeper. The reason liberals like this approach is it is 'hidden' from the general public in the cost of goods they purchase. Sales tax or property tax is much more evident. So even if liberals are thinking a little further, this is how the thought process goes..." Most of the general public doesn't buy diesel, so let's tax it and have that tax built into the cost of goods and nobody will be the wiser." Let's quit playing hide-and-seek with the taxpayer.....
Posted by: commonsense96
July 1, 2011 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
"Poor FFT" ...let's address your comments:
"Might be an idea to plan for the future? That's what Fayetteville did with its brilliant trail system".
Let me see if i get this. The trail system is a public transportation system that will help reduce the use of Automobiles? You failed to address my point about the mother with three kids going to the grocery store with 6 inches of snow and 10 degree weather. How about the plumber who is going to fix your toilet? What about the trash service? How about the furniture delivery truck bringing your new couch? We need the infrastructure, and as the population grows, we will need more. Concrete for new houses cannot travel by rail to your lot. There is a minor amount of traffic that can be serviced by "public transportation" as seen in your quote about vehicle trips by other countries vs. ours.
ALL of this public transport is subsidized by the taxpayer in these countries (Art acknowledged same in his article). We subsidize Amtrak yet today in the NE corridor and it has been running for 40 years! Still can't even break even...... But all of us who don't ride Amtrak daily to work help pay for those who do. Is this what you envision for NWA? This is my point about Art's commentary. There are virtually NO "public transportation systems" that even break even. So the taxpayer who doesn't ride end's up footing the bill. How is this different than what we do for roads and bridges....it isn't. The difference is that the GREAT majority of taxpayers use the roads/bridges. A small MINORITY uses the public transportation system.
continued.....
Posted by: commonsense96
July 1, 2011 at 9:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FFT: " Might be an idea to be a little more prepared for $4-$5+ gas? Rather than short term silliness, like giving tax credits for the purchase of extra heavy, extra inefficient gas guzzlers, as we did under Bush, Art's suggestion to subsidize long term efficiency is imminently reasonable and smart."
Couldn't resist bringing Bush into the argument could you....cool deflection for your readers. I have not argued any such non-sense so using same to duck the argument is childish on your part.... The reality is that there are millions of Americans who work hard everyday to make a buck using vehicles with no alternative. I'll be glad to provide a comprehensive list, but here is a snippet of people who cannot do their job without a larger vehicle that runs on gas or diesel: the contractor who built the house you live in, the trash collector you use to dispose of or recycle, the yardman who cuts your grass, the AC repairman who keeps you cool, the truck driver who supplies your grocery store, the furniture delivery company, the target supply truck for your consumables, the cable company who installs and repairs your internet connection, the UPS driver who delivers your internet purchases, the Coke delivery person to your favorite convenience store, the supplies to your neighborhood Starbucks.....I could go on and on. There are opportunities to shuttle civilians like cattle to and from work in high population centers. Outside of that, you are stuck with oil until we find a better alternative. Best we drill and refine our own vs. sending the money to those who want to kill us and destroy our way of life. If you see alternatives for these services that are feasible in the near future, i am all ears.....else face the music.
Posted by: commonsense96
July 1, 2011 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Alpha: "Dr. Hobson also points out that "the $9,500 (according to AAA) average annual cost of a car is too much for poor and working people." A quarter-cent sales tax funding public transportation would allow poor and working people to lower their automobile costs, which a sales tax for road construction would not do."
Alpha we have been through this before on these blogs. The 'AVERAGE" is exactly that. It includes those who own Hummers which get 5 MPG and Corvettes. Any commonsense reader understands that it does not cost a poor person $9500 per year to operate a vehicle.
Alpha: "A quarter-cent sales tax funding public transportation would allow poor and working people to lower their automobile costs, which a sales tax for road construction would not do. Further, while some taxpayers have no car, and so no means to take advantage of the increased road surface they would pay for with a sales tax"
I'm confused. Poor people do not pay sales tax? "Some" taxpayers have no car? I didn't spend much time researching this as you obviously didn't, but in 2007 the average was 90% of Americans own cars. That includes all the metro areas where there are few cars per population, so my guess is NWA is less than 3%. Then we have the Ozark Regional Transit to take care of the needs of those with no transport in the 4 county region. This is off their web page: " Click here to see the final results from a survey by the U of A Survey Research Center about support for a sales tax to fund Ozark Regional Transit's major funding loss."
So here is another quote from their web page..."ORT has experienced a 27% average annual growth rate in passenger trips the last 5 years in Fayetteville, Springdale, Rogers, and Bentonville.". Great growth rate for any business, and yet without subsidies and a 27% growth rate per year over the last 5 years, it will fail? This is our future for transportation in NWA? http://www.ozark.org/
"Loss of
Federal funding & all fixed bus routes:15.3% in 2011
Federal funding: 8% in 2010
Potential loss of local funding: 16% in 2011"
So the taxpayer (you and I) are already subsidizing public transportation at a federal and local level....and when their business grows by 27% per year for 5 years, they still need subsidies!! And liberals point to this as our solution to transportation needs in NWA? Someone please talk me off the ledge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: commonsense96
July 1, 2011 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FFT: "Being efficient and taking actions that are smart, should be subsidized. For some reason conservatives, as usual, seem to have this backwards."
Couldn't resist this one. It really says it all. The Liberal viewpoint is that "if it is our agenda, then it should be subsidized". The conservative viewpoint is that "good ideas that make sense will be explored by entrepreneurs and add to the economic viability of our country". That really sums it up......
Posted by: commonsense96
July 1, 2011 at 11:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Art suggests "A 5-cent diesel fuel tax... makes sense, as it puts highway expenses where they belong, namely on drivers."
"Com" dismisses this as "classic liberalism" (whatever that is) but fails to give a reason why those who travel roads shouldn't be paying the tax to build and maintain them. Gas/diesel taxes currently only pay less than 1/2 the cost of road building and maintenance.
COM: "Let me see if i get this. The trail system is a public transportation system that will help reduce the use of Automobiles?">>
Nope, didn't get it. Of all the things the trail system is and provides (enhancement of quality of life in Fayetteville especially) a public transportation system it isn't. It's a trail for pity sake.
COM: "We subsidize Amtrak yet today">>
All countries subsidize their train systems. And for very good reasons.
COM: "There are virtually NO "public transportation systems" that even break even.">>
The goal isn't to make money, but rather provide the societal benefit of moving vast numbers of people around effectively, timely, cheaply and efficiently. You don't even understand the questions.
COM: "Best we drill and refine our own vs. sending the money to those who want to kill us">>
This answer was given you to months ago. Flashback:
***
SFA: "Human transportation is 45% of our gasoline usage.">>
As I said, huge. If we could double the efficiency of this segment alone, we could completely remove/save all of the oil we currently import from Saudi Arabia, TWICE over.
And without touching a single trucker's driving habits.
***
Yet you conservatives fight tooth and nail on increasing efficiency, believing it is some kind of God given right to be wasteful and foolish with energy.
COM: "If you see alternatives for these services that are feasible in the near future, i am all ears.">>
You need less ears and more brains. Improved efficiency is feasible right now. Not subsidizing via direct tax credit the use of extra heavy extra wasteful vehicles, is available right now. Etc.
FFT [said]: "Being efficient and taking actions that are smart, should be subsidized. For some reason conservatives, as usual, seem to have this backwards.">>
COM: "The Liberal viewpoint is that "if it is our agenda, then it should be subsidized".>>
That's your spin. Notice, I said being efficient and taking actions that are smart, should be subsidized. I didn't even define what was smart, yet you are still against it.
You are just plain against being smart. But anyone who has been reading your posts for a while already knew that.
D.
-------
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
--John Stuart Mill, about 150 years ago
Posted by: fayfreethinker
July 2, 2011 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsense96(wmatTP)--
Dang-- I thought I had done a pretty good job of explaining that. Perhaps you should have reread my point before copying part of it and not understanding any of it.
A quarter-cent sales tax is lower than a half-cent sales tax, saving money for poor taxpayers. Spending that smaller amount of money for public transit would be of direct benefit to them, as it would allow those without cars to get around better, and those with cars to use them less. Spending the higher sales tax on road projects that poor people won't get much use from is of no benefit to them.
RE "I'm confused."
Good. I was afraid you were being deliberately obtuse.
RE "Poor people do not pay sales tax?"
I certainly never said that. In fact, I have pointed out more than once that the sales taxes that low-income people pay are a disproportionately large part of their income. Even the part of my point you copied and pasted says that poor people pay sales tax.
RE "'Some' taxpayers have no car?...the average was 90% of Americans own cars."
Many tax-paying senior citizens do not own cars; many disabled taxpayers are unable to drive. I myself did not drive or own a car until I was thirty-seven years old. Meanwhile, ten percent of Americans is a lot of people; I will go so far as to say that it is "some" people, and likely includes "some" taxpayers.
RE "...my guess is NWA is less than 3%"
So you want to give the top 2% of taxpayers a cheap ride, but you would give the 3% of people in northwest Arkansas who need public transit no ride at all? What about the other people who would use public transit if it were available?
RE "Great growth rate for any business, and yet without subsidies and a 27% growth rate per year over the last 5 years, it will fail?"
It's just like conservatives to want to eliminate funding for successful programs.
RE "So the taxpayer (you and I) are already subsidizing public transportation at a federal and local level."
You're not paying for all the federal funding you're getting. And I don't object to subsidizing public transportation.
RE "...and when their business grows by 27% per year for 5 years, they still need subsidies!!"
Public transportation is relatively unavailable in Northwest Arkansas, and its availability now is largely directed to students (who pay in part through student fees), the disabled, the elderly, and the poor. Once the system can expand and become more "normal", ridership will include more and more paying customers, which will reduce the relative size of subsidies, if not the entire need for them.
RE "And liberals point to this as our solution to transportation needs in NWA?"
People with sense, and an eye to the future as well as the present, see that. It happens that very few conservatives have that much sense or perspicacity, so it seems like a liberal thing to you.
RE "Someone please talk me off the ledge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
No need-- you jumped a long time ago.
Posted by: AlphaCat
July 2, 2011 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FFT: " "Com" dismisses this as "classic liberalism" (whatever that is) but fails to give a reason why those who travel roads shouldn't be paying the tax to build and maintain them. Gas/diesel taxes currently only pay less than 1/2 the cost of road building and maintenance."
So what percent of the Arkansas population uses the roads and bridges? Based on current data it is over 95% including those who use public transportation. Exactly 100% of the population relies on the roads and bridges for their food, goods, and services. So exactly what is your point? Those who travel the roads more often (thereby buying more fuel) pay more of the costs than the average taxpayer.....Please think a little deeper......
FFT: "Of all the things the trail system is and provides (enhancement of quality of life in Fayetteville especially) a public transportation system it isn't. It's a trail for pity sake."
Well, this is not how your idol presented it. He said that we have made good progress towards intelligent transportation choices. He presented the trail system as an example. I agree...."It's a trail for pity sake".....Not an example of us diminishing our dependence on vehicles and roads. Art presented it as such. What a bogus argument it was and is........
COM: "We subsidize Amtrak yet today">>
FFT: "All countries subsidize their train systems. And for very good reasons."
And what good reasons are those? So that those who do not ride trains get to help pay for those who do? Do the train riders help subsidize the price of fuel for those who have to drive? Do they help buy tires for those who ride bikes to work? Exactly what are those 'good reasons'?
COM: "There are virtually NO "public transportation systems" that even break even.">>
FFT: "The goal isn't to make money, but rather provide the societal benefit of moving vast numbers of people around effectively, timely, cheaply and efficiently. You don't even understand the questions."
Oh, i fully understand the questions..........effectively, timely, and cheaply don't exactly rime with subsidization. So which is it? If it is so cheap, effective, and timely, why must it be subsidized. Really FFT, you are asleep at the wheel on this one.
FFT: "As I said, huge. If we could double the efficiency of this segment alone, we could completely remove/save all of the oil we currently import from Saudi Arabia, TWICE over.
And without touching a single trucker's driving habits."
So your European models that you love to present on a pedestal showed public transport that was approximately 20% higher than the US. All that with smaller geographies and more condensed populations. So how do you propose getting the doubling you propose? "If" a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his *ss every time he jumped. We need more than wishing on a star here....Until we get to your euphoria, we have to deal with the oil issue. Please try to ground yourself in reality......
Posted by: commonsense96
July 7, 2011 at 12:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Alpha: "RE "...my guess is NWA is less than 3%"
So you want to give the top 2% of taxpayers a cheap ride, but you would give the 3% of people in northwest Arkansas who need public transit no ride at all? What about the other people who would use public transit if it were available?"
You put words in my mouth. I never said i would provide 'no ride at all'. I am all about helping those in need. I do alot of that personally, unlike most liberals who only want to spend everyone else's money.
As for those who would use public transit if it were available.....if it is feasible, an entrepreneur would be all over it with both feet.
Alpha: "Once the system can expand and become more "normal", ridership will include more and more paying customers, which will reduce the relative size of subsidies, if not the entire need for them."
So herein lies my point. If you start a business with subsidies for 37 years and have a growth rate of 27% for the last 5 years, and still need subsidies to exist, then at what point do you change your business model??? Your solution is to pour more money into the enterprise and expand it's operation so it can eventually become a non-subsidized entity. Just give it more money and time????
Posted by: commonsense96
July 7, 2011 at 12:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Well, here is a recap of this ridiculous debate. There has been no contradiction of the fact that increased fuel taxes will eventually be paid by all. Hard for liberals to think deeper than the first cut. Taxation trickles down, no matter how hard one sticks his/her head in the sand. Public roads and bridges service all Arkansans, and there has been no rebuttal of same. Despite the fact that EVERY citizen depends on roads and bridges for his/her existence in our society. Subsidizing public transport at the cost of those who do not use same is ok, but only those who consume fuel should be taxed for using the roads. No rebuttal on that point either. Nice job of dodging the commonsense bullets guys!! Using 'average' costs of car ownership is bogus and carries no weight in the debate about those who have less. No comments on that point either. Pick and choose is the debate topic of the day....Duck and run boys!
Posted by: commonsense96
July 7, 2011 at 1:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsense says "Public transportation will only serve a small percentage of the population."
I don't know how he can be so sure. When I was growing up in Cleveland, Ohio, my folks didn't even own a car because we could take streetcars anywhere. They ran every 10 minutes.
The only reason they aren't running anymore is that in many cities GM and Firestone conspired with corrupted public officials to tear up the streetcar tracks and make everybody dependent on cars (and oil).
Posted by: Coralie
July 7, 2011 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
If there was a local bus system anything like as good as the one in San Diego in the 1970s, I would likely give up my car or at least reserve it for special occasions. And that goes double if gas prices go up much more.
Posted by: Coralie
July 7, 2011 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
COM: Those who travel the roads more often... pay more>>
They should pay all of it at minimum. That would be the most honest way to have market forces work effectively. That is, users pay the cost directly rather than cost shift and encourage waste.
FFT [said]: "All countries subsidize their train systems. And for very good reasons."
CM: "And what good reasons are those?">>
That's on a need to know basis and since you didn't understand this the first couple of times it was explained to you, apparently beyond your ken.
CM: "If it [public trans] is so cheap, effective, and timely, why must it be subsidized.">>
Already explained. Not all goals and function of society are to make money. Shocking.
CM: "how do you propose getting the doubling you propose?">>
That was explained to you months ago, more than once. Sorry you find it so difficult to learn new things that don't comport with your preconceived misconceptions.
CM: "increased fuel taxes will eventually be paid by all.">>
Not true. And taxing at the actual source (user fee) is the most efficient because it doesn't encourage waste and inefficiency by hiding the cost via cost shifting.
CM: "Taxation trickles down,">>
Nope, that doesn't follow. Sometimes industry just necessarily takes a cut in profit. The oil industry for instance, full of subsidies, could absorb such a change without passing it on. Exxon made $11 billion last quarter, in part due to tax payer provided subsidies. Dumb.
CM: "Public roads and bridges service all Arkansans,">>
First and foremost this infrastructure serves those using it. Uses should pay all of the cost, regardless of whether some or even most of it gets passed along.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
July 7, 2011 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FFT: You comment as though you understand economics, but you truly have no clue! You have never built or run a business, nor will you..... For you to keep your head stuck in the sand and truly believe that taxation is not passed on to the consumer shows the true depth of your ignorance. You do not understand how business and our economic system works. It is great, however, to see the true liberal one-step thought process at work. To think that the truck driver who pays an additional 5 cents per gallon for diesel is not going to increase his trucking rates truly shows your ignorance of how economics works. Virtually all freight companies charged fuel 'surcharges' when diesel was $4/gallon. Those costs were passed on to the consumer. For you to sit in you ivory tower and believe that companies will accept lower profits because their cost of goods increased shows your lack of knowledge about how business works.....
The stupidity of the liberal mindset is all too apparent here.....Thanks for the comments, they solidify your side and how uneducated on the economy liberals truly are.
OBTW - you have not explained doubling, subsidization, etc as an economically feasible alternative to our current system, so keep the quips to yourself. Until you truly learn how our economic system works, you won't have legitimate points to cover (it is much different than your beloved Canada). As is evidenced by your laying-off of my debate topics, you truly do not have an argument here. The typical liberal tactic....if you can't defend it, then criticize it....... Sleep well my confused liberal friend. ......
Posted by: commonsense96
July 13, 2011 at 1:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Left this part out in my previous post. There are no "oil company subsidies". There are tax deductions for corporations which oil companies take advantage of....just like other corporations. There are no 'oil company' subsidies.....challenge you to show any such animal. Just another liberal 'canard' to shift the focus of the debate....nice try.
Posted by: commonsense96
July 16, 2011 at 2:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
More blowin and goin from COM.
COM: "You have never built or run a business, nor will you...">>
Before I post things I am always careful to make sure my claims are true. Obviously you are speaking about something you don't know (even though you have been told before). I have started several business, and my main one has been going since 1990. I don't advertise and I turn about 20% of my business away. I think that suggests I am doing it right.
COM: "For you to... believe that taxation is not passed on to the consumer...">>
I didn't claim that. In fact, had you read for comprehension you would know I said the opposite. Largely it would be. And that's a good thing, because economically it lets the true cost of transportation be priced into the product, and paid for directly by those using the infrastructure (roads). This allows true market forces to be reflected rather than artificially cost shifted and hidden. This was all explained to you carefully above. Please don't pretend you know more about economics than me.
COM :Virtually all freight companies charged fuel 'surcharges' when diesel was $4/gallon.">>
Excellent example. And those surcharges did not cover all of the increased cost. They ate (absorbed) some of the difference, and perhaps some shippers changed to methods not requiring rather inefficient and wasteful trucking. Hence, when the true cost of fuel and roads are included, we will see true market forces kick in and reflect reality rather than cost shifted and hidden (which encourages waste).
"True Market Forces," that is part of your religion isn't it?
COM: "you have not explained doubling, subsidization, etc as an economically feasible alternative">>
You'll need to restate what you are talking about here. Be careful to avoid the strawman fallacy.
COM: "There are no "oil company subsidies">>
Word games. This was explained to you, with reference, months ago. Again:
"As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/bus...
[remainder of insults snipped]
Posted by: fayfreethinker
July 16, 2011 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.