Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Who Pays for our Roads?
75 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2007 at 8:44 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 27, 2007 8:33 am) Whether or not a motorists actually pays his fair share for the use of the road is debatable. A bicyclist obviously does not. That really doesn't concern me all that much. It's the impact on the flow of traffic that is more of an issue for me. One bicyclist on a road that 100's of vehicles have to navigate around is a trivial nuisance. Put 100's of bicyclists on this road and it becomes a nightmare. They have effectively imposed their will on the driving community. It's as if their right to use the road at 25 mph trumps a drivers right to use the road at 50 mph. So maybe instead of a user fee bicyclists should pay a disruption fee that will go towards expanding lanes so that there is an adequate shoulder for them to ride on. |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 27, 2007 8:33 am) Government directly subsidizes oil consumption through preferential treatment in tax codes. A multitude of federal corporate income tax credits and deductions results in an effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry, compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%. If the oil industry paid the industrywide average tax rate (including oil) of 17%, they would have paid an additional $2.0 billion in 1991. The official SEC reviewed, Price-Waterhouse audited annual report of the largest oil company in the world seems to greatly contradict this!! Look at P. 40 http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/xom_2006_SAR.pdf For those with a slow connection let me recap. Exxon-Mobil sold $365.5B in product in 2006. It had a bunch of expenses including paying $30.4B in sales-taxes + $39.2B in other taxes. It was left with $67B in profits. Then they paid $27.9B of that to the government in Income Tax. That leaves the owners (stockholders) with $39.1B. So if my math is right Exxon Mobil after paying all their workers, and buying and refining the oil, earned $39.1B and paid taxes of $97.5B. So the owners got less than $1 for every $2 the government got. Did the majority of this $97.5B go to the DOT for road building or repair? The driving-public's money does pay those taxes in the end. It is the taxes that make oil and gasoline high. The oil companies are taxed up the ying-yang and have to pay for drilling rights, we are taxed on our income before we buy the gasoline, and then we pay tax on the gasoline from the $ that was just taxed! I think your author conveniently just used (Income tax/ Revenue) as his tax-rate? Would you like to look at the annual report for any other large oil company? |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Nov 27, 2007 9:19 am) Depends on whether you define user fee as a tax. "User fee" is one of those political inventions used to avoid calling a tax a tax. So, if you agree that a user fee is a tax to use the roads (and it's not like you have a choice in the matter if you want to exercise your constitutional right to travel), then the question depends on what taxes the biker pays. There's sales tax for buying the bike at least. Similar "right to use" arguments come up in the aviation community too. How dare that Piper Cub use the same runway as UAL's 747-400 and make all those paying customers wait for it to take off, even though the "tax" the plane is paying is a landing "fee" since there's no fuel tax on jet fuel. (Kernick - I don't do math; that's Tidester's bailiwick.  Please carry on without me; I was out a week for the holiday and need to move on).
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Nov 27, 2007 9:19 am) I've commuted many days this summer on my bike, and I stay on the sidewalks wherever possible; primarily for safety. I'm not one of these people who want to "make a point" that I have equal rights on the road, when obviously the paved roads in this country were built for autos/trucks, and paid for by the drivers thru taxes and fees. Here in NH horses also have a right to be on the road. Again, another not-so-hot idea! |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 27, 2007 9:55 am) Then we'll have to logically ask you to refrain from posting on issues that involve math.  No more posts concerning taxes, finances, or physics. 
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 27, 2007 8:33 am) Highway users, for example, pay only a fraction of the actual costs of highway construction, repair, and a host of other motor-vehicle-related services. Yet, the group's real agenda comes through in this sentence: Making the case for badly needed transportation reforms--more efficient conventionally powered vehicles, more attractive public transit, and the introduction of climate-friendly vehicles for the next century--the authors argue that these initiatives are unlikely ever to get off the drawing board unless and until U.S. drivers pay more of the true costs of transportation. (emphasis added) More efficient conventionally powered vehicles won't lessen the need for subsidies (actually, they will make it worse - if taxes to pay for road construction and maintenance are raised through gasoline sales, and vehicles use less gasoline, they will generate less revenue for road construction and maintenance). Whether a vehicle is "climate friendly" (a term, that I'm sure, has been tortured to mean whatever is convenient for the World Resources Institute's main thesis) has nothing to do with highway subsidies. As for more attractive public transit - if subsidies are the concern, then mass transit isn't the answer. On a per person mile basis, mass transit systems receive subsidies that are 50 times higher than that received by highway users. The share covered by user fees is 77.8 percent for users of highways and local streets, versus 23.9 percent for mass transit users. These figures are from the federal government, which I trust more than the studentbusadvocate and the World Resources Institute, as I deal with advocacy groups on a regular basis. So it looks as though drivers are paying more of the "true costs" of their choice of transportation. steve: Q: How much of total road and highway costs in Wisconsin are covered by nonuser fees from local governments? A: Estimated $1.29 billion of $3.29 billion (39%)" How each state covers its portion (as opposed to the portion paid for by the federal government, through the Interstate Highway Trust Fund) of road and maintenance and construction costs varies from state to state. Wisconsin chooses to cover its portion with property taxes...considering that roads make real estate more valuable, and both people and businesses benefit from improved access (to ship and receive goods and services), one can certainly make the case that this "subsidy" is benefiting the intended recipients. Also note that it does nothing to disprove that revenue from federal taxes raised through sales of diesel fuel, gasoline and automotive products is diverted to "non road projects" (i.e., bike paths and mass transit), and has been since the early 1980s, as per federal law. All forms of transportation receive some subsidies. But the idea that drivers are not paying their "fair share" is inaccurate. steve: Note that I'm ignoring all the social costs arguments here. Smart move - they tend to be bogus.
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Nov 27, 2007 9:19 am) but aren't many bicyclist also motorists ? And for the portion of those who don't own a car, how did they not pay for their share? Of course if one cyclist is jobless, homeless and on welfare... But I guess this is not the point here. > Put 100's of bicyclists on this road and it becomes a nightmare Isn't it rather a nightmare because there are thousands of cars on this road? I think we should consider that many cyclists mean that many fewer cars on the road. I consider my chances of dying when bumped into by a cyclist as much lower than by a motorist. >So maybe instead of a user fee bicyclists should pay a disruption fee that will go towards expanding lanes so that there is an adequate shoulder for them to ride on. I rather think that road infrastructures that don't provide the necessary provision for non motor users are either uncomplete or dangerous. That's the case in China where the same lane is shared by motorist, motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians and everyone else, hence the dismal fatality rate on the roads ands the very slow average speeds a car can go. Sidewalks and/with bicycle lane should be considered as a full part of the infrastructure , as they contribute to the safety and the pace of all road users. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 27, 2007 7:33 am) So? Even if you never personally use any road you still benefit from the roads. All you get or used is trucked over a road at some point. Fire and police protection use roads as well as medical personal. So everyone benefits from roads even if you never use one personally. |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 27, 2007 8:33 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 27, 2007 9:55 pm) I did like Snake's "everyone benefits from the subsidy whether you drive or not" comment.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Who Pays for our Roads?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
