Our sales tax has two components - the state portion and the local portion. Obviously the state portion goes to the state. The bulk of the local portion goes back to the municipality where it was collected (the county keeps a cut, too).
Some of the townships have a base property tax rate of zero as a result, although their annual tax bills still include special districts and the like.
We also have a "bed tax," collected at hotels and motels. Much of that goes back to the municipalities where it is collected as well, with the county keeping the rest.
"Amusement tax" is more palatable than "tourist tax." It would be interesting to see exactly how the local law reads.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
It appears that a lot of this discussion is getting hung up over semantics. The crux of the issue is that the borough of Jim Thorpe needs a new revenue source for any of a number of reasons and a previously uncollected amusement tax seems to fill the need. The appropriate statute needs to be reviewed to find out just what is covered by the aforementioned amusement tax.
Regards - Steve
Perhaps I should have written "may continue" instead of "continues." Does the railroad have freight customers in Jim Thorp itself?
And if it does, even then, are there ways they can leave while assuring service for those customers remains?
And viewing Nature's Autumn Colors is enjoyment, not amusement.
Yes. Amusement includes enjoyment. But enjoyment definitely does not necessarily include amusement.
Regarding the Property Tax. The tax on emply undeveloped property is usually a lot lower than property that has been developed. The property taxes the railroad pays reflect that they are used for a profitable freight business and reflect the state of development. The railroad was and continues paying its fair share of the burdens of the community before this addiitonal tax was levied on it. There are probably other taxes involved, also.
Equating a grand work of nature with an amusement park or a theater is to trivialize it. I would add a religious dimension to this discussion if the rules permitted, but instead:
Is it possible that this is the same kind of trivialization that the Colorado Highway Department implemented?
daveklepper Enjoymnent and amusement are two different words. When I hear the Beehoven Ninth Symnphony, I have enjoyment but not amusement. When I look at Gore Canyon from the California Zephyr, I enjoy, but am not amused. If there is a streetcar line runing to an Amusement Park outside the town's boundaries, so the Amusement Park does not pay an amusement tax, is the streetcar company obligated to collect an amusement tax on all fares for those going to and from the amusement park? And again, amusement and enjoyment are two different words. I am amused by a joke. I enjoy reading "War and Peace" or "David Copperfield."
Enjoymnent and amusement are two different words. When I hear the Beehoven Ninth Symnphony, I have enjoyment but not amusement.
When I look at Gore Canyon from the California Zephyr, I enjoy, but am not amused.
If there is a streetcar line runing to an Amusement Park outside the town's boundaries, so the Amusement Park does not pay an amusement tax, is the streetcar company obligated to collect an amusement tax on all fares for those going to and from the amusement park?
And again, amusement and enjoyment are two different words.
I am amused by a joke. I enjoy reading "War and Peace" or "David Copperfield."
Did the people enjoy going to the amusement park?
daveklepper I should also point out, as a general matter, that when a poster writes "Mr. ___ seems to think..." the writer is converting an issue into a personal issue, not a question of just which fact or opinion is correct. And in this case I did point out in previous posts that the railroad does pay other taxes. So (1) the scenergy isn't for free, and (2) it's the freight, not the scenery, that provides a living for the railroad and its employees. And for both the scenery and the frieght, the railroad provides transportation, not amusement.
I should also point out, as a general matter, that when a poster writes "Mr. ___ seems to think..." the writer is converting an issue into a personal issue, not a question of just which fact or opinion is correct.
And in this case I did point out in previous posts that the railroad does pay other taxes. So (1) the scenergy isn't for free, and (2) it's the freight, not the scenery, that provides a living for the railroad and its employees. And for both the scenery and the frieght, the railroad provides transportation, not amusement.
I am simply stating what you seem to be saying so you can point out where I might have missed something. The railroad pays no extra taxes specifically for the tourist trains that can be identified. The passengers pay for the ticket, but as you say the railroad only provides transportation, so I have to conclude that they are getting to see the scenery for free.
daveklepperMedian Mike, you are 100% wrong: Viewing scenery is not an amusement. It is education. Otherwise we would not have the Nastional Park System and all the Government-funded facilities to view Nature's wonders.
Perhaps it is you who need educating. The National Park mission statement (specifically for Yellowstone) says they are there to preserve wildlife, natural and historical features " for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations." Education is only part of it, "enjoyment" (perchance amusement) is listed first.
As far as transportation is concerned, the Surface Transportation Board does not regulate or concern itself with tourist railroads.
daveklepperAnd the railroad pays real-estate taxes and other taxes to the community to support the services it and its employees receive. Additional expenses to the town due to railroad operations are not only supported by those taxes, but also by the additional taxes received because of the increased business in all sectors of the town the railroad has made possible.
Everyone in town pays property taxes. The railroad would pay those taxes whether they ran tourist trains or not. All those tourists do not pay property taxes, so all their use of town services is not supported by them. Extra business they bring to town is not captured by business property taxes. If there is a state sales tax, it goes to the state general fund.
daveklepper...passenger operation was not a money-maker and was provided as a service and contribution for and to the community.
If the tourist operation is truly a service for the comunity, they they should be engaging with the community and their duly elected officials. Otherwise it is just a vanity project. It is in the railroads interest to successfully engage in the local political process. Otherwise things happen like at the Catskill Mountain RR.
Paul_D_North_JrIt would be real interesting to do the math of average adult, child, etc. riders per trip times their respective rates times how many trips per day, and compare that to the typical costs of operating a locomotive with an engineer and a 4 or 5 person train crew (including conductor), plus something for track and equipment maintenance, etc.
Our folks did that math a few years ago and figured out that in order to break even, our "local" trip (20 miles round-trip, about an hour and a half) we needed 35 passengers.
That factored in actual train operation, administrative and mechanical overhead, insurance, and other such costs. Inasmuch as most of our crews are volunteer, direct labor isn't a factor.
It would be hard to argue against the "amusement" angle for some of our trains. Wine and beer trains, Haunted History, theme (Princesses and Superheros, train robberies, the "murder mystery" trains we used to run, all have an entertainment aspect to them.
Unfortunately, I think that riding a train to view the scenery kinda does fall under "amusement." We have hundreds of riders in the fall who are aboard specifically to see the fall colors. That they also visit downtown to shop and eat is almost secondary.
But the question on the Lehigh Gorge issue remains: Why now? Granted, they caught it in an audit, but how did no one notice the shortfall for over ten years?
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR zugmann Yeah, we're getting married next month. Coming to the reception? I think you're looking at this with a 1960's nostalgic view of and excursion railroad, not a current day scenic, and yes, entertainment operation. People are not riding this from A->B. They are riding for the sake of riding. Like a roller coaster. And knowing you meant well, I'll excuse you for your remarks of my interest in the railroad industry this time. Actually, I would hazard a guess that people aren't riding it for the train...but to see the Lehigh Gorge, which makes it transportation, therefore not an amusement ride. Also, Andy Muller himself basically said he makes his money from freight, not the passenger service, which tells me either he breaks even or has a small loss, but makes very little to no profit from it.
zugmann Yeah, we're getting married next month. Coming to the reception? I think you're looking at this with a 1960's nostalgic view of and excursion railroad, not a current day scenic, and yes, entertainment operation. People are not riding this from A->B. They are riding for the sake of riding. Like a roller coaster. And knowing you meant well, I'll excuse you for your remarks of my interest in the railroad industry this time.
Yeah, we're getting married next month. Coming to the reception?
I think you're looking at this with a 1960's nostalgic view of and excursion railroad, not a current day scenic, and yes, entertainment operation. People are not riding this from A->B. They are riding for the sake of riding. Like a roller coaster.
And knowing you meant well, I'll excuse you for your remarks of my interest in the railroad industry this time.
Actually, I would hazard a guess that people aren't riding it for the train...but to see the Lehigh Gorge, which makes it transportation, therefore not an amusement ride.
Also, Andy Muller himself basically said he makes his money from freight, not the passenger service, which tells me either he breaks even or has a small loss, but makes very little to no profit from it.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
It would be real interesting to do the math of average adult, child, etc. riders per trip times their respective rates times how many trips per day, and compare that to the typical costs of operating a locomotive with an engineer and a 4 or 5 person train crew (including conductor), plus something for track and equipment maintenance, etc.
I express no opinion on the likely result, other than it might be informative.
Comparison with other similar operations that make enough 'profit' after expenses would also be instructive.
- PDN.
It sounds like the LGRY hasn't been keeping on top of paying the amusement tax when it is supposed to. That combined with the councilpeople of Jim Thorpe being unsupportive toward the railroad doesn't mix at all. It's a shame because the Lehigh Gorge Scenic Railroad has been one of the best tourist railroad operations in Pennsylvania. Many of the people who are riding the operation aren't just riding it only for the sake of the train ride. They are riding it because they want to enjoy nature. I had the fortune of riding the Lehigh Gorge Scenic Railroad bike train about a year ago and it was well patronized with bikers heading to White Haven. Coming back, I stayed on the train and it wasn't very crowded. Of course, there is a reason for that-many people wanted to bike back to Jim Thorpe.
I think they will both regret it.
You can be right, or you can be happy. In conflict, rarely will you be both.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
They'll regret it just like some business establishment landlords I've seen around here who jacked up the rents, causing the tenants move out, and had the stores (or buildings) sit vacant for lack of takers for two, three, four, or more years generating no income at all.
Smart. Real smart.
Everyone, including the town of Jim Thorpe, can interpret the word "amusement" any way they want.
But this is the way I see it. From what I can tell, the train rides are either 45 or 70 minutes long. That tells me that there is no time for people to get off the train and spend time in the gorge. There is also, I suspect, no provision for disembarking from one train, then returning later on another.
So people are getting on a conveyance, and the only option available is to get off precisely where they began. To me, that is not "transportation" in the normal sense. It is an outing (a diversion, an amusement, whatever) in which the ride itself is a primary part of the mission. You cannot go from A to B; only from A to A.
In any event, like I said above, to me it's not about semantics. It's about rasslin' over legal tender.
With all due respect to Dave, Andy Muller, and anyone else who sees this differently.
If the town does not work with Muller and find a solution, I am guessing they will regret it.
As to paying a town tax on a ticket that took the passenger out of the town, I do not think that the the town could levy a tax on the cost of transportation beyond the town limits. Back when Mississippi had a tax on intrastate tickets, there was no state tax on interstate tickets bought in the state.
Johnny
Did Jim Thorp, the town, not the ball-player, have a streetcar system? Was there an amusement park located outside the town's borders, on land in an area not in any defined municipality. So could the streetcar system have to collect an amusement tax on fares to and from the amusemente park?
With tongue firmly in my cheek, since I assume at least a portion of the ride is outside the town limits presumably the town's amusement tax was set on a prorated portion of the ticket price..........
OK. In your definition, not mine, a train ride can be an amusement. I agree if it is only a train ride. But in this case there is a destination. The scnenic Gorge. And the train ride provides transportation to and from that destination.
Should the Town ask bookstore owners to add an amusement tax to the price of any joke books or comic books they sell? Their business is selling books, not providing amusement.
The business of the railroad is providing transportation, not amusement.
Anyone want to say that the business of the National Paarks, other than preservation itself, is to provide amusement?
Watching an athletic event can be termed amusement. What about actively participating in athletics? I'm interested in your (plural) concept of how far the word "amusement" can be stretched. Does it not only cover railfanning, in its various forms, but boat racing, car racing, all hobbies of all kinds?
Historically, amusement taxes were levied only against theatres, circuses, etc.
Lithonia OperatorWhere is the link? I can't find it. Can you supply it again?
Sorry, it was in one of the other threads. Here it is again:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-04-20-1995110156-story.html
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Does Trains have an online archive where subscibers can read articles from issues they received in print form?
Now seeing these developments, I would love to re-read the recent article about RBMN. I don't save magazines.
zugmannDid you not see my link to Maryland Midland's enterTRAINment operation?
Where is the link? I can't find it. Can you supply it again?
Personally, I think it's hard to say that a scenic train ride is not an amusement. It is one. But if it's the only amusement in town that makes no profit, while simultaneously generating business for the other amusements, then it ought to get a dispensation.
I do not agree with the guy in the news video that thinks that the word "amusement" is an issue. The issue here is not semantics. The issue here (and this is a first in the history of Western Civilization!) is money.
I wonder if Muller would be willing to let the town look at his books. If it is indeed true (realistically, none of us here know) that the passenger train makes no profit, then maybe the town would relent.
Assumedly, the other businesses paying the tax do make profits on their operations, unless some of then also have another, profit-making division to draw off of. But I can't think of what kind of businesses would fit that model, other than the railroad.
I am guessing the town is cutting off its nose to spite itself. But what do I know? Maybe the money brought into town that's directly attributable to the exisence of the passenger train is not that significant in the grand sceme of things. But I will say this: during our brief stay an Irish pub got about $25, and the city got a buck or two via a parking meter. Whereas the railroad got zip from us. And we went to JT for the sole purpose of seeing the train. Seeing, not riding.
Zug, I love 'ya man, I learn a lot from your inputs, and I saw the Maryland Midland link. But did you see what happened to the enterTRAINment operation when the locals tried to put the tax squeeze on it? It's gone! They killed it! AND the equipment was scattered to the four winds, never to return.
Here's the thing, Andy Mueller doesn't have to run passenger trains at all, to any location on or affilated with the Reading & Norther. He does so because 1) He's a railfan, and he enjoys running passenger trains and 2) I'd assume he does make money on them, but more than likely a fraction of what he makes running freight.
Only he knows for sure.
It wouldn't be the first time the R&N stopped running excursions. They had a pretty lively excursion business going back in the 90's until their growing freight business made it impractical and they had to give it up. Honestly I was pleasantly surprised to see it return.
I'm wondering if the town of Jim Thorpe is facing a budget shortfall and hitting the railroad for money is just a quick n' easy way to try to make up for it? Only the mayor and town council know that for sure as well.
I wonder what the citizens of Jim Thorpe have to say about this, especially the merchants?
daveklepperThere is no precedent of any railroad operating an excursion passenger service that was successfully taxed with an amusement tax.
Did you not see my link to Maryland Midland's enterTRAINment operation?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.