Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
High Speed Trains Killing Airplanes in Europe

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Cogloadreturns According to the Organization Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which includes many of the most highly developed countries in Europe, the tax burden as a per cent of national income in 2006 ranged from 18.5 to 50.7 per cent.  This is the latest year for complete statistics.Mexico had the lowest burden; Sweden had the highest.  The United States was third from the bottom at 25.4 per cent.  The burden for the UK was 36.1 per cent.  Other examples included Hungary at 37.7 per cent, the Netherlands at 38.3 per cent, France at 43.7 per cent and Norway at 44.3 per cent.  Of course, it is possible that some of the European countries, especially those in Eastern Europe, had a lower burden than the U.S., but everything that I have read says  the U.S. has one of the lowest tax burdens amongst the world's advanced economies,   although trying to convince most Americans of that would not be easy.Comparisons are difficult.  Cross cultural comparisons are even more so.  In America there are many taxing jurisdictions (federal, state, county, city, school district, etc.).  It is difficult to determine who pays the taxes in the U.S. and how much they pay.  Nevertheless, the data consistently shows the taxpayers in the U.S. shoulder a lighter load than in most other developed countries.  Whether the U.S. should spend more money on social programs or quality of life initiatives is a political problem that is outside the scope of this forum.  Whether it should spend more money on passenger rail is ripe for discussion.You're quite right about the long distance trains.  If they were not propped up by the federal government via Amtrak, they would go out of business in a heartbeat.  And the money that is wasted on them could be redirected to passenger rail that meets a legitimate societal need, i.e. high density corridors, commuter rail (prevent CBD gridlock), etc., or it could be spent on other transport modes.  If all transport subsidies were eliminated, which is politically unrealistic, and competition was introduced into the market place, those modes with a natural market place advantage would rise to the top.  Freight would still move, people would still travel, etc.  Some people would win; some would lose.  But most of the waste found in the current scheme would drop by the wayside.  Competition has a marvelous way of doing that. It forces organizations to perform efficiently, or they go out of business.  Witness the birth and death of numerous airlines, bus operators, and trucking firms in the U.S.  Witness the changes in freight railroads in the U.S.  Only passenger rail runs to the government (federal, state, and local) to be propped up.Privatization is not a panacea.  And in some areas, like Western Australia, the population is not large enough to give it a shot.  Moreover, as is true with everything, it needs to be tweaked.  But when I was in Melbourne last year, visiting with friends, many of whom are in the electricity business; most agreed that privatization has led to many improvements, especially compared to how things were before it took hold.  Public transit in Victoria is still being run by private operators.  I would be keen to learn what is mean by reigning in.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag