Instead of your snide, know-it-all comments, perhaps you would be wise to look and see what some actual economists have to say and then respond with substance, if you can. I did not bring up parks, etc. I merely noted that there are many other subsidies, etc. that you do not object to. It's often true when defenders cannot make the case for their cause, they engage in contemptuous dismissals of the questions others raise, obfuscating and dodging the question.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm "Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them on." Another myth that supports the notion if you say an untrue statement enough times, people will believe it to be true. 1. That would imply their product or service was under priced, so that they could raise prices to cover the tax obligation. The market does, in fact, have a sizable impact on pricing. So company X, which made a large profit owes $10 mil. in corporate income taxes. Company Y, a competitor, barely broke even and paid only $1000 in taxes. Do you maintain X can raise its prices enough to cover the tax, while Y doesn't raise theirs? 2. If corporate taxes are merely "passed on" that is largely to their shareholders. 3. If corporations don't pay income tax, why do they bother to spend hundreds of millions on lobbyists, etc. to try to get the rate cut, get loopholes, etc.?
"Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them on." Another myth that supports the notion if you say an untrue statement enough times, people will believe it to be true.
1. That would imply their product or service was under priced, so that they could raise prices to cover the tax obligation. The market does, in fact, have a sizable impact on pricing. So company X, which made a large profit owes $10 mil. in corporate income taxes. Company Y, a competitor, barely broke even and paid only $1000 in taxes. Do you maintain X can raise its prices enough to cover the tax, while Y doesn't raise theirs?
2. If corporate taxes are merely "passed on" that is largely to their shareholders.
3. If corporations don't pay income tax, why do they bother to spend hundreds of millions on lobbyists, etc. to try to get the rate cut, get loopholes, etc.?
Take a course or two in corporate taxation. Also, throw in a few basic economics courses; they usually cover the economic consequences of taxation. And don't overlook a course or two on accounting and understanding financial statements. Then you might have an understanding of corporate accounting, finance, and taxation.
Other than to respond to some of the ill informed notions regarding corporate taxes, subsidies, etc., these forums are not the proper place for an in-depth discussion of any of these subjects.
When the proponents cannot make the case for their cause, i.e. passenger rail for example, they divert the discussion to extraneous matters, national parks or the defense spend, thereby attempting to hide the core issue.
The key questions are how much money should the United States invest in passenger rail? What should it look like? And how will it be paid for?
schlimm And your feelings on the ~$4 Bil. tax breaks of various types that the oil companies receive annually? The sugar subsidy and restrictions on sugar imports? The list goes on and on, and these measures do little if anything to benefit the public, yet cost a bundle.
And your feelings on the ~$4 Bil. tax breaks of various types that the oil companies receive annually?
The sugar subsidy and restrictions on sugar imports?
The list goes on and on, and these measures do little if anything to benefit the public, yet cost a bundle.
Oil company tax credits, deductions, and one-offs have nothing to do with passenger rail subsidies.
Corporations don't pay taxes. Assuming the corporation has market pricing power, which is the case for the oil companies, inasmuch as people want their products and will pay practically anything for it, in part because they don't have a choice, the taxes are paid by the customers. To the extent that they cannot be passed through to the customer, they will be worn by capital and, in some instances, depending on the elasticity of the labor supply, they may be worn in part by labor.
Approximately 85 per cent of the so-called tax breaks enjoyed by big oil, if that is your definition of the oil companies, are the same as those that flow through to every company in the United States. There are a few tax preferences, mostly associated with high risk drilling activities, that are unique to the oil and gas industry. Take them away and the price of the product probably goes up. So the reverse is true. So called subsidies flow back to the customers, although the split in the flow back between the customers and capital is debatable. Whether the credits, deductions, etc. are wise tax policy is another issue.
In 2010 the 17 largest oil companies in the United States, all of which are listed in the S&P 500, had an average return on sales of 8.1 per cent. Four of the companies lost money. The average return on net assets was 3.5 per cent, and the average return on equity, which is a key indicator, was 6.5%. This places the oil companies as a whole well below the norms for the S&P 500 with respect to return on assets and returns on equity. Of course, this is seldom printed in the popular press.
The popular press usually focuses just on the two or three largest oil companies, where the returns are higher. And they don't even state the returns as a percentage of sales, assets, or equity. They simply give the profits as if that is a meaningful number. It is one of the worst forms of taking data out of context.
PNWRMNM Sam1, Not only accurate but elloquent. BRAVO! Remember Sen. Dirkson "A Billion here and a Billion there. After a while it adds up to real money." Mac
Sam1,
Not only accurate but elloquent. BRAVO!
Remember Sen. Dirkson "A Billion here and a Billion there. After a while it adds up to real money."
Mac
To say that I dislike subsidies would be an understatement. And to say that I believe the national debt is not a problem would be a bigger understatement. But as long as we subsidize transport in this country, then I favor government support of moderate speed passenger rail in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is prohibitive.
henry6 We love to compare our Amtrak to passenger services elsewhere around the world. When what is stated favors our arguement. Loading guage differences, ecnomic and accounting proceedures, and political philosophies are all different and often we are comparing apples to oranges. In order to bring down the per passenger subsidy on Amtrak to a level equal to your automobile or airline ticket, we have to have as many people riding Amtrak as we do driving cars and riding planes. ....I wonder, since cars are used for communiting as well as pleasure and business, if we took all subsidies for rail oriented transportation (Amtrak, commuter) and compared it to the figure given for highway per person subsidy, how would that compare....
We love to compare our Amtrak to passenger services elsewhere around the world. When what is stated favors our arguement. Loading guage differences, ecnomic and accounting proceedures, and political philosophies are all different and often we are comparing apples to oranges. In order to bring down the per passenger subsidy on Amtrak to a level equal to your automobile or airline ticket, we have to have as many people riding Amtrak as we do driving cars and riding planes.
....I wonder, since cars are used for communiting as well as pleasure and business, if we took all subsidies for rail oriented transportation (Amtrak, commuter) and compared it to the figure given for highway per person subsidy, how would that compare....
In FY10 the federal dollars transferred from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) were approximately $14.7 billion or 49 basis points per vehicle mile traveled (VMT). This is equivalent to approximately 1/2 of a penny per VMT. The transfer could be considered a subsidy if one does not work through the accounting, which shows that most motorists pay it indirectly to the extent that they pay federal taxes, as I have outlined in more than one post. The so-called subsidy for the airlines is similar, whilst the subsidy for Amtrak was in the neighborhood of 21 cents per passenger mile in FY10.
Likening the subsidies for passenger rail to those for national defense, NASA, public education, national parks, etc. is a stretch. Amtrak is a failed commercial enterprise that competes with other commercial enterprises that are expected to cover their costs or go out of business. National defense, public education, policing, etc. has nothing to do with commercial enterprises.
Everyone benefits from a strong national defense, education of our young, etc. Whether everyone benefits from Amtrak or passenger rail is arguable. Given that 88 per cent of Americans commute by car and less than 4/10s of one per cent ride Amtrak's long distance trains, placing national defense, education, and intercity passenger rail in the same bucket strikes me as over the top.
Discounting the subsidies by assigning them to the population as a whole, as opposed to the users, is bad accounting and bad economics. However, if one wants to go this route, she should be sure that she understands the denominator. For example, most people, including reporters, when they individualize the national deficit or debt, divide it by the total population, thereby showing a per capita debt of roughly $15,000 per person. This number includes all persons, including new borns. It is silly. Infants don't normally file a federal income tax return or make tax payments. And they don't pay for admittance to the national parks. If the calculation is made for adults, the number jumps to $45,700 per adult. But in 2010 49% of the adults who filed a federal income tax return paid no federal income taxes. Thus, the number for people with a federal income tax liability jumps to $180,621 per filer. Put it on a household basis and the number creeps over $400,000. Get the picture. To divide the per capita subsidy for Amtrak, National Parks, etc. across the whole population is an over simplification. It is the users who benefit from the subsidy.
The subsidies for Amtrak, the National Park Service, or whatever are in and of themselves a small portion of the federal budget. Not to worry about it is the refrain of the folks who support the subsidy. It is in the public interest, they tell us. But this is also part of the reason why the United States has a debt and deficit problem that could easily place us in the same league as Greece or Italy that have said for decades that their debt is sustainable. After all, it's just a little bit in the total picture. But the little bits add up. Just think Euro debt crisis.
No one wants to compromise on their goodies. Passenger rail enthusiasts insist that the country cannot do without passenger rail. National Park supporters insist that we must subsidize the parks. Farmers claim that agriculture supports are essential for the nation's well being. Home owners, along with the real estate industry, argue that without subsidies the housing market will collapse, overlooking in their argument that people will have a place to live. All these little subsidies for your favorite activity or mine add up. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the subsidies for Amtrak, National Parks, agricultural support, etc. (just a little bit of the whole) add up to nearly $600 billion per year. Taking that out of the national deficit would not solve the problem, but it would make a heck of a dent in it.
"The subsidy in Germany is about $8B a year, but that is mostly for Regio and S-Bahn. The IC and ICE trains generate cash - apparently even after paying DB Netz..."
What is the source of this information?
For FY10 the notes to the DG's Consolidated Financial Statements (CFS) show the income results for the following segments: Long Distance, Regional,Urban, Arriva, DB Schenker, Logistics, Track, Stations, DB Services and Subsidiaries.
Long Distance (IC and ICS?) showed a profit of 160 million Euros before interest and taxes. The operating profit after adjustments was 117 million Euros. Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, and Depreciation was 481 million Euros, which means that somewhere along the line long distance operations received a substantial credit. The nature of the credit is not shown.
Included in the revenues for the long distance trains is 177 million Euros of internal revenues. The notes to the financial statements don't make clear what makes up these internal revenues. If they are backed out of the operating results for the long distance services, they would have shown an operating loss of 17 million Euros.
Several years ago, for one of our discussions, I looked up the results for the TGV. Included in the operating results for the TGV were station restaurant operations. The restaurants appeared to have healthy returns. Including these returns in the operating results for the TGV may be an acceptable accounting practice in France, but it would not be acceptable in the United States. Once should be cautious when assessing and comparing the financial statements of European countries with the United States. The Europeans have different accounting standards that we have in the United States.
DB had consolidated depreciation charges and impairment loses of 2.9 billion Euros. Net interest charges were 826 million Euros, bringing the total for these three items to 3.7 billion Euros. The allocation of these items is not shown. Presumably some of it is worn by the long distance operations. That being the case, even if one discounts the internal revenues, which are not shown as transfers, the amount of depreciation, impairment loses, interest, and income taxes would probably have wiped out the EBITD results for the long distance operations.
The Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, arguably the most important financial statement in the deck, does not show any transfers from a government source.
Without having access to the complete financials for the long distance trains, including the property ledgers, as well as the allocation of fixed charge formulas, it would be impossible for someone just reading the financial statements to know whether the long distance trains actually made money in an accounting sense.
Intercity rail travel market share is 7% in Europe. Your argument is that there is economy of scale. I've looked for this on Amtrak - comparing routes where train frequency has increased (IL, Harrisburg) in the past several years. It just ain' there. Amtrak pretty much scales linearly.
In fact, in the recent blurb about Amtrak mgt buyouts, they mentioned 250 mgt postions that were created in the past few years. Say what?
The subsidy in Germany is about $8B a year, but that is mostly for Regio and S-Bahn. The IC and ICE trains generate cash - apparently even after paying DB Netz...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 I don't fly. I don't use waterways. I don't use highways in 99.9%+ in this country. I don't have any need to go to the moon or mars. I don't fight wars nor do I think we should be involved in most of those of recent times. I don't fish. I don't hunt. I don't visit National Parks. So the question is, why should I pay taxes to support any of those services and activities? Same as those who ask why pay for Amtrak when they don't think they'll ever use it or otherwise claim they have no use for it. Shouldn't we stop thinking in terms of what is at the end of our fingers within the sight of our eyes as being all that is needed to make the entire country habitable and even economical? Cut off the funding for anything I mentioned and you will create all kinds of economic and logistical problems all across the country and not just at your address.
I don't fly. I don't use waterways. I don't use highways in 99.9%+ in this country. I don't have any need to go to the moon or mars. I don't fight wars nor do I think we should be involved in most of those of recent times. I don't fish. I don't hunt. I don't visit National Parks. So the question is, why should I pay taxes to support any of those services and activities? Same as those who ask why pay for Amtrak when they don't think they'll ever use it or otherwise claim they have no use for it. Shouldn't we stop thinking in terms of what is at the end of our fingers within the sight of our eyes as being all that is needed to make the entire country habitable and even economical? Cut off the funding for anything I mentioned and you will create all kinds of economic and logistical problems all across the country and not just at your address.
I'm not suggesting cutting off funding. I'm talking about bring the subsidy more in line with other modes and countries. I want an Amtrak that is focused on and rewarded for how small they can get the subsidy.
Here's yet another example: Amtrak has AEM7 locomotives that are 30 years old. They want to scrap them. The same locomotive - ASEA Rc4s are running around in Sweden with an average age >30 years old. They see no need to replace them. What gives?
So, where's my Trans-Atlantic ocean liner service? I don't like flying over oceans.
oltmannd daveklepper: It can be defended because the average American, according to poles, says "I may never use a long distance passenger train but I want them to be around in case I wish or need to use one." The total subsidies work out to about $1.25 a year for every American. A vast majority of Americans don't use the national parks. And I can go on. The National park attendance was 275M in 2008. Their budget is $3B. Amtrak's subsidy is an order of magnitude worse than this.
daveklepper: It can be defended because the average American, according to poles, says "I may never use a long distance passenger train but I want them to be around in case I wish or need to use one." The total subsidies work out to about $1.25 a year for every American. A vast majority of Americans don't use the national parks. And I can go on.
It can be defended because the average American, according to poles, says "I may never use a long distance passenger train but I want them to be around in case I wish or need to use one." The total subsidies work out to about $1.25 a year for every American. A vast majority of Americans don't use the national parks. And I can go on.
The National park attendance was 275M in 2008. Their budget is $3B. Amtrak's subsidy is an order of magnitude worse than this.
If you stick to Dave's measuring of a national service available to all (as opposed to a user-fee operation) by the US population, rather than # of users, the subsidy for the National Park Service is $10.00 for every American vs. $4.63 per American for Amtrak.
As henry says, there are many services in this country that we historically pay for a nation, even if we seldom or never directly use them.
daveklepper It can be defended because the average American, according to poles, says "I may never use a long distance passenger train but I want them to be around in case I wish or need to use one." The total subsidies work out to about $1.25 a year for every American. A vast majority of Americans don't use the national parks. And I can go on.
Sunnyland But the government gives subsidies to the airlines and also for the highways, so why should they complain about Amtrak, which is doing so well now at last. Some people just don't like trains is my conclusion. Boo to them.
But the government gives subsidies to the airlines and also for the highways, so why should they complain about Amtrak, which is doing so well now at last.
Some people just don't like trains is my conclusion. Boo to them.
If the subsidies per passenger mile were similar, you would have a point. But, the Amtrak subsidy is so much more it is really hard to defend.
Sam1 Avoided costs, i.e. avoidance of highway construction, etc. is a tricky exercise. It requires a variety of statistical and financial estimates. Get one of them seriously wrong and the estimation model can come unraveled. The CBO does it all the time. If I had a $1,000 for every electricity utility avoided cost model that did not pan out, I would have a tidy sum.
Avoided costs, i.e. avoidance of highway construction, etc. is a tricky exercise. It requires a variety of statistical and financial estimates. Get one of them seriously wrong and the estimation model can come unraveled. The CBO does it all the time. If I had a $1,000 for every electricity utility avoided cost model that did not pan out, I would have a tidy sum.
Tricky does not make is less real... It just makes the range of outcome broader.
From what I understand, in the Northeast Corridor, the only substantial real-estate Amtrak owns, inlcuding the station, Amtrak does pay contributions for support of police, fire, and other services in leu of taxes to the communities it serves in that corridor.
But limited access interstate highways do not.
nice to know that airports and airlines have given up their property tax exemption! now if we could just get all LIMITED ACCESS highways to do the same, the government subsidy to transportation would be reduced.
oltmannd Sam1: I don't know the fuel tax for the freight railroads. There is no federal fuel tax on off-road diesel, but states have varying approaches.
Sam1: I don't know the fuel tax for the freight railroads.
There is no federal fuel tax on off-road diesel, but states have varying approaches.
You are correct. The railroads do not pay fuel taxes on the diesel that is burned in their locomotives. Nor would they pay federal fuel taxes for other vehicles that are used exclusively off-road. However, I believe that they pay federal fuel taxes for on-road vehicles.
The country's freight railroads have a hefty federal and state income tax bill. Most of the income taxes flow to the federal government; however, a portion goes to state governments. In 2010 the combined federal tax bill for the freight railroads was approximately $4.5 billion. The bill for the NS was $871 million. In part this is how the railroads pay back any loans and grants that they receive from the federal and state governments. Whether the taxes paid by the railroads are sufficient to cover federal and state aided construction projects depends on current and future earnings.
MidlandMike Sasm1, since it seems all of the legacy airlines have filed for some form of bankruptcy protection at some time, were some of the runway construction loans, fees, etc., not paid back? Also you mention some of the freight railroads were given gov't help in recent construction projects. They pay fuel taxes to some states, and I now believe to the feds also. Can't they expect this sort of help in return?
Sasm1, since it seems all of the legacy airlines have filed for some form of bankruptcy protection at some time, were some of the runway construction loans, fees, etc., not paid back?
Also you mention some of the freight railroads were given gov't help in recent construction projects. They pay fuel taxes to some states, and I now believe to the feds also. Can't they expect this sort of help in return?
The return the Feds and states gov'ts get when they toss in some money for RR projects is generally in the form of avoided highway construction and economic development.
VA's investment in the Heartland Corridor was done to keep Norfolk in play as a major container port.
VA's and PA's interest in the Crescent Corridor is to avoid having to make a multi-billion dollar investement in more lanes for I-81.
Sam1, thanks for your reply. The point that I was trying to make with fuel taxes is that, whereas highway vehicle taxes go toward transportation, railroad fuel taxes may go for other things.
http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2008/12/NS%20loses%20fuel%20tax%20dispute%20in%20court.aspx
Sam1 I don't know the fuel tax for the freight railroads.
The airport authorities (owners) are responsible for covering the cost of the airports, including operating and capital costs. They collect fees from a variety of users, i.e. gate fees, landing fees (airlines, general aviation and military), parking lot fees, vendor rentals, FBO rentals, etc. When an airline goes belly up, thereby reducing operations, the airport authority may see an erosion of revenue, i.e. lower gate fees, landing fees, parking fees, etc. In light American's filing for Chapter 11 protection, the rating agencies are looking at the bonds issued by the airports heavily impact by American, e.g. DFW, Miami, O'Hara, etc.
Whether the airports have to recapture the loans and grants from the FAA and ARRA depends on their conditions. If they were loans, they have to be capitalized and recaptured. On the other hand, if they were grants, they may not have to be recaptured. The same applies to the railroads that have received ARRA funds for clearance projects and to replace high pollution locomotives with cleaner locomotives.
The airlines and railroads pay federal fuel taxes. They also pay state fuel taxes. So too to truckers, bus operators and personal vehicle operators. The taxes are part of the repayment mechanism deployed by the governments to recapture the aforementioned loans and grants. Whether the carriers pay sufficient fuel taxes to pay back the loans and grants is unknown by me.
The airlines pay a very low fuel tax (like several cents on the gallon) but it adds up to a lot of money because they burn heaps of it. I don't know the fuel tax for the freight railroads. Intercity bus operators and truckers pay 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel. In addition, they have to pay the state tax on fuel for every state that they drive through, even is they don't buy fuel in that state. For example, a trucker running from Charleston, SC to Jacksonville, FL, believe it or not, has to pay a fuel tax in Georgia even if he does not buy fuel in Georgia.
daveklepper Sam1: From what I understand, the Highway Trust Fund has not been able to pay for all the maintenance and repair on Federal funded Interstate Highways and general funds have been raided to pay for highway upkeep. Ditto airline fuel taxes and the FAA. In addition to supporting the control system, the FAA has funded subsidies to small airports based on the amount of traffic they handle. Also none of this government realestate pays any real-estate taxes. So, yes indeed, highway and air public and private transportation are subsidized, not just passenger rail.
Sam1: From what I understand, the Highway Trust Fund has not been able to pay for all the maintenance and repair on Federal funded Interstate Highways and general funds have been raided to pay for highway upkeep. Ditto airline fuel taxes and the FAA. In addition to supporting the control system, the FAA has funded subsidies to small airports based on the amount of traffic they handle. Also none of this government realestate pays any real-estate taxes. So, yes indeed, highway and air public and private transportation are subsidized, not just passenger rail.
In FY10 the federal subsidies per passenger mile, which is the best way to compare the extent of the federal subsidization, was 21.13 cents for Amtrak vs. roughly one cent for the airlines and one cent for vehicle miles traveled for highway users.
In FY10 $14.7 billion was transferred to the HTF from the general fund because the Congress has refused to raise the gasoline and diesel taxes, which are user fees, since 1993. As late as 2005 the HTF had a surplus of nearly $10 billion, but it has been eliminated because of Congressional inaction. In FY10 there were approximately 210 million licensed drivers in the United States. They drove approximately three trillion miles. Assuming the highway subsidy was parceled out evenly, it was 49 basis points per vehicle mile traveled. However, there is another way to look at it.
Of the 18.4 cents collected by the feds on a gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents on a gallon of diesel, two cents went to the Mass Transit Administration and approximately four cents went to deficit reduction. If these two transfers were directed back to the HTF, the amount of the transfer from the general fund to the HTF in FY10 would have been much smaller.
Historically, ticket taxes, fuel taxes, and other fees have covered approximately 80 per cent of the FAA's operating budget. However, in FY10 the ratio dropped to 69% for a variety of reasons. Ticket fees cover approximately 25 per cent of the cost of the TSA's airport screening operations; the balance is made up by transfers from the general fund. The most egregious subsidy is the Essential Air Service Program, which heavily subsidies air service to a relatively small number of rural communities, e.g. Altoona, Johnston, State College, etc.
Approximately 35% of the FAA's operations involve controlling commercial airline flights. The bulk of its activities are devoted to general aviation and military operations in civilian air space. Thus, for calculation purposes, I assigned 35% of the transfer monies from the general fund to FAA operations to airline passengers. All of the Essential Air Service Program subsidy is assignable to the commercial airlines. Approximately 25 per cent of the TSA's screening budget is covered by ticket taxes, which means 75% is allocated as an airline subsidy. The operating subsidies, as opposed to capital infusions, totaled approximately $6.7 billion in FY10. In FY 10 there were approximately 625 million domestic commercial airline passengers in the U.S. If one assumes that all the subsidies were prorated evenly amongst these passengers, which ignores more than 100 million overseas passengers, the subsidy is less than penny per passenger mile.
In FY10 Amtrak received approximately $1.3 billion in ARRA funds. This was on top of the nearly $400 million received for capital improvements as a part of its regular appropriation. These monies have been used for a variety of capital projects, and the amounts have been capitalized. They are not part of the operating subsidies. Eventually they will flow through the income statement as depreciation and be captured as an operating subsidy to the extent that they are not covered by Amtrak's fares.
The FAA airport improvements program supports construction projects at airports throughout the country. There are more than 13,000 of them in the United States. Approximately 500 of them have commercial airline service. Some of these, e.g. O'Hara, Miami, received capital monies in FY10 either through the FAA or ARRA. Again, these monies are capitalized, depending on the project supported, and will eventually flow through the income statement. Unlike Amtrak these monies are likely to be covered by user fees.
Monies going to rural airports are not a support of or a subsidy for the nation's commercial airlines. Most of the people who use these airports own or use general aviation airplanes (business aircraft). Most of them are not potential passengers for Amtrak, high speed rail, or commercial aviation.
You keep raising the point that highways and airports don't pay real estate taxes whilst conveniently overlooking the fact that Amtrak pays no taxes whatsoever. It does not pay taxes on any of the stations that its owns. Nor are taxes paid on any of the other stations since most if not all of them are owned by the cities in which they are located. It does not even pay fuel taxes. And it surely does not pay income taxes, since it has lost more than $27 billion since its inception. Neither does any other passenger rail operator in the United States. There is a good reason for this. They are all run by a government agency. Also conveniently overlooked is the fact that most of the nations's airlines, intercity bus operators, e.g. Bolt, Megabus, Greyhound, etc.; trucking companies, barge operators, pipelines, etc. pay federal, state, and in some instances local income taxes, inventory taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc.
You also overlook the fact that the freight railroads that hoist Amtrak's trains, as well as some commuter operations, were built with government subsidies, although they arguably paid back the subsidies. Most studies show that they have. Yet, even today, they get government largess. For example, the Norfolk and Southern has received substantial state and federal monies to increase the clearances in some of its tunnels so that it can run stack trains directly from the east coast (Norfolk area I believe) to the Chicago area without having to go through Harrisburg.
Also, just this week there was an article in the Dallas Morning News regarding a locomotive replacement program in Texas. Texas is paying a substantial part of the cost of replacing dirty locomotives in Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston with cleaner locomotives. And the railroads, because of a loophole in the enabling legislation, have been able to transfer the locomotives to other areas of the country that does not support replacing them. Nice deal if you can get it.
Tracing the so-called subsidies for each mode of transport in the United States is a challenge. This just begins to scratch the surface. Depending on your definition of subsidy, it is fair to say that each mode of transport in the U.S. gets some money that is not derived from user fees. Call it a subsidy. The key point of my argument, however, is that passenger rail gets a much higher subsidy per passenger mile than any mode of commercial and personal transport, excluding certain NASA and military operations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.