This is response to the posting on the "New Approach" thread, which has been locked.
The post indicated that truckers pay a fuel tax and railroads don't. The location of this statement within the post indicated that perhaps the post intended to indicate that this was a hidden subsidy for railroads.
It certainly is NOT!!!
The fuel tax payed by the truckers is estimated to pay for 1/3-1/2 the maintenance costs of the highways that the trucks use as required by the truck traffic without the wear of other traffic.
Railroads don't pay fuel taxes because they maintain their own right of way out their own earnings.
Railroads and trucks did pay a "deficit reduction" fuel tax under Geo. Bush (ver 1.0). - 4.3 cents per gallon. The truck portion was redirected to the highway trust fund later, while the railroad tax continued on. It was repealed in the mid-1990s, I think.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
daveklepper This is response to the posting on the "New Approach" thread, which has been locked. The post indicated that truckers pay a fuel tax and railroads don't. The location of this statement within the post indicated that perhaps the post intended to indicate that this was a hidden subsidy for railroads. It certainly is NOT!!! The fuel tax payed by the truckers is estimated to pay for 1/3-1/2 the maintenance costs of the highways that the trucks use as required by the truck traffic without the wear of other traffic. Railroads don't pay fuel taxes because they maintain their own right of way out their own earnings.
It strikes me that this topic belongs under general discussion. The fact that railroads don't pay fuel taxes whereas truckers do has nothing to do with Amtrak, commuter rail, or any form of passenger rail in the United States.
Under the Amtrak enabling legislation, the freight carriers that hoist Amtrak's trains may not pass along any taxes in the form of rentals to Amtrak.
Amtrak pays no taxes as per the legislation that set it up.
Dave,
You are absolutely correct in pointing out that freight railroads do pay all costs of maintaining their own tracks. That is why freight railroads are careful not to over maintain their tracks. If they have a track that very few trains run on at a speed of 30 miles an hour they will maintain them to that level.
Amtrak pays freight railroads the incremental cost incurred by the railroad because of Amtrak's trains. That means that if the freight railroad needs a 30 mph track and Amtrak needs it to sustain speeds of 60 mph Amtrak will pay the cost of the track upgrade beyond the point where the freight railroad needs it.
In actual practice the incremental cost is negotiated between Amtrak and the freight railroad. If they cannot come to an agreement the Surface Transportation Board comes into the picture.
It is easy to see that after an amount is agreed upon circumstances may change for either the freight railroad or Amtrak and that could be good or bad for either side. The process also depends on the integrity of negotiators on both sides of the table.
Finally, Amtrack's incremental cost is about 3.3 per cent of its total budget so this is not a large factor in actual costs to operate.
For the most part you are right, John WR. But often freight railroads get subsidies and other help from local governments and agencies, especially when there are changes of alignment, opening or lowering track, grade crossings, new bridges over or under the railroad's right of way. No, they don't normally over maintain track for conditions and needs beyond their own but will accept such improvements if so paid for by the likes of Amtrak or others. Bruce Sterzing, when President of the D&H, commented once that Amtrak improved his ability to run freight trains from something like 35 or 40 to over 50 mph and he accepted that. His railroad could not afford the improvements of maintaining up to meet the level of service they wanted to or could supply.
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.
Just think, a thread got locked that I didn't even comment on .
Invariably the subject of subsidies comes up, someone advocating a cold-turkey approach to weaning Amtrak from subsidy, perhaps more of a free-market or privatized and contracted government service approach, and that view is slammed because of the many important functions performed by the government or as the result of government funding and why-are-you-picking-on Amtrak. Sometimes, this is expressed by saying that the Federal government wastes much more money in some area than it spends on Amtrak.
I invariably weight in with I consider "The Subsidy (rate) Problem." It is not that Amtrak is subsidized, but that it is subsidized at a high rate in relation to the other modes of transportation. Or some portions of Amtrak have that condition, but it is hard to know from Amtrak's accounting practices some say.
And when I contribute that point of view, including some figures, as of late I have been branded as "Anti-train" and that I need to wear the shameful Scarlet Letter ("A" for anti). Or more commonly, I am accused of being a "bean counter", knowing the "cost of everything and the value of nothing."
In other words, the answer to the High Rate of Subsidy Problem is that passenger trains have a deep, intrinsic, but unquantifiable value that discussions of costs and subsidy rates are not taking into account. OK.
But I still hold the view that the cause of Amtrak, of expanding Amtrak by giving it more subsidy money, could be advanced if the advocacy community would concentrate more on "bang for the buck", that is how could that subsidy dollar serve the most people and start a snowball effect of more people liking trains and wanting money for trains. This is in contrast with a 'fairness" approach, of "I live in rural Illinois far from O'Hare airport and Amtrak will take me to Denver for $75 and it is unfair if I lose that."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
John WR Finally, Amtrack's incremental cost is about 3.3 per cent of its total budget so this is not a large factor in actual costs to operate.
Are you reasoning that Amtrak has a low cost of providing incremental increase in service? 3.3 percent of total budget to do what? Please elaborate, this is intriguing.
Amtrak pays freight railroads the incremental cost incurred by the railroad because of Amtrak's trains. "That means that if the freight railroad needs a 30 mph track and Amtrak needs it to sustain speeds of 60 mph Amtrak will pay the cost of the track upgrade beyond the point where the freight railroad needs it. In actual practice the incremental cost is negotiated between Amtrak and the freight railroad. If they cannot come to an agreement the Surface Transportation Board comes into the picture. It is easy to see that after an amount is agreed upon circumstances may change for either the freight railroad or Amtrak and that could be good or bad for either side. The process also depends on the integrity of negotiators on both sides of the table.
Finally, Amtrack's incremental cost is about 3.3 per cent of its total budget so this is not a large factor in actual costs to operate. "
The reference was apparently to track upgrades for Amtrak beyond what the host railroad's needs are.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Amtrak pays freight railroads the incremental cost incurred by the railroad because of Amtrak's trains. "That means that if the freight railroad needs a 30 mph track and Amtrak needs it to sustain speeds of 60 mph Amtrak will pay the cost of the track upgrade beyond the point where the freight railroad needs it. In actual practice the incremental cost is negotiated between Amtrak and the freight railroad. If they cannot come to an agreement the Surface Transportation Board comes into the picture. It is easy to see that after an amount is agreed upon circumstances may change for either the freight railroad or Amtrak and that could be good or bad for either side. The process also depends on the integrity of negotiators on both sides of the table. Finally, Amtrack's incremental cost is about 3.3 per cent of its total budget so this is not a large factor in actual costs to operate. " The reference was apparently to track upgrades for Amtrak beyond what the host railroad's needs are.
So what we are talking about is that Amtrak paying extra to the freight railroads to "run at passenger trains speeds" is a small, 3.3% part of their budget? I presume this leaves out the entire (OK, most of) the NEC where the entire expense is operating that Amtrak-owned and operated rail line to support 125-150 MPH speed?
But this leaves out the payments Amtrak makes for "trackage rights" to run passenger trains over the host railroad lines? Last I saw, that was not a very large portion of the Amtrak budget either, but people could correct me. Also, the arrangement where the railroads let Amtrak use their rails "at cost, according to an accounting formula" may be another form of subsidy to Amtrak -- that Amtrak uses those rail lines below some measure of "economic cost" is in effect the price the legacy freight railroads pay to be out of the passenger business.
So is it fair to say that most of Amtrak's expenses are incurred "above the wheel-rail contact patch"? Some people tell me that Amtrak incurs considerable expense operating stations?
Paul Milenkovic But I still hold the view that the cause of Amtrak, of expanding Amtrak by giving it more subsidy money, could be advanced if the advocacy community would concentrate more on "bang for the buck", that is how could that subsidy dollar serve the most people and start a snowball effect of more people liking trains and wanting money for trains. This is in contrast with a 'fairness" approach, of "I live in rural Illinois far from O'Hare airport and Amtrak will take me to Denver for $75 and it is unfair if I lose that."
Paul --- IMHO you have hit the nail on the head. The hardest part will be how to tell where you can serve the most people. i checked some of the day before Thanksgiving routes and already some business class trains are sold out. Note -- CHI - STL FOR ONE. At present the lack of cars ( additional seats ) in all classes does not enable a properly initiated marketing blitz to sell routes to potential riders. More seats on an existing train reduces operating losses without initiating a new train.
It appears that enough seats are not going to be available for several years ?
If I pay a tax and you don't, irrespective of what you call it, you have a tax advantage. If you pay property taxes and I don't, irrespective of what you call it, I have a tax advantage. However, they don't cancel each other. The net effect depends on the tax shield of the companies, which differ for each company.
Whether the total taxes paid by truckers compensates for the wear and tear that they do to the roadways is another issue.
In 2011, the Norfolk Southern had an effective income tax rate of 34.34 per cent. JB Hunt Transportation had an effective income tax rate of 38.22 per cent. JB Hunt pays fuel taxes, property taxes, inventory taxes, etc. Norfolk Southern pays property taxes, inventory taxes, etc. This is a small sample, to say the least, but it shows that what may be crystal clear with respect to taxes quickly becomes opaque when one drills into the numbers.
Where did the "3.3 per cent of its total budget" come from? Budgets are not meaningful for public reporting purposes. At best they are internal management planning documents. At worst they are gaming exercises designed to pull the wool over the eyes of key stakeholders.
Amtrak makes payments to states, localities, and other transportation companies (hoist railroads) for facilities improvements. As a general rule, if the payments extend the life of the facilities, i.e. upgrading a rail line from 40 mph to 79 mph, they would be capitalized and amortized over the expected life of the improvements. If the railroad capitalized the improvement, it would have to adjust its annual bill to Amtrak to reflect the increased depreciation charges.
In FY11 Amtrak paid the hoist railroads $123.4 million dollars or 3.12 per cent of its total operating spend to hoist its trains. This is the normal, annual rental paid by Amtrak to the hoist railroads. It does not have anything to do with capital improvements.
Sam1 In FY11 Amtrak paid the hoist railroads $123.4 million dollars or 3.12 per cent of its total operating spend to hoist its trains. This is the normal, annual rental paid by Amtrak to the hoist railroads. It does not have anything to do with capital improvements.
So let me see if I have this correct. Amtrak pays 3.12 percent of its total operating expense on "trackage rights to the freight railroads outside of the Northeast Corridor"? And these payments are towards whatever expenses the host railroads incur, which may mean maintaining rail lines to higher speed standards than if Amtrak were not there?
But often Amtrak pays for the improvement or their payment, in part, pays for mainaining the improvement with the eye to the idea that the railroad's freight operations are gaining a benefit from that improvement. Each contract with each railroad is different.
henry6 But often Amtrak pays for the improvement or their payment, in part, pays for mainaining the improvement with the eye to the idea that the railroad's freight operations are gaining a benefit from that improvement. Each contract with each railroad is different.
Without detailed cost information it is impossible to conclude whether the hoist railroad is benefiting from any improvements financed in part by Amtrak. It depends on how much it put into the upgrade and how much Amtrak put into it.
To say that Amtrak contributes to the improvement of a freight railroad facilities is a stretch. Amtrak does not have any money to invest in any capital project. It gets it capital investment funds from the taxpayers.
More than 20 years ago, if I remember correctly, Amtrak partnered with the MKT to improve the Temple to Taylor line for the Texas Eagle, which may have been the Inter American at the time. Amtrak is the primary beneficiary.
Freight operators that use the NEC benefit from the investments Amtrak made to improve it. If Amtrak is pricing its rentals correctly, which is questionable, it should be recovering the proportional investment used by the freight operators.
Come on Sam, you know well that Amtrak pays for track and signal improvements in order to gain and maintain a route a route. I gave the example of how Amtrak paid for D&H improvements to Montreal for I think 55 mph passenger speeds and the railroad got 45-50 mph freight speeds instead of 35mph. And part of the railroad agreements is to maintain track for passenger speeds which are usually 10mph higher than freight speeds. Amtrak pays for that level of track either outright or through lease agreement. Some of these agreements go back to the beginning of Amtrak and the participating host railroads just as use of the Corridor agreements are based on Conrail's ownership and use before it was turned over to Amtrak. Yes, too much of Amtrak is stuck in tradition and "the way we've always done it" mentality. And that has to change. And it is often insinuated, even verified, that freight haulers believe Amtrak gets in their way and gives Amtrak sidings and red boards instead of keeping them going. Even Amtrak's allowing freight on their passenger railroad is different than when Conrail or PC or PRR owned the Corridor. Today's oversight agencies don't want freight an passenger services on the same track...some railroads don't want the two on the same right of way. We've got to get out of our own way before Amtrak passenger trains and private freight railroad trains can make weigh.
henry6 Come on Sam, you know well that Amtrak pays for track and signal improvements in order to gain and maintain a route a route. I gave the example of how Amtrak paid for D&H improvements to Montreal for I think 55 mph passenger speeds and the railroad got 45-50 mph freight speeds instead of 35mph. And part of the railroad agreements is to maintain track for passenger speeds which are usually 10mph higher than freight speeds. Amtrak pays for that level of track either outright or through lease agreement. Some of these agreements go back to the beginning of Amtrak and the participating host railroads just as use of the Corridor agreements are based on Conrail's ownership and use before it was turned over to Amtrak. Yes, too much of Amtrak is stuck in tradition and "the way we've always done it" mentality. And that has to change. And it is often insinuated, even verified, that freight haulers believe Amtrak gets in their way and gives Amtrak sidings and red boards instead of keeping them going. Even Amtrak's allowing freight on their passenger railroad is different than when Conrail or PC or PRR owned the Corridor. Today's oversight agencies don't want freight an passenger services on the same track...some railroads don't want the two on the same right of way. We've got to get out of our own way before Amtrak passenger trains and private freight railroad trains can make weigh.
Your response contains generalities without any verifiable facts. How much did Amtrak (taxpayers) contribute to upgrade the D&H? How much did the D&H contribute?. What adjustments in the rentals were made to reflect the benefits accruing to the freight railroad if any?
Without knowledge of the railroad's property accounting railroads, as well as Amtrak's, it is impossible to know how much the freight railroad contributed to the improvements for Amtrak, the amount the taxpayers contributed on behalf of Amtrak, and the extent to which the parties benefit.
Based on Amtrak's annual rental payments to the freight railroads, which were $123.4 million in FY11, the argument that Amtrak is not footing the real cost of hoisting its trains appears to have some traction. Net net I suspect the freight railroads are not being compensated adequately to hoist Amtrak's trains, although I don't know for sure because I don't access to their accounting records. And there is not sufficient information in the public reports (SEC) to answer the question.
You don't know whether the freight carrier capitalized the improvements and, therefore, you don't know how the cost flows through the accounting records. This information, which would be reflected in the rentals, is critical in determining the economic value of the improvements to all parties. The information could be obtained by filing a FOI request, which would cost $38 an hour, plus materials. Go for it!
Also, as I pointed out, Amtrak does not have any money to contribute to any capital improvements. The improvements were paid for by the taxpayers.
Where to you think Amtrak or any other operator will get the money to pay for "freight train free" rights-of-way? U.S. government debt (federal, state, and local) is more than $19 trillion. Add in another $46 trillion (the low estimate) for unfunded liabilities, and the United States is facing potential debts obligations of $66 trillion.
One thing is pretty clear. The capital markets are not likely to pony up the funds to build "freight free" railroads.
I am sorry Sam, but my statements are not generalitise...the D&H did get NYS and AMtrak to pay for the improvements to the Montreal line and got better freight train performance out of it. Any discussions of new Amtrak contracts contain language and concern for improvments an maintainence of the improvments to track and signal; the costs being part of the lease agreement and/or split between it and an upfront sum of some kind. And if, as you put it, the taxpayers bore the cost, it is attributed to Amtrak on the Federal level. And of course, as for the future, my point of view is that there has to be a reorganization of thoughts, procedures, and practices of operating our entire transportation systems as one operation or entit, integrated in applied uses instead of what is is and can't be changed.
How much money did D&H get from New York State? How much did the federal taxpayers contribute on behalf of Amtrak? What impact did these payments have on Amtrak's rental payments to the D&H as well as its subsequent assigns? How much better freight train performance did the D&H get, and what was the economic benefit? Did the improvements generate more freight traffic, more freight revenue, more customer satisfaction?
These are the questions that would have to be determined to know whether the freight carrier realized a net benefit over time.
I don't have the exact citations available...but I am not lying or making anything up...I hope my integrity on these issues and historical knowledge will carry me here Suffice it to say that the D&H story was part of a dinner conversation between Mr. Sterzing and a close friend of mine with my friend on Mr. Sterzing's left and me on his right during a banquet celebrating the railroad's 150th Anniversary.
..
You make a good point, Henry, that even freight railroads get subsidies. No doubt this is true. In fact I know it is true because I did a little surfing around and found examples.
Traditionally freight railroads have been cited as the classic example of a business which not only pays its own way but also pays for certain public needs. As time goes on it seems to me that we evolve into a more complex society and one aspect is that government and the private sector become increasingly entangled with one another. Some individuals seek political advantage in this by throwing out red meat to the public labeled "subsidy." The suggestion is that you and I and others are being taxed for things that we neither need not want in order to enrich others who are able to manipulate government. But the truth is a lot nearer to the idea that this entanglement is driven by a society which is becoming more productive and enriches all of us and that as individuals we would be ultimately worse off in that our standard of living will decline if we decide to go backward. If we look at Europe we see countries with much greater social expenditures than the US which also maintain higher standards of living for their citizens. One home made example I like is lettuce. I am told and the conventional wisdom is that farms in my home state of New Jersey cannot compete in growing lettuce with Central and South America because the cost of labor is so much lower there. Yet I can go to my local supermarket and buy lettuce gown in the Netherlands an shipped by air to the U. S. If a New Jersey or New York farmer within 100 miles of me cannot grow lettuce profitably how can it be possible for a farmer in the Netherlands, thousands of miles away with higher labor costs than the U. S. has to do do? Yet it clearly is possible because it happens.
I have a neighbor who argues that we should not be required to pay taxes to plow snow on local streets. I have a snow blower and, were the town to stop plowing my snow, I could handle the part in front of my house pretty easily; I could even help out some neighbors. And yes, not plowing local streets would reduce my property taxes. But supposing, as a result, I get in one accident? The costs of even a fender bender would exceed my tax savings for a long time and I could be injured or even killed.
I am not inclined to join the snarling pack of taxpayers running after the red meat some shrewd politician calls "subsidy." Not for things I need and not for things other people need either.
ALL BUSINESSES get subsidies or government aid of some kind. Low business loans, tax reliefs when siting, product price supports for agricultural products (this is what food stamps is about more than feeding the poor), tax breaks for hiring minorities and internships or youth or college or whoever or whatever program, the highway interchange a quarter mile from their dock, the county industrial agency which bought the railroad track and hires a company or individual to run it, the water and sewer and power and police and fire protection that keeps insurance rates down. Railroads have always been chartered, given easments and eminent domain powers for rights of way acquisition, bonding and subscription authority to raise money, out right land gifts from municipalities and land grants fromthe Federal government (paid back with cheap US mail transportation prices and troop movements). In our country business and government are so intertwined no one really knows where private enterprise stops and public support begins...but they all complain about socialism and subsidies as a one sided event..
There are more than 3.5 million corporations in the United States. Most of them are small, S-Chapter corporations. This does not include sole proprietorships partnerships, etc. Under the tax code they deduct their business expenses to derive net income. In one way or the other they pay tax on that net income.
Most of the tax code deductions flow to all qualifying businesses. For example, the R&D credit is available to any business with a qualifying R&D expenditure or expense. This is not a subsidy. If a business gets a tax break that does not flow to other businesses or industry, claiming that it is a subsidy may be appropriate.
Most businesses are born of a hopefully good idea. They offer goods and services that people are free to buy in an arms length transaction. If people don't step forth in sufficient numbers to buy them, the business fails. According to the Small Business Administration, 56 per cent of business start-ups fail within four years. And approximately 70 per cent, according to the SMU Entrepreneur Program, of which I am a graduate, are gone within 10 years. Hardly the hallmark of all businesses get subsidies.
Unlike Amtrak, which is dependent on direct government cash payments, businesses have to raise capital in the private markets. Some businesses may qualify for Small Business Administration Loans, but fewer than 2.8 per cent of start-ups with employees receive government backed (SBA) funding.
Outside of Amtrak, I cannot think of any business that receives an annual direct cash payment from the federal government to cover its losses. And has done so for more than 40 years.
Agri-business, Sam...it gets money for not raising crops, for supporting prices. Some direclty, others, like the Food Stamp program, not so directly...I am sure someone will come up with others....Oh, aircraft manufacaturing gets R&D money from the government to develop aircraft which they often adjust for commercial use. A lot of other industries have college research often paid for by the government which leads to new or improved products. No, they don't cover the losses but they make sure there are no losses.
Waterways and airways are administered and operated by government agencies and often don't receive as much in return as it costs to operate...lets rehash this again, again.
henry6 Agri-business, Sam...it gets money for not raising crops, for supporting prices. Some direclty, others, like the Food Stamp program, not so directly...I am sure someone will come up with others....Oh, aircraft manufacaturing gets R&D money from the government to develop aircraft which they often adjust for commercial use. A lot of other industries have college research often paid for by the government which leads to new or improved products. No, they don't cover the losses but they make sure there are no losses. Waterways and airways are administered and operated by government agencies and often don't receive as much in return as it costs to operate...lets rehash this again, again.
Businesses don't pay taxes and they don't receive subsidies. The taxes, with a few exceptions, are paid by the people who buy the goods and services. By the same token, tax code advantages flow back to them, although not always in perfect correlation. It depends on the elasticity of the demand/price curve.
I spent more than 40 years working for Fortune 250 corporations. More than 30 of those years were in senior management positions. I graduated from Penn State, Columbia, and SMU with degrees in economics, accounting, and finance. I am widely read in those subjects. I just finished reading Keynes General Theory for the second time. I have a reasonably good idea of how business works, especially the banking and electric utility businesses.
I never heard any creditable source claim that every business in the United States is subsidized. Never! Your views of business are unsupported by any verifiable facts. Moreover, they have nothing to do with Amtrak.
The ideas expressed should be able to stand on their own merit without the constant appeals to authority, i.e., credentials.
schlimm Most credible people from whatever field do not have such a frequent need to tout their credentials over and over to essentially the same audience.
Most credible people from whatever field do not have such a frequent need to tout their credentials over and over to essentially the same audience.
Sometimes it is helpful to establish a basis of creditability. One way to do that is by reference to experience. It helps clarify the basis for the factual information in my posts. The data can be verified. My expertise is in accounting and finance with a strong under ping in economics.
You consistently make reference to your travels in Germany where you have become, I presume, familiar with the German railway system. At least you imply that your travels have given you important insights into how the German railway system operates. And how some of the features could be transferred to America. Your travels in Germany are experience.
So if you think I am wrong with respect to the percentage of small businesses that get government support or that every business in the United States does not get a subsidy, where is your evidence?
I don't appreciate your lectures on my style. Keep your comments to the subject at hand.
"I graduated from Penn State, Columbia, and SMU with degrees in economics, accounting, and finance. I am widely read in those subjects. I just finished reading Keynes General Theory for the second time."
Occasional examples of how the DB (or the Northern Rail in the UK) run passenger service is far more germane to postings on the passenger forum than your recitation of your degree(s). An accurate analogy would be if I simply mentioned riding the DB without giving specifics of their practices. Along the lines of my comments on the DB, you give frequent and useful comments concerning your many trips on Amtrak as well as Australian systems.
You ask for evidence on the subsidy question. I have no opinion, but since you ask, I wonder what your evidence is?
henry6 I don't have the exact citations available...but I am not lying or making anything up...I hope my integrity on these issues and historical knowledge will carry me here Suffice it to say that the D&H story was part of a dinner conversation between Mr. Sterzing and a close friend of mine with my friend on Mr. Sterzing's left and me on his right during a banquet celebrating the railroad's 150th Anniversary.
I did not think or say that you were making it up. But without any verifiable facts, as per the questions that I raised, it is testimony.
schlimm "I graduated from Penn State, Columbia, and SMU with degrees in economics, accounting, and finance. I am widely read in those subjects. I just finished reading Keynes General Theory for the second time." Occasional examples of how the DB (or the Northern Rail in the UK) run passenger service is far more germane to postings on the passenger forum than your recitation of your degree(s). An accurate analogy would be if I simply mentioned riding the DB without giving specifics of their practices. Along the lines of my comments on the DB, you give frequent and useful comments concerning your many trips on Amtrak as well as Australian systems. You ask for evidence on the subsidy question. I have no opinion, but since you ask, I wonder what your evidence is?
About what? That not all 3.5 million plus businesses in the U.S. receive subsidies as was stated by henry6, except that he stated all businesses.
Wanna know where the 3.5 million figure comes from. Look it up in IRS statistics. There is a slew of them. It helps to have some expertise in the tax code to fully understand them. Accountants tend to have that expertise. Just like our engineer friends by stating or implying their backgrounds give me greater comfort in their discussion of technical issues.
Oh, I do need to make a minor qualification on the figures. The number of businesses that had taxable income in 2009. If one counts the number of businesses without taxable income, it is over 5 million.
Or that only 2.8 per cent of start-up businesses in the U.S. with employees receive government (SBA) financial assistance. Check it out.
I have presented more factual information in my posts than most of the people who write to these forums. Again, I don't appreciate your comments on my style. Please keep your comments to the subject at hand. You are not the moderator of these forums.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.