NKPGuy. I like the 2nd thought better.
In addition to learning Englsih, your grandfather got be be buddies with a good sample of fellow Americans.
zardoz Well, not exactly...
Well, not exactly...
Well, reports created by consultants and government employees feeding off the public trough don't mean much either. Have you noticed how railroad don't maintain or paint their bridges -and haven't for generations - and yet, they still stand...
(Disclaimer: I've got nothing against consultants - or anybody else - feeding off the public trough. The government exists to be looted by the smartest-n-savviest members of society, otherwise "they" wouldn't allow it to exist. I worked in the Financial Services INNNNN-Dust-reeeeyyyyyy for my entire life. No bigger looters have ever existed in the history of humanity.)
JOHN PRIVARAHave you noticed how railroad don't maintain or paint their bridges -and haven't for generations - and yet, they still stand..
Railroad bridges are designed to last 100 years or more even with corrosion and the new railroad bridges are supposed to rust, the rust forms a protective patina similar to paint but it is done free of charge by the weather.
Your also wrong about railroads not maintaining their bridges. Each railroad has a bridge and structures or engineering department and they inspect the bridges on a scheduled basis and keep detailed records on each bridge (clearences, weight limits, last maintenence and what was done). Suggest you review a railroad library. Milwaukee Public Library system holds all the Milwaukee Road documents and you would be surprised what their engineering department kept track of.
CMStPnP JOHN PRIVARA Have you noticed how railroad don't maintain or paint their bridges -and haven't for generations - and yet, they still stand.. Railroad bridges are designed to last 100 years or more even with corrosion and the new railroad bridges are supposed to rust, the rust forms a protective patina similar to paint but it is done free of charge by the weather. Your also wrong about railroads not maintaining their bridges. Each railroad has a bridge and structures or engineering department and they inspect the bridges on a scheduled basis and keep detailed records on each bridge (clearences, weight limits, last maintenence and what was done). Suggest you review a railroad library. Milwaukee Public Library system holds all the Milwaukee Road documents and you would be surprised what their engineering department kept track of.
JOHN PRIVARA Have you noticed how railroad don't maintain or paint their bridges -and haven't for generations - and yet, they still stand..
Railroad B&B forces inspect railroad bridges on a yearly basis and schedule any required structural maintenance (cosmetic maintenance is not a consideration). My understanding is that highway bridges are only required to be inspected every two years (at least federal government financed bridges) - requirements for each state may be more or less stringent.
Railroad bridges constructed in the early 20th Century were constructed to withstand the stresses imposed by steam engines - stresses that were and are significantly higher than for diesel locomotives or railcars. As I recall from reading Lawrence Sagal's 'Picture History of the B&O Railroad' published in 1952 - " The Bridge Ratings for the T-1, T-2 and T-3 Mountain (4-8-2) type locomotives is 270, while none of the diesels is above 180, this is less than the E-27 Consolidations (2-8-0). Bridges from this era were also constructed before 'Engineering' had graduated to knowing the finite stress abilities of the various construction materials and building structures to be 'just strong enough'. Engineers of the early 20th Century tended to vastly overbuild their structures when compared to 21st Century engineers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Re: Previous two.
AND, my point is... Highway bridges and railroad bridges are PROBABLY inspected roughly the same. Railroads are for-profit entities and will therefore do ONLY what is absolutely required to keep the lawyers off their backs in the event of an "unforeseen incident" (like the bridge falling down and killing somebody). AND, there haven't been allot of railroad bridges falling down in the news lately (key word: ALLOT).
So, doing the absolute minimum seems to be working for the railroads. If the highway bridges are in roughly the same shape as railroad bridges (rusted and unpainted) THEN they too are probably "good enough" and I doubt we really need all that much of an increase in "infrastructure spending". The reports claiming their unworthiness are most likely created by people attempting to extract as much loot from the government as possible (a VERY worthy endeavor which I wholeheartedly support).
But, if we want to spend more on infrastructure JUST to get more loot from the government and create more "shovel ready jobs", I'm perfectly fine with that (why should the military have all the looting fun). I'm just pointing out that: like most "studies" and "reports", the reality is more than likely twisted toward looting (which, as I said, is PERFECTLY fine with me. Looting the government is what made this country great).
Maybe the truckers should pick up the tab anyway? How much damage is caused by increases in truck weights? HAHAHAHA, just kidding; we can't expect people to pay for ACTUAL costs (gosh...) Let's "increase infrastructure spending" AND double the truck weights, it's a win-win for EVERYBODY!!!!
Backshop Here are two things to think about concerning current immigration... 1. As long as the focus is on the illegal immigrants themselves and not on the businesses that hire them, the problem won't go away. 2. I've done just a little bit of research and becoming a citizen nowadays is much harder and more expensive than it was when the majority of our ancestors came through Ellis Island. People in the working or lower middle class, who could be productive members of society, can't afford it.
Here are two things to think about concerning current immigration...
1. As long as the focus is on the illegal immigrants themselves and not on the businesses that hire them, the problem won't go away.
2. I've done just a little bit of research and becoming a citizen nowadays is much harder and more expensive than it was when the majority of our ancestors came through Ellis Island. People in the working or lower middle class, who could be productive members of society, can't afford it.
1. Yes, but easier said than done it would require both political parties to cooperate. Crack down and punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and at the same time prohibit welfare assistance would eliminate most illegal immigration.
2. America has changed a lot since then as well. Most of the work performed by those immigrants has been automated or moved to lower COL countries. This is not a bad thing either as it has helped us clean up our environment. Also, go back and look at how railroads recruited immigrants to come to America. Even in the Ellis island era, immigrants with relevant skills had priority over the unskilled.
MJ4562 Backshop Here are two things to think about concerning current immigration... 1. As long as the focus is on the illegal immigrants themselves and not on the businesses that hire them, the problem won't go away. 2. I've done just a little bit of research and becoming a citizen nowadays is much harder and more expensive than it was when the majority of our ancestors came through Ellis Island. People in the working or lower middle class, who could be productive members of society, can't afford it. 1. Yes, but easier said than done it would require both political parties to cooperate. Crack down and punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and at the same time prohibit welfare assistance would eliminate most illegal immigration. 2. America has changed a lot since then as well. Most of the work performed by those immigrants has been automated or moved to lower COL countries. This is not a bad thing either as it has helped us clean up our environment. Also, go back and look at how railroads recruited immigrants to come to America. Even in the Ellis island era, immigrants with relevant skills had priority over the unskilled.
And yet today's immigrants are still looking for the same things as the Ellis Islanders and thost the preceeded them - Opportunity to better their lives for themselves and their families. They are not coming to the USA to shoot up Wal-Marts or massacre school children - that requires 'true Americans'.
https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11187.pdf
York1 John
I asked my doctor if I gave up delicious food and all alcohol, would I live longer? He said, "No, but it will seem longer."
JOHN PRIVARAMaybe the truckers should pick up the tab anyway? How much damage is caused by increases in truck weights? HAHAHAHA, just kidding; we can't expect people to pay for ACTUAL costs (gosh...) Let's "increase infrastructure spending" AND double the truck weights, it's a win-win for EVERYBODY!!!!
Generally speaking, U.S. highways were built on the cheap, meant to last just 20 years. Unfortunately, some parts of the Interstate Highway System are now 50 or more years old. Highways in Europe are built to endure much longer than those in the U.S. For example, the Netherlands expects its roads to last 40 years. How do they manage it? Although European highway designers use a variety of advanced techniques, two things stand out: thicker, more durable roadbeds and greater reliance on concrete.
zardoz The rule of thumb among highway engineers is that road deterioration is roughly proportional to vehicle axle weight to the fourth power. In other words, doubling the weight on an axle increases the wear and tear on the roads by 24, or 16 times. Roads are usually designed assuming that a single axle on a big truck carries a maximum of 18,000 pounds. Compared to a typical car carrying 2,000 pounds per axle, a fully loaded truck stresses the road surface 6,561 times as much. Minor overloading can make a big difference. Exceeding the maximum load by just 10 percent increases road stress by 46 percent — that’s why you see all those weigh stations on highways.
You assume that truckers or any other corporation can totally pass all taxes and costs onto the end user. That assumption is not necessarily true. It depends on the price elasticity of demand.
charlie hebdo You assume that truckers or any other corporation can totally pass all taxes and costs onto the end user. That assumption is not necessarily true. It depends on the price elasticity of demand.
True! Every trucking firm would wear it. Some might hold off for a period of time, but ultimately it would go through to the consumer.
The average profit margin for general trucking is approximately 6 percent. Not much! So they don't have a lot of wiggle room to absorb a tax increase, which is a cost of business.
A substantial percentage of the freight shipped by trucking firms is by private carriage, i.e. Frito-Lay, Walmart, HEB, Target, Ashley Furniture, etc. All of the incremental tax increases ultimately would be passed through to the consumer since they don't compete with anyone. Tracing the flows, however, would be very difficult.
The common carriers may have a more difficult time passing it through, but I suspect ultimately it would hit the consumer.
Corporations don’t pay taxes. If the burden cannot be passed through to the end consumer, they are absorbed by the shareholders and workers. For a long time, the assumption was that they were worn by the shareholder. But recent studies have shown that they are being worn in part or whole by workers.
Taxes are a cost of business. If I cannot pass them onto my customers, then I am going to look for ways to soften the blow to my owners. The first place that I would start looking is the workforce. What can I automate? Who can I get rid of? What functions can we get rid of? Been there, done that many times.
Illinois increased its gas tax .19 a gallon July 1st. It will be increased a couple cents regularly going forward to bring it up to what it “should“ be had it not been frozen 30 years ago. So far the “downstate” counties along the Wisconsin border haven’t seen the full increase being passed on by gas stations, an ameliorating effect. This from a nephew who works for a road/street design firm in northern Illinois. He said where there were 14 projects out for bid pre-increase, there are now forty-some post. They’re expecting lots of work the next four years.
JPS1: You seem to assume that truckers or any other corporation can totally pass all taxes and costs onto the end user. That assumption is not necessarily true. It depends on the price elasticity of demand.
charlie hebdo JPS1: You seem to assume that truckers or any other corporation can totally pass all taxes and costs onto the end user. That assumption is not necessarily true. It depends on the price elasticity of demand.
Ultimately, most of them will flow through to the consumer, but perhaps not immediately. It is possible that not all of the incremental tax increases could be absorbed in the pricing mechanisms, in which case the cost would flow through to the shareholders or workers.
Let's assume that a business cannot pass the shipping costs through to the customer. And let's further assume the shareholders wear it. Who are they?
According to Pensions and Investments, approximately 80 percent of equity market cap is held by institutions, i.e. pensions, mutual funds, etc. So, to the extent the increase in shipping costs cannot be passed through to the buyer of the goods, the institutional shareholders - beneficiaries - will wear a significant portion of it.
In the case of Target, as an example, 83.1 percent of the common shares are held by institutions. Who are the beneficiaries? Many of them are everyday folks, i.e. teachers, fireman, policemen, utility linemen, etc. Their pension funds invest in these institutional shares. So, they ultimately would wear any taxes that cannot be passed through in the prices of the goods.
Common carrier trucking is a low margin business; the operators don't have a lot of room to absorb tax increases without finding other offsets. For example, 73.6 percent of JB Hunt's common shares are owned by institutions. Its pre-tax margin for the Trailing Twelve Months is 6.86 percent. Another example is Swift Trucking. Institutions own 87.9 percent of its shares. Its pre-tax margin is 8.49 percent
In most instances a corporation is not going to absorb a tax increase if it can find a way around it. The notion that corporations pay taxes is one of the worst lies ever told.
What you are saying is simply a talking point of corporations. Tell me this: if corporations can simply pass taxes on to end users, why do they spend hundreds of millions to lobby for and use loopholes in the tax code? Or donate millions to one party to get a huge tax cut? And now they have added another tidbit, namely those nasty corporate taxes will reduce your pension or 401k or 403B.
charlie hebdo What you are saying is simply a talking point of corporations. Tell me this: if corporations can simply pass taxes on to end users, why do they spend hundreds of millions to lobby for and use loopholes in the tax code? Or donate millions to one party to get a huge tax cut? And now they have added another tidbit, namely those nasty corporate taxes will reduce your pension or 401k or 403B.
We have had this discussion. Obviously I have not convinced you that corporations don't pay taxes.
Corporations manage their tax liability for the same reason that you do or at least should. No one should pay more taxes than they are obligated to pay.
If I can reduce my corporate tax burden, I don't have to flow it through to my customers.
JPS1 charlie hebdo What you are saying is simply a talking point of corporations. Tell me this: if corporations can simply pass taxes on to end users, why do they spend hundreds of millions to lobby for and use loopholes in the tax code? Or donate millions to one party to get a huge tax cut? And now they have added another tidbit, namely those nasty corporate taxes will reduce your pension or 401k or 403B. We have had this discussion. Obviously I have not convinced you that corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations manage their tax liability for the same reason that you do or at least should. No one should pay more taxes than they are obligated to pay. If I can reduce my corporate tax burden, I don't have to flow it through to my customers.
A shifty little rationalization, but as an analogy, it is failing in parallelism.
Here is what that Fuel tax INCREASE in Illinois is going to cost my boss alone for a normal year. 250 trucks getting 7.5 MPG that was our average for last quarter based on IFTA reporting. 20% of all our miles were ran into and out of Illinois since we are based here in Illinois. It increased our costs just over 2 cents a mile for Illinois alone. It cut our profit margin for the year since we can not redo our contracts til next year by 40% over the year. I can imagine what JB Hunt and the Schiender accountants are screaming about the new Illinois Fuel taxes.
Shadow the Cats owner Here is what that Fuel tax INCREASE in Illinois is going to cost my boss alone for a normal year. 250 trucks getting 7.5 MPG that was our average for last quarter based on IFTA reporting. 20% of all our miles were ran into and out of Illinois since we are based here in Illinois. It increased our costs just over 2 cents a mile for Illinois alone. It cut our profit margin for the year since we can not redo our contracts til next year by 40% over the year. I can imagine what JB Hunt and the Schiender accountants are screaming about the new Illinois Fuel taxes.
When you redo the contracts, presumably you along with JB Hunt and Schneider will be able to bake the increase into new rates. Is this not correct?
I was the chief accountant for a Fortune 225 Corporation for more than a decade. Ultimately, we passed every tax through to the customer. Sometimes we could not do it right away because we had to wait until we could file a new rate case, but eventually the customer wore it.
At one time we were the 10th largest coal miner in the United States. Approximately 85 to 90 percent of the work was performed by contractors. The contracts had a variety of escalation clauses. One of them pertained to fuel and fuel taxes, which in effect allowed them to pass through changes in fuel and tax rates, which we in turn would ultimately pass through to our customers.
I am a frequent traveler on Carnival Cruise Lines. Its passenger contract has a fuel clause that allows it to pass through an increase in fuel costs, including fuel taxes, if they breech a pre-determined threshold. I just signed the contract this morning. If the cost of oil goes about $70 U.S. a barrel, passengers can be hit with a fuel and tax surcharge.
I am a bit surprised that the large trucking firms would not have similar escalation clauses.
Question: I recall reading that private truckers, e.g. Walmart, Ashley-Furniture, Frito-Lay, HEB, etc., haul more freight than the common carriers. Is this true?
charlie hebdo JPS1 charlie hebdo What you are saying is simply a talking point of corporations. Tell me this: if corporations can simply pass taxes on to end users, why do they spend hundreds of millions to lobby for and use loopholes in the tax code? Or donate millions to one party to get a huge tax cut? And now they have added another tidbit, namely those nasty corporate taxes will reduce your pension or 401k or 403B. We have had this discussion. Obviously I have not convinced you that corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations manage their tax liability for the same reason that you do or at least should. No one should pay more taxes than they are obligated to pay. If I can reduce my corporate tax burden, I don't have to flow it through to my customers. A shifty little rationalization, but as an analogy, it is failing in parallelism.
Save your nick picking lecture for someone who cares. I certainly don't!
On a tonnage basis no they don't. On a percentage of their own goods they do. Frito lay hauls all their stuff to their delivery points from their production points. Ashley does the same for their stores and hauls inbound materials. Walmart has one of the largest fleets of trucks to support their own stores however they also really on outside carrier's to haul for them also. Prime and Schiender are 2 of the biggest for them. Prime handling a lot of the perishables to the stores.
When we redo the contract if we can increase our rates we will however we also have a point where we are going to become to expensive for our customers to want our service and they will switch to a different carrier to provide the service. The OTR industry is cutthroat to the point were if you can save 2 cents a mile and not have to share how your doing it with the rest of the industry your golden. Or if you're able to carry a heavier load than the next carrier can. Anything that can be done to maximize the revenue you can get is done and if your able to get ahead of the curve look out.
JPS1 Would increasing the cost of shipping by truck cause a significant transfer of truck shipments to the railroads? I don’t know, but I doubt it.
That's an odd conclusion. Cost is cost. Any cargo on the margin will be diverted to a lower cost alternative. Depends what the cost differential is.
You are right that railroad will NEVER be as flexable as a truck, doesn't mean they can't haul more trucks based on total transportation cost tho.
If the railroads in this country were maintained and built using the same loot distribution system as the highways (government "open access"), I suspect the railroads traffic mix would be different. No idea how MUCH different, but different.
(Just imagine if when they built the "Anti-Commie Freedom-n-Democracy Apple-Pie Full-Employment-n-Groot" Interstate Highways 70+ years ago they had also built the "Anti-Commie Freedom-n-Democracy Apple-Pie Full-Employment-n-Groot" Interstate Electric Railroads; maybe built right next the interstates. We might have trains milking the government teet instead of JUST the trucks.)
I really don't see how you can say that taxes are NOT just another cost of doing business.
Sure, corporations lobby not to pay anything, but that's just the OPPOSITE side of the same coin where local governments give corporations tax-free land deals to influence where new fascilities are built. If taxes DIDN'T matter, giving the tax-breaks wouldn't matter either. (But, they do obviously).
Maybe short-term, tax rates don't matter, but in a year or two... Come-on, the smart-n-savvy people at the top (the management/owner-class - aka - the top 20% who own 80% of the country, which might be YOU, btw... the smart-n-savvy people at top) are NOT going to take less.
ALL corporations are just raking operations; with senior management having FIRST claim on the rake and the stockholders getting what's left AFTER they get #screwed# by the senior mangement. (AND, the stockholders hire the biggest #screwers# because they know they'll ALSO #screw# the middle management, lower management, customers, and workers in order to increase the rake going to the top; the senior-management rake is ALSO just another cost passed on to the customers.)
If you really want to #screw# the management-class or owner-class (including those with 401k's) the only way is to increase taxes on the individuals at the top. But, ya-know-what, when you increase taxes on the individuals at the top, who REALLY gets that tax loot? It sure ain't the people at the bottom. Oh no, it's the smart-n-savvy #screwers# who OWN the government. And, guess who THAT is? Yeah, the same ones who own the corporations. The smart-n-savvy #screwers# don't care if you give it to them when you buy over-priced widgets OR over-priced F35's. It's ALL going the same smart-n-savvy people.
(The ONLY way for wealth distrubution to work is IF you take the loot directly from top and give it directly to the bottom. But, come-on, you think the #screwers# who OWN the government would allow a system like that to get started?)
Sure, it would be nice if we could #screw# the #screwers#, but it's no longer a national problem; the #screwers# are now part of the "global world of #screwers#". Oh well...
Crypto-nihilism sounds nice to some, but when you're done, there's nothing.
CMStPnPRailroad bridges are designed to last 100 years or more even with corrosion and the new railroad bridges are supposed to rust, the rust forms a protective patina similar to paint but it is done free of charge by the weather.
Railroad bridges in the north also don't get a hefty coating of salt for 3-5 months of the year, either.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
charlie hebdo Crypto-nihilism sounds nice to some, but when you're done, there's nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Finding meaning in "life" is entirely different than finding meaning in political solutions.
zugmann Railroad bridges in the north also don't get a hefty coating of salt for 3-5 months of the year, either.
Correct annd the bridges over the RRs are the property of some government entity. However RR bridges over roads may have the support piers contaminated by salt.
So on the infrastructure spend subject:
Even though the bonds might be guaranteed by a taxpayer entity, I believe this is largely private money the bonds are bringing in and the bonds will be repaid by airport revenue. So this is a chunk of the private funding mentioned in the infrastructure project list. Anyone that has been through MCI can tell you it is very old and the design is far less than secure in our increasingly dangerous terrorism era.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-24/kansas-city-joins-u-s-airport-boom-with-1-5-billion-renovation
blue streak 1 zugmann Railroad bridges in the north also don't get a hefty coating of salt for 3-5 months of the year, either. Correct annd the bridges over the RRs are the property of some government entity. However RR bridges over roads may have the support piers contaminated by salt.
And RR bridges over high speed roads, like freeways, get a lot of salty up-spray to the bridge spans.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.