Who would voluntarily send extra taxes today to offset Amtrak deficit?

[garr]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

You KNOW I am NOT talking about county roads and city streets. I am talking about INTERSTATES and URBAN EXPRESSWAYS that in fact usually reduce property values. That huge almost square-mile expresway interchange right in downtown Los Angeles is one excellent example.

Dave,

No, I did not know that you were only talking about the interstates. That fact was not possible to discern from your prior statement. If you did clarify more so in other posts, I did not remember.

However, my point still stands even if you were only talking about expressways. The increased value of property (thus property taxes) located within a mile in each direction of an interstate exit can offset the lost tax revenue from many miles of government owned interstate right-of-way.

Consider that the majority of interstate miles run thru property valued at well below $1,000 per acre, and when constructed the interstates were located well outside of most towns. The subsequent growth of the towns towards the exits incrementily increased the property values (thus taxes) the closer the town grew to and from the interstate exit.

Add in the payroll taxes for all the civil engineers, lawyers, construction workers, maintenance workers, suppliers (asphalt, concrete, steel, construction equipment, paint, etc)... just from the initial construction phase and you go a long way in offsetting the lost property taxes.

I am not trying to start an arguement with you, but I feel that if the total picture is looked at, the lost property taxes on the land within the government owned right-of-way, be it city, county, state, or federal (surface or interstate) is more than offset in other ways.

If you have any studies or websites on this matter that you can point me to, I would like to read further.

Jay

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD

Not I! I don't even want to see my gasoline taxes siphoned off to support Amtrak

Exactly how happy are you about your share of FEDERAL gasoline tax being siphoned off to fund the $10B+ Big Dig in Boston? (http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/transportation/4-12-00.htm)

It doesn't create one car's worth of new capacity.

It doesn't improve safety.

It doesnt' improve air quality.

It ONLY benefits a limited number of Bostonians by making one neighborhood a bit nicer.

All it did was move an perfectly funcitonal elevated highway into a leaky tunnel.

DON'T FORGET GREEN SPACE! [:0][:0][:0] IT CREATED MORE GREEN SPACE SO BOSTON COULD HAVE PRETTY PARKS N STUFF. I am glad I could help out on that one.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD

Not I! I don't even want to see my gasoline taxes siphoned off to support Amtrak

Exactly how happy are you about your share of FEDERAL gasoline tax being siphoned off to fund the $10B+ Big Dig in Boston? (http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/transportation/4-12-00.htm)

It doesn't create one car's worth of new capacity.

It doesn't improve safety.

It doesnt' improve air quality.

It ONLY benefits a limited number of Bostonians by making one neighborhood a bit nicer.

All it did was move an perfectly funcitonal elevated highway into a leaky tunnel.

[bbrant]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

I F I actually thought it would get to Amtrak I might consider it.

However, I am sure this administration would say that I actually wanted it to go to Iraq and it would end up there or Halliburton one.

I thought the polical stuff was to have been halted. Since it's obviously not, here comes my opinion.

I'm sick and tired of the liberal left always looking for a handout. They want to coast through life feeding off hard-working individuals. And you keep wanting corporate welfare for Amtrak. You libs couldn't run any corporation and expect it to be profitiable unless someone was handing out ca***o you so you didn't have to earn it!

All you libs know is failure and how to come up with creative ways to blame others instead of yourself! You complain about the war and Haliburton when your really have no clue. The war is to protect our country so we don't go through another 9/11 - which, by the way, your boy Clinton could've prevented if he had the guts to get Osama when Sudan offered him. But libs don't understand that and who would expect them to.

Libs want to complain because we have a Republican White House, Senate and House of Rep. Just for the record, why do you think that is? Could it be that America is sick of liberal ideas and their lack of morals that they voted Republicans with values and ideas for those who want to work and be something? That's my bet.

Remember, liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent!

[daveklepper]

You KNOW I am NOT talking about county roads and city streets. I am talking about INTERSTATES and URBAN EXPRESSWAYS that in fact usually reduce property values. That huge almost square-mile expresway interchange right in downtown Los Angeles is one excellent example.

Do you remember the Boston - Sommerville Fellsway of fifty years ago? A beautiful linear park, something like Beacon Street and Commonwealth Avenue today, and St. Charles in New Orleans. But even better and more varied landscaping. Even a small pond (ducks and geese) at one point with the highway lanes well separated. And of course 1920's-era Type 5 wood-seat lightweight streetcars running through (and running very fast, too), connecting to the Elevated at Sullivan Square Station. Now completely eliminated with the Fellsway an eight-lane highway.

I saw the GM busses delivered around 1950 with Beacon Street and Commmonwealth Avenue on their role signs. The plan was for the the transit system to cut-back operations of the Green LIne to just the subway portion and use Kenmore Square Station as an interchange with the buses out to the suburban areas. And eliminate the linear parks and tracks on Beacon Street and Commonwealth Avenues for the additional highway lanes. But the home owners had more political clout. That and the through service to the downtown area preserved the two subway-surface lines.

[garr]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

You don't pay all the costs associated with driving your SUV. Because the auto industry and highway transportation industry do not cover the costs of LAND USE by highway transportation. Not only lack of real-estate taxes but also land removed from productive income-producing use and devoted only to transportation. And the railroad is far more productive in terms of providing given amounts of transportation, both freight and passsenger, for a given amount of land use.

Dave,

I have seen you use the arguement about LAND USE a number of times.

My counterpoint is that roads make the land adjacent to the right-of-ways more valuable. The price of land locked property is almost always lower than property with road access.

I do not know of any studies proving either of our sides, but my gut tells me that the taxes generated from the increased value that road accessability adds to property more than offsets the lost tax revenue on the government owned land used for the right-of-way.

Where would America be without roads and the freedom of movement associated with them? All 230 million+ people riding/walking on horse/foot paths along the interconnecting edges of our neighbors property?

I do not think that America would have the wealth, health, safety, productivity, etc. that it has today without its highway system. So looking at the few lost dollars of property tax revenue under each mile of government road right-of-way seems small considering the great wealth, both material and immaterial, that these roads have generated.

Jay

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by whitman500

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

It seems very, very odd that other countries on this planet don't seem to have a problem with funding rail transit systems--like, say, pretty much ALL OF THEM, but in the United States it is somehow heresy to suggest that the taxpayers pay for something that taxpayers throughout the rest of the world pay for. I don't trust the government to handle my funds, but then, I don't trust private industry with my funds either.

I do give money to Amtrak--when I ride Amtrak.

I assume you are talking about Europe and Japan. First, I would not want to emulate the governmental policies or economic decisionmaking of Europe. There is a reason why the average American makes 25% more than the average Frenchman. Moreover, the situation is simply different. Passenger trains work better in Europe because of higher population density. France, England, Germany, etc. all look like the Northeast Corridor in terms of distances between major cities. Amtrak makes money in the Northeast. It's the rest of the country where it loses money because it can't compete in longhaul with air travel. In short, trying to make an analogy with Europe is silly.

Excellent! [#ditto]

[whitman500]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

It seems very, very odd that other countries on this planet don't seem to have a problem with funding rail transit systems--like, say, pretty much ALL OF THEM, but in the United States it is somehow heresy to suggest that the taxpayers pay for something that taxpayers throughout the rest of the world pay for. I don't trust the government to handle my funds, but then, I don't trust private industry with my funds either.

I do give money to Amtrak--when I ride Amtrak.

I assume you are talking about Europe and Japan. First, I would not want to emulate the governmental policies or economic decisionmaking of Europe. There is a reason why the average American makes 25% more than the average Frenchman. Moreover, the situation is simply different. Passenger trains work better in Europe because of higher population density. France, England, Germany, etc. all look like the Northeast Corridor in terms of distances between major cities. Amtrak makes money in the Northeast. It's the rest of the country where it loses money because it can't compete in longhaul with air travel. In short, trying to make an analogy with Europe is silly.

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

You don't pay all the costs associated with driving your SUV. Because the auto industry and highway transportation industry do not cover the costs of LAND USE by highway transportation. Not only lack of real-estate taxes but also land removed from productive income-producing use and devoted only to transportation. And the railroad is far more productive in terms of providing given amounts of transportation, both freight and passsenger, for a given amount of land use.

I know I don't pay all costs associated with driving. Whether it be an SUV or other choice.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was speaking in the context of driving one of those "terrible, horrible, black-listed, energy-wasting, planet-destroying, gas-guzzling, look-down-on-other-drivers" SUVs. As opposed to, say, a fuel-efficient Cooper -- or a bicycle.

[Paul Milenkovic]

QUOTE: What's cheaper Amtrak or a couple of miles of Interstate?

QUOTE:
What you are all forgetting that Amtrak WILL NEVER be Profitable no Passenger Rail Service in the World is Profitable and Amtrak needs to add routes and Improve Service to reduce it defecit but the tax would be a start .

If you believe Amtrak's accounting, building the Interstate highway is much, much cheaper than Amtrak. Cars are subsidized at 2 cents a mile while Amtrak is subsidized at 20 cents per passenger mile.

The problem with Amtrak is that we have been at it for 35 years, efforts to depart from the high cost standard model of service (dining cars, sleeping cars on LD trains) have not been successful.

A lot of discussion centers on how Amtrak is starved for funding. By way of analogy, the Space Shuttle was starved for funding and ended up with only a partially-reusable craft instead of the full-reusable designs which would have required more upfront money but had much lower operating cost. But that is not entirely clear -- if we had built the fully-reusable two-stage Shuttle, that vehicle may have been an even bigger boondoggle.

Does Amtrak scale? If we put more money in it, will we get a proportionately larger amount a service from it? The whole point of the rail mode is economies of scale -- does Amtrak have economies of scale?

Maybe we shouldn't believe the straight-line accounting model. Maybe there are places where highway construction is prohibitively expensive and a subsidy for Amtrak service saves money.

Just because something is subsidized, one can't throw any consideration of costs out the door and say taxpayers should make up the difference at any cost.

[daveklepper]

You don't pay all the costs associated with driving your SUV. Because the auto industry and highway transportation industry do not cover the costs of LAND USE by highway transportation. Not only lack of real-estate taxes but also land removed from productive income-producing use and devoted only to transportation. And the railroad is far more productive in terms of providing given amounts of transportation, both freight and passsenger, for a given amount of land use.

[Anonymous]

A voluntary tax is a contradiction in terms, but if I could peel off a few bucks from the Pentagon's budget and send it Amtrak's way, I would.

Maybe Amtrak should sell lifetime passes; that would enlarge their constituency.

[Poppa_Zit]

I live in an area where I'm taxed to subsidize Metra and Pace (bus service). I own my own business, so I sited the office 8 minutes from my home. So as a result, I have used Metra only three times in the last 10 years, and my next ride on a Pace bus will be my first. I also subsidize these taxing bodies (and more) at the gasoline pump, which is ludicrous -- the government makes those of us with vehicles subsidize those who can't or won't drive or don't own a vehicle.

I am not complaining about any of this taxation.

However, I grow quickly tired when I have to read letters to the editor from non-driving environmentals saying a) those of us who drive are ruining the planet; or b) they should pay less for public transportation, and the public transportation taxes I pay at the pump should be increased so THEY don't have to pay more.

Point is, no matter what anyone says -- I don't feel guilty that I don't feel guilty that I own an SUV. I fully understand and am willing to pay the costs associated with operating such a vehicle. And I wouldn't have any problem paying some extra tax dollars to ensure Amtrak is run properly, either. Whether I use it or not (I hope to be able to use it more than in the past.).

Amtrak is too easy of a target. If you're looking for obscenely expensive government programs on which to focus, how about the US tax code? This year, it cost me $2500 to have my taxes done. The US tax code is far too complicated for the average guy to do his own filing (and save $2500, in my case). I read where over 60 percent of taxpayers have to pay someone to prepare their returns. So here's an idea -- detonate the current ridiculous tax system and eliminate the loopholes for corporations, charge me a fair income tax at the cash register when I make purchases, and I'll be happy to give Amtrak $1000 of that $2500 a year I currently pay for tax return preparation -- I'll still be $1500 ahead.

Paying income tax at the register would put all the tax cheats out of business, too. I know a guy who used to sell a lot of merchandise at train shows. He only accepted cash, over $100,000 a year (by various sources), and he diligently added state sales tax (8 percent) to each purchase. Except when I called the state department of revenue, I found out he did not have a business tax ID number and had NEVER sent in any of the sales taxes he collected over the past 20 years.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules



I know. Most of the time, they like to forget that little word "MORE" because people begin to realize they are paying MORE.

How about *this*? : if you ride Amtrak at anytime during the calendar year, you are registered as an "Amtrak person". Each time you make a trip on Amtrak, you get I registered membership in club d'amtrak.


At the end of the year the total cash shortage is divided by the total number of membership credits, and the underage is invoiced to the people who actually use the service, weighted by the frequency in which they actually use it

What could be more fare? (pun intended)

Now, ANYBODY can join the club at anytime, by simply buying a ticket. BUT, once you join, and are invoiced your share at years end, if you fail to pay , you are permanantly expelled from the club, and can never ride Amtrak again?


And just being fair, if for some reason Amtrak turned a surplus for any year , the surplus would be divided equally among the members as dividends, based upon the same formula.

I LIKE IT!!! [:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DaveBr

What about "RAILROAD LOTTERY" tickets. Davebr[?]

Nice Suggestion but few people would buy them I know I wouldn't.

[DaveBr]

What about "RAILROAD LOTTERY" tickets. Davebr[?]

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates


You mean a dollar MORE per month, and given the way they've wasted the money they've already lost, pouring good money after bad, down the drain, is way too much to expect.

Those bullet heads at Amtrak should be sending me money every month.


Amtrak was just a smokescreen intended to buy time while the public was weaned off of passenger rail, get used to it and let it die a long overdue death already.

I know. Most of the time, they like to forget that little word "MORE" because people begin to realize they are paying MORE.

[Anonymous]

You mean a dollar MORE per month, and given the way they've wasted the money they've already lost, pouring good money after bad, down the drain, is way too much to expect.

Those bullet heads at Amtrak should be sending me money every month.


Amtrak was just a smokescreen intended to buy time while the public was weaned off of passenger rail, get used to it and let it die a long overdue death already.

[wallyworld]

Taxes are political. Whenever more than two people are in a room its political. No politics are allowed lest our posts be placed inside a cyber force field.

[solzrules]

Yeah a dollar a month isn't too much, but soon the road lobby wants a dollar a month for some more freeways. Then they want to build a new airport for a dollar a month. Or, if you live in Milwaukee like me, they can build a new stadium for millionares to play baseball on the backs of the consumer for a dollar a month. Then they want to add skyboxes for the millionares to watch the millionares play baseball and why should the franchise have to pay for it? Sure they can get the profits from the skyboxes but if it only costs the taxpayers a dollar a month why not hit them up for it? Then Cabela's moves to town and they want a 5 million dollar subsidy to build their new store. They tout themselves as a very profitable company that will bring benefits to the county government. All for a dollar a month. My point is, no a dollar a month never seems like a lot, but when 100 entities use that as a justification to raise taxes it all starts to add after a while. It can put people on a budget in a real tight situation.

[Poppa_Zit]

I think a dollar a month per household shouldn't be too much of a burden on anyone.

Heck, did you ever notice that it isn't the rich who buy lottery tickets and visit frequently the casinos?

[Anonymous]

What you are all forgetting that Amtrak WILL NEVER be Profitable no Passenger Rail Service in the World is Profitable and Amtrak needs to add routes and Improve Service to reduce it defecit but the tax would be a start .

[DPD1]

I wouldn't do it, because then they would expect that with everything. I give them this much, and then they do what they want with it. If they don't do the right things with it, that's their fault. I'm not going to give them more. Besides the bottom line is... If people don't want to ride the train, they aren't going to. No amount of money can change that. As much as we like them, trains are inherently slower than air, and even driving in a lot of cases. Unless we build bullet trains everywhere, that's not going to change. America is not the same as Europe or Japan.

Dave
http://www.dpdproductions.com
- Featuring the TrainTenna Railroad Scanner Antennas -

[narig01]

QUOTE: Originally posted by RudyRockvilleMD

Not I! I don't even want to see my gasoline taxes siphoned off to support Amtrak

What's cheaper Amtrak or a couple of miles of Interstate?
Rgds IGN

[narig01]

Just remember your tax dollars hard at work. We elected all these people to Washington so they could spend our tax dollars on worthy projects & other important things.(Paying someone to run flags up & down the flag pole on the capitol for trinkets to give away)

Rgds IGN

[Poppa_Zit]

If they had such a box, I'd check it for up to $50.

[Anonymous]

I would....gladly!

[PBenham]

NO![banghead][X-)][%-)][D)]s[banghead][D)][|(][:o)] Have we learned anything since 1971? We have to make the major railroads pay for the privilege of having Amtrak save them from passenger service losses. Let them pay, if they will[D)][(-D]but I, for one, doubt it will go that way!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AMTK200

Or maybe have a 2 Cent a Gallon Gas Tax for Railroad Improvements and Amtrak. A 1 Cent Excuivslvey for Amtrak would get about $1.85 Billion.

NO more ripping off the road funds for other purposes.

Amtrak is a dead horse, post mortum in fact. Stop beating it.