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

[oltmannd]

How about just letting us designate, say 25%, of our total income tax to a particular area or specific program, ala United Way. Funding couldn't be below sum of all designated dollars.

If Congress was in a mood to fund Amtrak at $1B, but $2B was designated, then Amtrak gets $2B. If $0.5B, then Amtrak gets $1B unless Congress has to juggle shortfall elsewhere. Might just have to be an adivisory "vote" due to Constitution, tho'.

[miniwyo]

Giving $12 each to Amtrak would be like trying to remove the water from the Titanic with a small paper cup.

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Over 250+ billion a year in extra war spending yet we can not get 2 billion a year to properly fund a passenger rail system. That tells were the priorities of this goverment are. We have a president with teh biggest warhawk of a VP in the history of america running the show. Remember Cheney was Bush 1 Secratary of Defense. Now he is second in charge and he wanted to get rid of the man who made him and his boss look like a fool. I for one can not wait til 08 and we will be able to get rid of Both of them. I hope Hillary runs in 0-8 give me 8 more years of Clinton any time over this one. Plus we will not have to worry about Hillary involved in a sex scandal.

Yeah, I think the priority after 9/11 was making sure that 3000 more people didn't die and the streets of New York weren't covered with bodies again. I would rather they make that a priority (the merits of this war aren't really meant to be debated here) then make sure the Southwest Chief has a dining car.

Also, I couldn't help but notice that a very small number people actually said they would voluntarily support amtrak. Hmmm.... Seems there is a mistrust of the government and how it uses money. Now, let's see if I can put this together. We want the government to fund amtrak, but we don't think the government can handle it. Seems like it has been a problem since 1971 so I don't think you can nail any political party, just the government culture in general and the way it operates. So how can a capital intensive business with a slim profit margin compete in a market with other popular modes of transportation? By allowing an entity that historically has problems spending money wisely run the business? Apparently that isn't the case, judging by the responses from this thread. Maybe the responses here speak for themselves................

And no, I would never voluntarily give more of my hard earned money to amtrak. If I do, it will be because I am purchasing a ticket.

[Anonymous]

Read my lips...

No new taxes...

Not even for Amtrak...

LC

[RudyRockvilleMD]

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

[Anonymous]

I would pay more taxes to see Amtrak grow to be a better system. Yes the current system is flawed and needs to be fixed. I don't mind seeing my taxes go towards the greater good of this country. I have given plenty of taxes to the federal government that are being used for things i will never ever use or see or have any direct benefit from. But at the same time, the federal government has built (or is building) and operates things that I use (like Amtrak) that many American will probably never use. We all put in to the coffer and the coffer spits money out and we all benefit in some way. You get something, I get something, sometimes we can share it, sometimes we can't share it. But in the end, it all breaks even.

[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.

[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]

I would....gladly!

[Poppa_Zit]

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

[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

[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

[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 -

[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 .

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DaveBr]

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

[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.

[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!!! [:)]

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

[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