Yes. Amtrak works on a market driven fare plan...the earlier you book the cheaper it is; the closer to train time, the less space available, the higher the fare. But there are time of day differences and day of week differences built into the system, too.
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.
A random look at Amtrak for two weeks out, April 25, shows quite a range of fares: NE Regional as cheap as 22 cents per mile; Acela as cheap as 62 cents per mile. It all depends on time of day, day of the week and how far in advance.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Apples to oranges comparison on service, though...Acela is orange, Regional is tangerine, NJT is apple.
daveklepper Commuter fares, for most of the passengers (who ride on monthly tickets), are more like one tenth of the fare on a mileage basis as compared with the average Acela fare. Check it out!
Commuter fares, for most of the passengers (who ride on monthly tickets), are more like one tenth of the fare on a mileage basis as compared with the average Acela fare. Check it out!
NJT montly pass on NEC ~20 cents per mile
Acela NYP-WAS ~90 cents per mile
Amtrak Regional NYP-WAS ~50 cents per mile
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
300 passengers for a non commuter train is average....probably from the beginning of time, too. Not all mainline or inter city trains carried much more than that. So, there is no problem there....a Regional on the same route probably has capacity for 500 but carries up to 700 different passengers enroute. And comparing commuter trains and services to long distance and inter city services in terms of consits, equipment, and fares is the proverbial apples and oranges. The equipment is different, the scheduled spacing is different, the travel distances are different, the whole service philosophy is different.
Acelas, Regionals, and Keystones run hourly through the rush hours (8a-10a, 5p-7p); and longer-distance trains using the NEC to New York, Washington, or Boston generally arrive and depart outside the rush hours.
It's a good thing Acela is profitable; because otherwise it's a waste of space for just 300 passengers compared to over 1,000 each for NJT and LIRR out of Penn Station in the peaks. It's understandable that, given the comparatively smaller loads on Amtrak, only 3 of 42 peak hour slots are allotted to Amtrak. NEC services are limited by suburban services in six areas.
Carrying three times the passengers, a commuter train should be close to profitable to operate at a third of the fare.
Acela seems to be a success because it is supplying that premium service you say is lacking. It must be a marketing success so one train during "rush hour" must be ok. But, too, what rush hour? Morning or afteroon/ Hour or hours? To where? To Boston, MNRR and CONDOT have more to say because of their ownership of the track. To D.C., NJT, SEPTA, and MARC have a lot to say, too. It may infact be imossible to get a 125 mph train woven through the traffic between 6AM and 9AM and again from 4PM to 7PM, so why bother trying. It has a good chance of being a failure, so why tarnish the image\?
One factor that seems to be missing in the ability of Acela to attract a premium clientel is the scarcity, constrained supply, of premium service. Imagine 40-some trains out of Penn Station in the rush hour and only one Acela.
daveklepper In a very real sense the Acela rider subsidizes the rider on regional and commuter trains. (The latter get the greatest subsidy, getting one from state and local governments as well as via Amtrak from the USA tax payer.) Good point. Thinking of NJ Transit and the NEC is a great example. NYP to Trenton upgrades will help travel times. The costs of improving the NEC were and are do to years of deferred maintenance and lack of capital expendituires. If you're going to spend money to replace 80-year-old catenary, having it equipped for 150mph instead of 125 in a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost. Much is the same for track structure and much else. The upgrade of the NEC will certainly reduce the cost of ongoing maintenance. Bet even the rolling stock maintenance will be reduced.
In a very real sense the Acela rider subsidizes the rider on regional and commuter trains. (The latter get the greatest subsidy, getting one from state and local governments as well as via Amtrak from the USA tax payer.)
Good point. Thinking of NJ Transit and the NEC is a great example. NYP to Trenton upgrades will help travel times.
The costs of improving the NEC were and are do to years of deferred maintenance and lack of capital expendituires. If you're going to spend money to replace 80-year-old catenary, having it equipped for 150mph instead of 125 in a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost. Much is the same for track structure and much else.
The upgrade of the NEC will certainly reduce the cost of ongoing maintenance. Bet even the rolling stock maintenance will be reduced.
If Amtrak gets the improvement funds grant request just announced the total number of passenger minutes saved will be a rather large number.
Oh, c'mon is a put down. It is an insult. It adds no value.
Claiming that an issue is phoney implies that a contributor lacks the intellectual skills or knowledge to analyze data and formulate an issue.
Another put down is to say that a person does not understand the point, especially when the accuser does not offer any verifiable data to refute the person's point of view. If you disagree with a point of view, show your point of view with logic and verifiable data. Belittling a contributor adds not value.
Inflamatory words to put down or attempt to put down a point of view don't belong in these forums. Or in any other discussion for that matter.
[quote user="schlimm"]
Dave: Precisely! This is a phony issue about Acela and subsidies by business travelers through tax deductions. Rather than attack Acela, which as you point out, covers its own operating expenses and allows the entire NEC to operate with a profit, perhaps tax deductions for business travel should be eliminated, along with first class. [quote]
The Acela covers its own operating costs because it gets premium fares from people who are traveling in many instances on some else's nickel. My initial point is that the subsidy is the difference between a coach fare and the premium fares (first class and business class). I am not arguing that normal and necessary business espenses are not deductable. The IRS allows businesses to deduct business class fares. The deductability of first class fares depends on the circumstances.
Business class and first class fares should not be passed through to customers, clients, taxpayers, etc., and they should not be deductable on a corporate or business tax return.
I worked in Australia for nearly five years. And I traveled there on business for more than 10 years. The first couple of trips were in business class, which was company policy. Then, one day, I asked how much it cost to fly from Dallas to Melbourne, Australia in business class. It was $8,500 compared to a coach fare of $1,600. I switched to coach travel. I could not then nor can I see the justification in sticking the rates payers, many of whom live below the poverty line or just above it, with a premium fare. And it is the rate payers who ultimately picked-up the tab. I am in the minority. I know it. Being in the majority, however, does not make it right.
In another post asertions are made that the creature comforts on the Acela justify the premium fares. Difficult to substantiate!
The Acela service covers its operating costs before interest and depreciation. It does not cover the fully allocated capital costs. The remaining trains on the NEC don't cover their operating costs, although they did in FY08. However, they were only able to do so because Amtrak had a different cost accounting system. Under the current cost accounting model, if they restated the results for 2008, the other NEC trains would have lost money.
In FY10 Amtrak's annual depreciation was $593.1 million and interest expense was $135.5 million, bringing unallocated depreciation and interest to $728.6 million. How much of this amount is worn by the NEC? Amtrak does not tell us in its public financial statements. However, it spent billions upgrading of the NEC over the past 10 to 15 years and, therefore, the bulk of it is allocable to the NEC, i.e. equipment, infrastructure upgrade to accomodate higher speeds, extension of the wires to Boston, etc.
A conservative estimate of the depreciation and interest allocable to the NEC is 75 per cent. If one accepts this estimate, $546.5 million belongs to the NEC. How much is attributable to the Acela? Without being able to look at Amtrak's property accounting ledgers, it is difficult to say. However, it is difficult to believe that the capital improvements that were made to the NEC, especially the electrification of the line from New Have to South Station, would have been made if it had not been for the Acela.
In FY10 the Acela generated approximately 50 per cent of the revenues on the NEC. If we assign half of the interest and depreciation to the Acela, which had an operating profit of approximately $100.6 million in FY10 (latest audited numbers), it means the Acela lost $172.6 million on a fully allocated cost basis. If we assign 75 per cent of the capital improvements to the Acela, the fully allocated loss would be $309.2 million, which is not far off from the figure that Fred Frailey offered up, although I don't know where he got his numbers. And this is for a premium service.
Amtrak pays no taxes, i.e. fuel taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, etc. If it had to pay taxes, the loss on the Acela would be even greater, as well as its system wide operations, would be even greater.
Dave: Precisely! This is a phony issue about Acela and subsidies by business travelers through tax deductions. Rather than attack Acela, which as you point out, covers its own operating expenses and allows the entire NEC to operate with a profit, perhaps tax deductions for business travel should be eliminated, along with first class.
Acela should not be a wipping boy for subsidies or for anything else.
If I am reimbursed for an Acela fare by my employer, it is because the employer and thus his customrer receive value in my improved productivity from the absence of hassel and the superior speed of the service Amtrak's Acela gives me.
On an incremental basis, out-of-pocket plus capital and maintenance costs, Acela makes a profit and requires no subsidy. What I mean by this is that if Acela were discontiniued, the subsidy for the rest of the services provided on the NEC would have to increase greatly or ticket prices would have to increase greatly or some combination of both. In a very real sense the Acela rider subsidizes the rider on regional and commuter trains. (The latter get the greatest subsidy, getting one from state and local governments as well as via Amtrak from the USA tax payer.)
The costs of improving the NEC were and are do to years of deferred maintenance and lack of capital expendituires. If you're going to spend money to replace 80-year-old catenary, having it equipped for 150mph instead of 125 in a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost. Much is the same for track structure and much else. In can be arued that a tilting train causes far less outside rail wear on curves than regular equipment.
The analogy with the Cadillac owner and the Chevy owner is a good one. And of course passenger intercity rail could be a private industry of highway transportion was not so heavily subsidized.
Sam1 ". Its a subsidy to the user in some instances. And it is a subsidy for the service provider in that the service would not otherwise be sustainable. The tax code is a political document. It enhances or restricts certain activities. The word subsidy does not appear in the code. It is a matter of substance over form. But when deductions are restricted, it is because politician have concluded that they are unfair and serve no societal purpose. Call them what you want, the ability to deduct premium transport fares, such as those charged by the Acela services, benefits the rider, who for the most part is passing the cost through to the end users, and it benefits Amtrak. If people don't like the term subsidy, try enabler. The tax benefits for home ownership in the U.S. benefit the owners. They also benefit builders and sellers in that they can build bigger, pricier houses, which tend to be more profitable than smaller, less featured houses. I used this illustration because it is an analogy that most people can relate to. It is also one that causes most people to get torqued up because it hits home. One man's subsidy is another man's vital investment. Being allowed to deduct the cost of an Acela fare (I never claimed otherwise) for expense account riders enables Amtrak to offer a premium service that otherwise it could not do. True, the rider benefits, but so too does Amtrak. In my mind it is a form of subsidy, although different in form than the direct subsidy Amtrak receives from the government. I am not arguing that ordinary and necessary expenses are not a legitimate business deduction. Tthis is the guiding principle of the IRS Tax Code. But if expenses are above and beyond ordinary and necessary, they are not deductable. Business class is deductable because it is classified as ordinary and necessary, although like many things in the tax code, I believe that is a stretch. Using all capital letters or bold letters in emails, forums, etc. is considered to be shouting. There are several guides for on-line etiquette that deal with the issue in great length.
".
Its a subsidy to the user in some instances. And it is a subsidy for the service provider in that the service would not otherwise be sustainable.
The tax code is a political document. It enhances or restricts certain activities. The word subsidy does not appear in the code. It is a matter of substance over form. But when deductions are restricted, it is because politician have concluded that they are unfair and serve no societal purpose. Call them what you want, the ability to deduct premium transport fares, such as those charged by the Acela services, benefits the rider, who for the most part is passing the cost through to the end users, and it benefits Amtrak. If people don't like the term subsidy, try enabler.
The tax benefits for home ownership in the U.S. benefit the owners. They also benefit builders and sellers in that they can build bigger, pricier houses, which tend to be more profitable than smaller, less featured houses. I used this illustration because it is an analogy that most people can relate to. It is also one that causes most people to get torqued up because it hits home. One man's subsidy is another man's vital investment.
Being allowed to deduct the cost of an Acela fare (I never claimed otherwise) for expense account riders enables Amtrak to offer a premium service that otherwise it could not do. True, the rider benefits, but so too does Amtrak. In my mind it is a form of subsidy, although different in form than the direct subsidy Amtrak receives from the government.
I am not arguing that ordinary and necessary expenses are not a legitimate business deduction. Tthis is the guiding principle of the IRS Tax Code. But if expenses are above and beyond ordinary and necessary, they are not deductable. Business class is deductable because it is classified as ordinary and necessary, although like many things in the tax code, I believe that is a stretch.
Using all capital letters or bold letters in emails, forums, etc. is considered to be shouting. There are several guides for on-line etiquette that deal with the issue in great length.
Oh, c'mon. There was nothing in my response which was insulting or demeaning (and, if you've read my other posts, I never insult people). I've been writing business and personal E-Mails for decades. On occasion, I think it's useful to emphasize particular words when they are important to a concept. In the case of my response to your post, those words related to the issue who was being subsidized. My normal way of doing this is by italicization. But, that doesn't seem to work on this website (or, at least, I can't figure out how to make it work, given my level of computer skills), so I have to resort to capitalization. Perhaps I shouldn't have emphasized the word "nothing" so, if that offended you, I apologize.
You're right., Paul. The whole thing has gone on so long that you can say anything and actually be half right and half wrong depending on who hears the message. So all arguments thus become meaningless. What does have meaning is where do we go from here. I've got a 4 year old car with 58,000 miles on it, I live in a rural area, and use the car for visiting clients as well as for recreation. I am 68 yrs. old. If I had a reliable rail service to take me where I want to go and when I want to go, I might use it. But lets take a 21 year old starting out. If we provide him with a train service that he could use at a price that would eliminate his need to purchase as few as 5 and as many as 30 automobiles in his lifetime, saving purchase, licensing, parking, maintaining, and other user costs in that time, it might be in his best interest to have rail service. For me at my age new service vs my automobile doesn't make as much sense. So what we've got to do is draw a line and mark a spot from where we start planning and building a transportation system that serves.
I kinda don't buy the argument anymore about the true costs of road transportation being hidden from view and hence we are pouring gobnormous amounts of government money into highways and that if trains and transit somewho had their fair share of all of this that we would have this world-class train system.
Yeah, yeah, the cost-comparisons of the anti-train contingent are conducted through the lens of a general point of view on the subject, but the cost figures of the train contingent, in attributing every possible and imaginable indirect cost to road transport are equally suspect.
For example, Madison Metro (local bus company) has a big fat sign on the buses saying that the cost of auto commuting is $9000/year and the cost of Madison Metro, based on a certain multi-ride fare plan, is something like $600/year.
You can easily spend $9000/year if you lease, insure, put gas in, and park a late model car. But to ascribe that entire expense to commuting? When the average trip length on Metro is about 3-4 miles? If you are travelling 3-4 miles each day to work, and that is the only thing you use the car for, you can drive some clunker and find a local mechanic who can keep that puppy running. You know, kind of like a train station car that people keep who have to drive to a suburban station and then take the Metra train into downtown Chicago. This $9000/year comparison may make a point, and it is easy to spend that much on a not-even-that-fancy car if you are buying new and leasing, but it is a bit of a stretch and an exageration in the context of the bus company being your second car.
Whether building a train line is cheaper than adding highway lanes also depends. With the exception of the NEC and maybe the Pacific Surfliner, the corridor trains services cost much, much less than highway lanes but they serve much, much less than the capacity of even one highway lane in each direction.
As to the gas tax as a user fee and the cross-subsidization that goes on, yeah, yeah, the rural roads are cross subsidized, and the Interstate is cross subsidized. If the Interstate were not cross subsidized, it would have to charge substantial, tolls! Like the Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and now Florida and Texas toll roads.
So the argument is let's build a nationwide network of HSR corridors. Let's call it Interstate II or the Steel Interstate or some such thing. Why not have gas tax pay for it just as gas tax pays for Interstate I?
I mean why not? Why don't we just levy another gas tax increment, pay for and build HSR, and instead of driving door-to-door, you would (I guess) drive (and park) at the HSR station, be whisked along on the HSR, and then get a ride (or rent a car) at the other end. We do that with airplanes, don't we?
For one thing, it depends on what the non-railfan non-passenger advocate people out there want to do. If you would rather your gas tax money go towards a multi-modal auto-HSR-somethingattheotherend mode instead of door-to-door auto, I guess that is a choice we have to make through a political process. But we would need to persuade people other than passenger advocates and railfans that trains are kewl. And we shouldn't get mad at people if that is not what they want to do. I think we should advocate and persuade and not scold -- that bus banner borders on a scold, as much as saying look dummy, how much money is flying out the window because you want to drive as if you couldn't budget your auto expenses and whether you could afford a car against whether you want to travel to work on a bus in close fellowship with your fellow Madisonians.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
We pay taxes of all kinds and never really get a "direct benefit". I pay school taxes though me, my wife, and son have long since graduated out of the system and my son, his wife and grandchildren live in another state. Other taxes go for state highways not just outside my door, but hundreds of miles in many directions away from where I sit. There is an old saying about if your in for a nickle, your in for a dime. So, if you are a citizen of a town, county, state, for country, you are a citizen or your not.
Sam1 In Texas' major cities, the legislature has authorized the collection of a dedicated sales tax to fund public transit. These taxes are collected from everyone, most of whom drive and very few who use public transit. In addition, two cents of the of the federal fuel tax is transferred to the Mass Transit Administration, which flows the funds to a variety of mass or public transit projects around the nation. In this manner, motorists are subsidizing public transit and not the other way around.
In Texas' major cities, the legislature has authorized the collection of a dedicated sales tax to fund public transit. These taxes are collected from everyone, most of whom drive and very few who use public transit. In addition, two cents of the of the federal fuel tax is transferred to the Mass Transit Administration, which flows the funds to a variety of mass or public transit projects around the nation. In this manner, motorists are subsidizing public transit and not the other way around.
Let's look at this issue from another perspective. How much would it be worth to a typical person driving into work to have his commute 20 minutes faster each way, say 40 minutes instead of an hour, twice a day. This can be accomplished by either:
1) building extra lanes and roads to reduce the congestion; or
2) removing enough automobiles that the congestion is greatly reduced.
The free market would say to go with the cheaper option, which in some cases may be attractive public transit. Note that the remaining motorists are primary beneficiaries, so it is quite appropriate that they share in the costs of that benefit.
Now I will admit rural drivers will see little or no benefit since they don't have traffic congestion problems (except when they drive into the big city to shop, visit or whatever). On the other hand, their local highways have probably been subsidized to a considerable extent by the urban taxpayers.
There are other ways of reducing the automobile use besides public transportation. Working from home (telecommuting) will be challenged to happen in large enough numbers to have real effect. Enforced car-pooling may be resisted, but perhaps the next spike in gas prices will encourage voluntary arrangements.
I think we are in general agreement that one of the problems is the true costs of road transportation are hidden from view, and for most people,<out of sight> equals <out of mind>.
John
But I though that's why we had in lawys, spouses and children...especially teenagers!
henry6 It's not issues being confused but words being construed and misconstrued. Subisdy is a direct payment from one entity to another not to purchase but to support. A tax is a charge usually from a government or its agent to a private individual or corporation to raise money. There is where the deliniation is. The government can take the tax monies received and pay its bills or give it as a subsidy to a given entity in the form of contsturction, tax break, land, bonds, dollars or any other way. The quibbling here over minutia and rhetoric is distracting from the original postulations. Stop mincing, misusing, and redefining words.
It's not issues being confused but words being construed and misconstrued. Subisdy is a direct payment from one entity to another not to purchase but to support. A tax is a charge usually from a government or its agent to a private individual or corporation to raise money. There is where the deliniation is. The government can take the tax monies received and pay its bills or give it as a subsidy to a given entity in the form of contsturction, tax break, land, bonds, dollars or any other way. The quibbling here over minutia and rhetoric is distracting from the original postulations. Stop mincing, misusing, and redefining words.
It is in the eyes of the beholder. Humans have been word smithing since they learned to speak. And they will do so until the end of time. Really, Henry, if everyone agreed on a subject or the words associated with it, without a bit a hair splitting, would these forums be any fun?
cx500 Sam1: Roads do not pay for themselves. The users pay for them through fuel taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, fees, and property taxes. Unfortunately, because of the deceptive way the revenues are collected, most motorists don't see the full cost of building and maintaining the country's roads at the pump. But they pay for them. Excuse me, but is not using property taxes to pay for roads an outright subsidy? Many take advantage of the subsidy to drive to work. That subsidy has become so widely accepted that very few recognize it for what it is. The deception has worked, and those who might prefer their property tax to used for better (or any) public transportation service are mocked. The money goes to add lanes or build a new interchange instead. Very little if any fuel taxes filter back to help maintain local roads. And the sales taxes on vehicle purchases and maintenance won't add up to very much either. Using sales tax on my shoes to repave the local main street is subsidizing a competing mode of transportation. John
Sam1: Roads do not pay for themselves. The users pay for them through fuel taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, fees, and property taxes. Unfortunately, because of the deceptive way the revenues are collected, most motorists don't see the full cost of building and maintaining the country's roads at the pump. But they pay for them.
Roads do not pay for themselves. The users pay for them through fuel taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, fees, and property taxes. Unfortunately, because of the deceptive way the revenues are collected, most motorists don't see the full cost of building and maintaining the country's roads at the pump. But they pay for them.
Excuse me, but is not using property taxes to pay for roads an outright subsidy? Many take advantage of the subsidy to drive to work. That subsidy has become so widely accepted that very few recognize it for what it is. The deception has worked, and those who might prefer their property tax to used for better (or any) public transportation service are mocked. The money goes to add lanes or build a new interchange instead.
Very little if any fuel taxes filter back to help maintain local roads. And the sales taxes on vehicle purchases and maintenance won't add up to very much either. Using sales tax on my shoes to repave the local main street is subsidizing a competing mode of transportation.
Who pays the property taxes? In the United States the nearly 114 million licensed drivers pay them irrespective of whether they own property or rent. The only motorists who do not pay property taxes, a portion of which are used to build and maintain local streets and county roads, are those who live in public housing. And not many motorists in Texas reside in public housing, although there are some.
The problem with funding local streets and county roads through the property tax, as I have said, is it hides the true cost of driving. For this reason, I would like to see the politicians pass the cost of local streets and county roads through to motorists at the pump, with a corresponding reduction in property taxes. It is not likely to happen.
Sam1 Roads do not pay for themselves. The users pay for them through fuel taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, fees, and property taxes. Unfortunately, because of the deceptive way the revenues are collected, most motorists don't see the full cost of building and maintaining the country's roads at the pump. But they pay for them.
Falcon48 Sam1: ". The issue is whether the premium fare that is paid by someone traveling on an expense account is a subsidy to the carrier or vendor. As I noted, it applies equally to any mode of transport, including first class, business class, etc. Are high priced meals eaten by people on an expense account a subsidy for the restaurants that serve them. The IRS thinks so. It is the reason a business cannot deduct more than half of the cost of the meal as a legitimate business expense. And there is an upper limit on the cost of the meal. It is the reason why all outside of the box travel, meal, and entertainment expenses are constrained by the tax code. The Acela service probably would not be possible without people riding on expense accounts. On the other hand, if the first class and business cabins on the jet liner went away, the airlines would probably do quite nicely, since there would still be plenty of people to fill the seats in the back. Come to think of it, on Southwest, Jet Blue, etc., there is no first and business classes. And they appear to be doing OK. Clearly, what is a subsidy depends on one's views. As I mentioned, most people really get torqued up when I tell them that the ability to deduct the mortgage interest, property taxes, and capital gains on their homestead on Schedule A and D is really a subsidy. I guess it depends on whose Ox is being gored. You are confusing two entirely different issues The question of whether a user fee a business traveller pays to the provider of a service (whether rail transportation or hotel accomodations) is tax deductible has NOTHING whatever to do with the issue of whether the fee is a "subsidy" to the service PROVIDER. The reason IRS does not allow some types or amounts of business expenses to be deducted isn't because IRS considers them to be "subsidies" to the PROVIDERS of the goods or services involved. It's because IRS does not consider the expenses to be reasonably necessary for the TAXPAYER (that is, the business which INCURRED the expense) to generate its own income, and thus does not allow the TAXPAYER to use the expenses to reduce its taxes. The other types of tax deductions you mention (mortgage, property taxes, etc) also have NOTHING to do with this question. One can legitimately argue whether giving these deductions to a taxpayer is a form of "subsidy". But, if it is a "subsidy", it is a subsidy to the TAXPAYER which incurred the expenses. It is not a "subsidy" to the entity which sold the taxpayer a mortagage, or the local govenrment which levied the property tax. It's also not a "subsidy" to other providers of goods and services, who may make some additional sales because the deductions give the taxpayer more disposible income. If you start looking at the downstream multiplier effects of every government policy which may influence a buyer's economic decision to purchase a product or service, and label them all as "subsidies" to the product or service providers, then you might as well call everything a "subsidy" and forget about the question. Finally, if you are going to use tax deductibility as the criteria for "what is a subsidy", then Acela fares flunk your own test. To my knowledge, Acela fares for business travel are fully deductible.
Sam1: ". The issue is whether the premium fare that is paid by someone traveling on an expense account is a subsidy to the carrier or vendor. As I noted, it applies equally to any mode of transport, including first class, business class, etc. Are high priced meals eaten by people on an expense account a subsidy for the restaurants that serve them. The IRS thinks so. It is the reason a business cannot deduct more than half of the cost of the meal as a legitimate business expense. And there is an upper limit on the cost of the meal. It is the reason why all outside of the box travel, meal, and entertainment expenses are constrained by the tax code. The Acela service probably would not be possible without people riding on expense accounts. On the other hand, if the first class and business cabins on the jet liner went away, the airlines would probably do quite nicely, since there would still be plenty of people to fill the seats in the back. Come to think of it, on Southwest, Jet Blue, etc., there is no first and business classes. And they appear to be doing OK. Clearly, what is a subsidy depends on one's views. As I mentioned, most people really get torqued up when I tell them that the ability to deduct the mortgage interest, property taxes, and capital gains on their homestead on Schedule A and D is really a subsidy. I guess it depends on whose Ox is being gored.
The issue is whether the premium fare that is paid by someone traveling on an expense account is a subsidy to the carrier or vendor. As I noted, it applies equally to any mode of transport, including first class, business class, etc.
Are high priced meals eaten by people on an expense account a subsidy for the restaurants that serve them. The IRS thinks so. It is the reason a business cannot deduct more than half of the cost of the meal as a legitimate business expense. And there is an upper limit on the cost of the meal. It is the reason why all outside of the box travel, meal, and entertainment expenses are constrained by the tax code.
The Acela service probably would not be possible without people riding on expense accounts. On the other hand, if the first class and business cabins on the jet liner went away, the airlines would probably do quite nicely, since there would still be plenty of people to fill the seats in the back. Come to think of it, on Southwest, Jet Blue, etc., there is no first and business classes. And they appear to be doing OK.
Clearly, what is a subsidy depends on one's views. As I mentioned, most people really get torqued up when I tell them that the ability to deduct the mortgage interest, property taxes, and capital gains on their homestead on Schedule A and D is really a subsidy. I guess it depends on whose Ox is being gored.
You are confusing two entirely different issues
The question of whether a user fee a business traveller pays to the provider of a service (whether rail transportation or hotel accomodations) is tax deductible has NOTHING whatever to do with the issue of whether the fee is a "subsidy" to the service PROVIDER. The reason IRS does not allow some types or amounts of business expenses to be deducted isn't because IRS considers them to be "subsidies" to the PROVIDERS of the goods or services involved. It's because IRS does not consider the expenses to be reasonably necessary for the TAXPAYER (that is, the business which INCURRED the expense) to generate its own income, and thus does not allow the TAXPAYER to use the expenses to reduce its taxes.
The other types of tax deductions you mention (mortgage, property taxes, etc) also have NOTHING to do with this question. One can legitimately argue whether giving these deductions to a taxpayer is a form of "subsidy". But, if it is a "subsidy", it is a subsidy to the TAXPAYER which incurred the expenses. It is not a "subsidy" to the entity which sold the taxpayer a mortagage, or the local govenrment which levied the property tax. It's also not a "subsidy" to other providers of goods and services, who may make some additional sales because the deductions give the taxpayer more disposible income. If you start looking at the downstream multiplier effects of every government policy which may influence a buyer's economic decision to purchase a product or service, and label them all as "subsidies" to the product or service providers, then you might as well call everything a "subsidy" and forget about the question.
Finally, if you are going to use tax deductibility as the criteria for "what is a subsidy", then Acela fares flunk your own test. To my knowledge, Acela fares for business travel are fully deductible.
Sam1 ". The issue is whether the premium fare that is paid by someone traveling on an expense account is a subsidy to the carrier or vendor. As I noted, it applies equally to any mode of transport, including first class, business class, etc. Are high priced meals eaten by people on an expense account a subsidy for the restaurants that serve them. The IRS thinks so. It is the reason a business cannot deduct more than half of the cost of the meal as a legitimate business expense. And there is an upper limit on the cost of the meal. It is the reason why all outside of the box travel, meal, and entertainment expenses are constrained by the tax code. The Acela service probably would not be possible without people riding on expense accounts. On the other hand, if the first class and business cabins on the jet liner went away, the airlines would probably do quite nicely, since there would still be plenty of people to fill the seats in the back. Come to think of it, on Southwest, Jet Blue, etc., there is no first and business classes. And they appear to be doing OK. Clearly, what is a subsidy depends on one's views. As I mentioned, most people really get torqued up when I tell them that the ability to deduct the mortgage interest, property taxes, and capital gains on their homestead on Schedule A and D is really a subsidy. I guess it depends on whose Ox is being gored.
I have another question based on marketing. Could the speed of Acela be marekted without the other amenities and higher fares? In other words, it it were a regular coach seat with regular long distance meal service, and were priced at regular coach fares, would there be enough demand/use to do better than break even? Supose the marketing plan was not against the Eastern Shuttle but rather against Greyhound or the family Toyota, could it succeed?
Falcon48 In response to Sam1, I don't think it's at all appropriate to treat the "spread" between Acela fares and regional fares as a "subsidy" because the passengers paying them may pass the costs on to their customers or clients. The same can be said of virtually any expense incurred by a business traveler that's reimbursed by his/her employer. For example, put that "high level manager" paying the Acela fare on an airplane. The air fare will be passsed on to customers or clients the same as the rail fare. Why isn't that a "subsidy" to the air lines? And, based on this theory, why would you distinguish between the regional fare and the Acela fare at all? After all, if the manager uses a slower regional train and pays the lower fare, that fare will similarly be "passed on" to his/her customers or clients. Further, on the corridor, even the regional fares will likely be higher than Megabus. Is that "spread" a "subsidy" too? And let's not stop with rail fares. How about cost of the nice hotel room and meal the manager had while on his/her trip. Those, too, will be ultimately "passed on" to customers or clients. Are they "subsidies" to the hotel and the restaurant?. Or are they "subsidies" only to the extent that the costs exceed the price of a Motel 6 room and a Big Mac.? The fare actually paid for the service received by the passenger is not a "subsidy", regardless of whether it is "high" or "low", and regardless of whether it is ultimately passed on to customers, clients or strockholders as part of a business' cost or price structure or the value of its shares. To call user charges like this a "subsidy" would mean all expenses incurred by business people and reimbursed by their employers are "subsidies" to those who provided the goods or services for which they were incurred, In the case of rail fares, that would mean that the only fares that wouldn't be "subsidies" would be the fares paid by non-business travelers.
In response to Sam1, I don't think it's at all appropriate to treat the "spread" between Acela fares and regional fares as a "subsidy" because the passengers paying them may pass the costs on to their customers or clients. The same can be said of virtually any expense incurred by a business traveler that's reimbursed by his/her employer. For example, put that "high level manager" paying the Acela fare on an airplane. The air fare will be passsed on to customers or clients the same as the rail fare. Why isn't that a "subsidy" to the air lines? And, based on this theory, why would you distinguish between the regional fare and the Acela fare at all? After all, if the manager uses a slower regional train and pays the lower fare, that fare will similarly be "passed on" to his/her customers or clients. Further, on the corridor, even the regional fares will likely be higher than Megabus. Is that "spread" a "subsidy" too?
And let's not stop with rail fares. How about cost of the nice hotel room and meal the manager had while on his/her trip. Those, too, will be ultimately "passed on" to customers or clients. Are they "subsidies" to the hotel and the restaurant?. Or are they "subsidies" only to the extent that the costs exceed the price of a Motel 6 room and a Big Mac.?
The fare actually paid for the service received by the passenger is not a "subsidy", regardless of whether it is "high" or "low", and regardless of whether it is ultimately passed on to customers, clients or strockholders as part of a business' cost or price structure or the value of its shares. To call user charges like this a "subsidy" would mean all expenses incurred by business people and reimbursed by their employers are "subsidies" to those who provided the goods or services for which they were incurred, In the case of rail fares, that would mean that the only fares that wouldn't be "subsidies" would be the fares paid by non-business travelers.
schlimm REA on this thread refers to the New Deal's Rural Electrification Administration, which, through loans to local co-ops, allowed America's farmers to get the electricity that private electric utilities refused to provide them because of lack of profitability. In 1934 only 11% of farms had electricity; by 1942 almost 50% did. Another good example of how society can solve some problems that were beyond the reach of capitalism.
REA on this thread refers to the New Deal's Rural Electrification Administration, which, through loans to local co-ops, allowed America's farmers to get the electricity that private electric utilities refused to provide them because of lack of profitability. In 1934 only 11% of farms had electricity; by 1942 almost 50% did. Another good example of how society can solve some problems that were beyond the reach of capitalism.
The REA helped bring electric power to some rural communities quicker than they would have gotten it had they waited until the investor owned electric utilities provided the power. Most REA utilities, known as co-ops, are located in the mid-west and southeast. They were built with low cost government financing, i.e. tax free bonds. In addition, in most instances, they pay no income taxes, property taxes, etc. Nevertheless, they are expected to recover their costs from their rate payers. Again, the operative words are recover costs from the rate payers or users.
Public electric utilities are the other form of public ownership. These utilities are owned usually by a city or municipality, whereas a co-op is owned by the customers. The largest public owned electric utility in the United States is owned by Los Angeles, followed closely by one owned by San Antonio.
Most of the rural areas in the United States, contrary to popular belief, were wired by investor owned electric utilities and get their power from these utilities. In those states with enlightened regulators the utilities were allowed to charge sufficient revenues in the cities to have the resources to extend the power lines out to the folks on the farm. Texas Power & Light Company, Texas Electric Service Company, West Texas Utilities, Southwest Electric Utilities, El Paso Electric, are examples of investor owned electric utilities that extend service to rural customers.
Approximately 85 per cent of Americans get their juice from investor owned electric utilities. And more than 90 per cent of the power is generated by these utilities. These companies pay income, property, excise and franchise taxes, whereas their public and co-op counterparts pay none of these taxes, although they usually collect a ghost franchise tax.
In Texas, where competition in the electric utility market is robust, the investor owned electric utilities trounce the public utilities. For example, in Georgetown, where I live and where the local utility is owned by the city, the residential rate is 10.56 cents per kWh. In San Antonio, which owns the local electric utility, the residential rate is 11.2 cents per kWh. In Austin, again where the utility is owned by the city, the rate is 8.7 cents per kWh. In Dallas, Houston, El Paso, etc, where competition has been introduced, customers can shop for their electric energy. As a result, they can find rates as low as 8.7 cents per kWh or better from more than 30 retailers. Why is the Austin rate so low? Because the utility is losing money and is on the verge of a significant rate increase.
Another point that is frequently overlooked is that most public utilities, as well as co-ops, depend on investor owned electric utilities for a substantial percentage of their power and transmission capabilities. Austin, for example, buys approximately 35 per cent of its power from investor owned utilities. The same is true for San Antonio. Georgetown depends on Oncor, which is part of Energy Future Holdings, for its transmission ties.
Numerous studies have shown that investor owned electric utilities, especially where competition is permitted, are simply more efficient and effective than public utilities. Government simply does a lousy job of running commercial enterprises.
I don't believe government should run any commercial activity that can be hoisted by competitive businesses in a well regulated market place.
The Corridor receives subsidies. The Acela runs on the Corridor. The A cela returns its investment and thensome because it is market priced and accepted. The Acela can be said to be subsidizing the Corridor. If those who ride the Acela took another form of transit it would probably be first a subsidized airline at the same or higher market price or by subisdized luxury bus similarly priced but with fewer amenities. The question that comes to mind is how many Acela customers would actually use Regional and how many would seek other means?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.