PJS1BTW, the Supreme Court is not infallible, i.e. Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu vs. United States, etc. The decisions in these cases were reversed or most historians agree were a mistake.
Those decisions were the law of the land, in some cases for years. They were changed only through due process, not because they were evil, horribly misreasoned or by the opinions of historians. Specifically, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was undone by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment of 1868. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was undone by the Supreme Court (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954) and legislation (Civil Rights Act 1964; Voting Rights Act, 1965). Korematsu v. United States (1944) was not repudiated until 2018 in the Supreme Court review Trump v. Hawaii.So at this time, Midland Mike is correct. Such is the nature of a living constitution.
[quote user="MidlandMike"] Amtrak is not an autonomous private enterprise. [quote]
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation is a quasi-public corporation. Its voting stock is held by the Secretary of Transportation for the benefit of the United States.
Nobody said that Amtrak is an autonomous private enterprise. "Not an autonomous private enterprise", does not mean that the company is not a commercial enterprise.
Amtrak competes in the market place just like a commercial airline, intercity bus operator, etc. It is a business. The fact that its voting shares are owned by the federal government does not negate this fact.
A deep dive into to Amtrak's financials shows the Amtrak’s accounting and financials were set-up to record a profit. It is the only federal government controlled commercial activity that is set-up to do so. The others, e.g. TVA, PBCG, FDIC, use fund accounting to record revenues, expenses, and surpluses.
Because it owned by the federal government, Amtrak is subject to political forces that would not beset most private businesses and, therefore, it has a more difficult time adjusting its services to market demand. But doing so is not impossible.
It was able to reduce the level of services significantly during the Carter Administration, if I remember correctly, by eliminating several long-distance routes, and it has effectively pulled out of the New Orleans to Florida market even its saying doing so is temporary.
BTW, the Supreme Court is not infallible, i.e. Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu vs. United States, etc. The decisions in these cases were reversed or most historians agree were a mistake.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Yes we can agree to disagree, but at least the Supreme Court and me are in agrement. From page 2 of the Syllabus (of the Opinion of the Court), DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ET AL. v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS
"... As Amtrak’s ownership and corporate structure show, the political branches control most of Amtrak’s stock and its Board of Directors, most of whom are appointed by the President, §24302(a)(1), confirmed by the Senate, ibid., and understood by the Executive Branch to be removable by the President at will. The political branches also exercise substantial, statutorily mandated supervision over Amtrak’s priorities and operations. See, e.g., §24315. Also of significance, Amtrak is required by statute to pursue broad public objectives, see, e.g., §§24101(b), 24307(a); certain aspects of Amtrak’s day-to-day operations are mandated by Congress, see, e.g., §§24101(c)(6), 24902(b); and Amtrak has been dependent on federal financial support during every year of its existence. Given the combination of these unique features and Amtrak’s significant ties to the Government, Amtrak is not an autonomous private enterprise. Amtrak was created by the Government, is controlled by the Government, and operates for the Government’s benefit. Thus, in jointly issuing the metrics and standards with the FRA, Amtrak acted as a governmental entity for separation of powers purposes. And that exercise of governmental power must be consistent with the Constitution, including those provisions relating to the separation of powers. Pp. 6–10."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1080_f29g.pdf
MidlandMike PJS1 Its function is to rent space in railroad cars to carry passengers from one point to another for a fare. That statement is nuteral to either a business or a gov't agency. Perhaps you are trying to equate Amtrak to a concessionaire. I don't know of any private businesses where the government picks the entire board and controlls all corporate votes. The business structure may be an artifact of an original hope for its eventual self sufficiency.
That statement is nuteral to either a business or a gov't agency. Perhaps you are trying to equate Amtrak to a concessionaire. I don't know of any private businesses where the government picks the entire board and controlls all corporate votes. The business structure may be an artifact of an original hope for its eventual self sufficiency.
Not the point!
We will have to agree to disagree. Amtrak functions as a commercial enterprise and accounts for its activities as a business in accordance with GAAP. A deep dive into the company's audited financial reports makes this fact clear.
Irrespective of who holds the voting shares or appoints the Board of Directors, a close look at its capital structure, as well as the need to account for deferred income tax liabilities, among other line items, indicates that it is structured to function like a business as opposed to a governemtn agency or not-for-profit.
To put it mildly it is a failed business. If it were not for the substantial that it has harvested for all of it 47 years, it would have gone out of business many years ago.
PJS1Its function is to rent space in railroad cars to carry passengers from one point to another for a fare.
MidlandMike It's actual function is that of a publicly controlled transportation service.
Its function is to rent space in railroad cars to carry passengers from one point to another for a fare.
Amtrak's audited financial statements show that its accounting practices are governed by GAAP, which governs the accounting for businesses. Its capital structure is akin to that found in businesses.
Amtrak has been recording deferred federal income tax liabilities since 2012. If it ever turns a profit, it will have to pay federal income taxes. Government agencies don't pay federal income taxes, so deferring them is never an issue.
If Amtrak were structured as a government agency, its accounting practices would be governed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
Irrespective of its organizational intent and structure, Amtrak has lost more than $34.6 billion since its inception. The long-distance trains have been a major factor in the accumulated losses, which have contributed to the perceived deterioration of service.
PJS1Another way to put it is Amtrak is a quasi-government corporation, as defined in its charter, that would have gone out of business a long time ago if it were not for large federal and state subsidies. This is a form over substance issue. The form of the company is that of a government sponsored corporation. The substance is it is structured and functions like a commercial enterprise (business).
Yes it's a form over substance issue. Its structure as a business is also part of the form. This corporation has the government as the only voting block and underwriter of all losses. It's actual function is that of a publicly controlled transportation service.
PJS1 MidlandMike Tolls assumingly go to the roads. Property taxs primarily go to schools, police, fire, etc., and local roads. Its the sales taxes and income taxes that come largely from the general population that is helping to subsidize part of buses, taxis, uber, etc. Property taxes also support county roads. And in some states, in addition to the state and federal fuel tax, fuel draws sales tax. Ninety-two percent of American households have at least one licensed motorist. They pay the lion's share of the federal and state income taxes, as well as general sales taxes, that find their way into the general fund(s). And from the general funds that monies flow to roadway funds to cover the direct revenue shortfalls. Although it is practically impossible to trace all the money flows, Greyhound as an example, because of all the taxes it pays, probably pays its fair share of the costs of the roadways it uses. It may pay more than its fair share.
MidlandMike Tolls assumingly go to the roads. Property taxs primarily go to schools, police, fire, etc., and local roads. Its the sales taxes and income taxes that come largely from the general population that is helping to subsidize part of buses, taxis, uber, etc.
Property taxes also support county roads. And in some states, in addition to the state and federal fuel tax, fuel draws sales tax.
Ninety-two percent of American households have at least one licensed motorist. They pay the lion's share of the federal and state income taxes, as well as general sales taxes, that find their way into the general fund(s). And from the general funds that monies flow to roadway funds to cover the direct revenue shortfalls.
Although it is practically impossible to trace all the money flows, Greyhound as an example, because of all the taxes it pays, probably pays its fair share of the costs of the roadways it uses. It may pay more than its fair share.
I was counting county roads as local. Michigan also has a state gas tax that helps county roads along with state highways.
The problem with state and federal gas taxes is that they have not kept up with inflation. The gas taxes used to be more than enough to cover the roads, and even kicked in some for transit. While many household have licensed motorist, not every one drives the same amount. User fees such as gas tax insure that the driver pays in proportion to their usage of the roads. Anything else is subsidy by users and non users alike.
Until someone can show that the per capita allocation to Amtrak is more than the pper capita allocation to roads and bridges from general tax funds Amtrak will seem to be a good return. That is general tax funds not gas, diesel taxes license fees, sales taxes on vehicles . No figures have come out in a long time but in this state 30 - 50 % of road funds used to come from general tax revenues.
daveklepper ....the shortfall is made up from the general revenue.........highway transportation is an industry.
And where do most of the monies in the general funds (general revenues) come from? Mostly motorists! They are paying for the roadways that they use, but they don't see the complete cost at the price point, which is an issue.
Highways are infrastructure. With the exception of toll roads, they don't earn a return; they are not expected to.
More than 90 percent of the vehicles using the nation's highways are not engaged in a commercial activity. Those that are pay to use them. Whether they pay their fair share is a legitimate question.
The nation does not tax dams, airports, harbors, schools, universities, etc. for a good reason. It would be a case of government taxing itself, which would be dysfunctional.
Although it would be nearly impossible to improve, the taxable property displaced for the nation’s roadways, e.g. the I-30 mix master in Dallas, etc., probably has spawned a tax base that is greater than the taxable value of the property displaced.
In Texas, where I live, highways have spawned thousands of businesses, i.e. motels, hotels, restaurants, service stations, shopping malls, etc., that pay billions in property taxes. Without them most of the property would have remained scrub land with little if any taxable basis.
PJS1Amtrak is a commercial (business) enterprise.
There is the crux of the dicotomy!
Amtrak is a quazi govermental service; not a for profit business. Were it a for profit business, the IRS would have shut it down after 5 years for not making a profit and classified it as hobby. It hasn't made a profit in its first 47 years and is unlikely to make a profit in its next 47 years.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Instead of endless arguing about Amtrak through a profit-making business lens, perhaps it makes more sense to consider it a non-profit service. And from that perspective, the question is which of its subsidiaries (groupings) and lines (routes) are providing the most service, rprovides the most benefits to the most people? For Amtrak, the mission (service) was and is to provide transportation for people to get from one place to another in a rational manner. The mission was not to provide land cruises, restaurant experiences, hotels or other services not essential to that mission. The question of subsidies is hard to truly measure and thus rather moot. Given the current level of technology and effective speed and timings in the US, most people will either fly or go on highways for distances of much more than 350 miles/5-6 hours. That distance limit will increase with truly high speed rail services (speeds greater than 120 mph on existing lines or 160 mph on new, dedicated construction).
My undersranding is that there is a general shortfall in most states and with the interstate highway system (a few states are exceptions), and in both state and Federal cases, the shortfall is made up from the general revenue.
But look at it another way: Iighway transportation is an industry. It is an industry that does not pay real-estae taxes on most of the property devoted to that industry. Freight railroads do pay real-estate taxes. Look at the huge highway interchange in downtown LA and think of all the useful tax-paying commercial property that cloverleaf-plus replaces.
In some states, highway patrol policemen are paid out of highway funds but in others from general police funds.
MidlandMike PJS1 Nothing the court said changes of the nature of Amtrak's activities and structure. If you read its financials, etc. carefully, it behaves like a business. It is a commercial enterprise; it has all of the attributes of a business.
It can never really be determined whether all transport companies "pay their entire way". The difference is that those companies, and Amtrak corridor services, are used by many people and so are a vital component of our transportation system. Amtrak LD trains aren't. Some things are done for the public good but LD trains don't qualify.
As far as the one poster being outraged that railfans would want to end (some) Amtrak services, there's a difference between liking something as a hobby and looking at in a business sense.
DeggestyThe propane was used to power the air conditioners.
OK, so that clears up a mystery. I remember there was never an issue with heating nor AC on them both were reliable and the propane A/C is probably why. I know the Milwaukee preferred Waukesha Engine as a supplier as they were a shipping customer. I'll bet they supplied the A/C units I did a Google Search and found this.......
http://www.wehs.net/railway-ac-units.html
Never saw an axle generator on the Milwaukee Cars and I am not sure if they had batteries or not.
PJS1According to the CBO, revenues from fuel taxes, excise taxes, etc., which are levied directly on the operators, cover approximately 40 to 45 percent of the cost of building and maintaining the nation's roadways. The other monies come from property taxes, inventory taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, tolls, etc.
Tolls assumingly go to the roads. Property taxs primarily go to schools, police, fire, etc., and local roads. Its the sales taxes and income taxes that come largely from the general population that is helping to subsidize part of buses, taxis, uber, etc.
PJS1Nothing the court said changes of the nature of Amtrak's activities and structure. If you read its financials, etc. carefully, it behaves like a business. It is a commercial enterprise; it has all of the attributes of a business.
It behaves like a business? Can I quote you on that? It seems that many times previously you said that if Amtrak was a business it would have been out of business a long time ago.
BaltACD MidlandMike PJS1 If airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, for hire limos, Uber, Lyft, etc. are expected to cover all of their costs or go out of business, why should passenger trains be exempt? With the possible exception of airlines, none of those other passenger carriers cover all their costs. They use the roads, and user fees such as the gas tax don't cover all road costs, so they are also subsidized by taxpayers. Airlines come nowhere near covering ALL their costs. The don't end up paying full costs for either airports or the Air Traffic Control System. The number of bankrupt carriers that have developed over the years indicate covering the routine operating costs and 'turning a profit' is far from a sure thing.
MidlandMike PJS1 If airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, for hire limos, Uber, Lyft, etc. are expected to cover all of their costs or go out of business, why should passenger trains be exempt? With the possible exception of airlines, none of those other passenger carriers cover all their costs. They use the roads, and user fees such as the gas tax don't cover all road costs, so they are also subsidized by taxpayers.
PJS1 If airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, for hire limos, Uber, Lyft, etc. are expected to cover all of their costs or go out of business, why should passenger trains be exempt?
With the possible exception of airlines, none of those other passenger carriers cover all their costs. They use the roads, and user fees such as the gas tax don't cover all road costs, so they are also subsidized by taxpayers.
Airlines come nowhere near covering ALL their costs. The don't end up paying full costs for either airports or the Air Traffic Control System. The number of bankrupt carriers that have developed over the years indicate covering the routine operating costs and 'turning a profit' is far from a sure thing.
From what I read, airlines cover their airport costs with access fees. They pay their share of air control, while general avation seems to get a free ride. I think PJS1 covered the part about carriers going out of business.
However, I did forget to mention the Essential Air Service subsidy for small markets.
MidlandMike Nevertheless, when the railroads tried to force the issue, the Supreme Court called the charade, and determined that Amtrak was an agency.
I believe the Court said that Amtrak acts like a government agency for regulator purposes. And if I remember correct the issue was remanded back to the lower court for re-consideration. It is still being litigated.
Nothing the court said changes of the nature of Amtrak's activities and structure. If you read its financials, etc. carefully, it behaves like a business. It is a commercial enterprise; it has all of the attributes of a business.
Most people don't read the financials, in large part I suspect because they don't understand them. And unless you are an accountant or financial analyst, they are boring.
Maybe. All commercial carriers pay to help support the public facilities that they use. Whether they pay their fair share is another question. Needless to say, they argue that they do.
According to the CBO, revenues from fuel taxes, excise taxes, etc., which are levied directly on the operators, cover approximately 40 to 45 percent of the cost of building and maintaining the nation's roadways. The other monies come from property taxes, inventory taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, tolls, etc.
Greyhound, which is just one example, pays fuel taxes, excise taxes, etc. on its buses, tires, etc. It pays property taxes on its terminals, service facilities, storage yards, etc. In Dallas it owns a bus terminal, maintenance facility, and service yard. They all attract local property and inventory taxes. When its buses run on TX130, which is a toll road, it pays the tolls, albeit it gets a discount. It pays the Texas Margin Tax, which is a form of income tax, although we don't admit it, as well as state and federal corporate income taxes. Some of the funds from the last two sources eventually find their way into the transfers from the state and federal general funds to help build and maintain the nation's roadways.
None of the commercial carriers mentioned previously pay any taxes. They are paid by their customers. They are baked into the price of the airline, bus, limo, taxi, etc. fares.
PJS1 ... Amtrak rents space on its passenger trains to carry riders from one point to another. It is a commercial carrier, just like commercial airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, etc. Whether it was intended to breakeven or earn a profit is unclear. But its books and financials are set-up like a business, which means it has the structure to record a profit. If it were a government agency, it would have a surplus account as opposed to a retained earnings account. Or as it turns out an accumulated deficit account, which stood at $34.6 billion at the end of FY17.
...
Amtrak rents space on its passenger trains to carry riders from one point to another. It is a commercial carrier, just like commercial airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, etc. Whether it was intended to breakeven or earn a profit is unclear. But its books and financials are set-up like a business, which means it has the structure to record a profit. If it were a government agency, it would have a surplus account as opposed to a retained earnings account. Or as it turns out an accumulated deficit account, which stood at $34.6 billion at the end of FY17.
Amtrak may have been set up with good intentions to earn its own keep, and perhaps they continue the business structure as an expedience. Nevertheless, when the railroads tried to force the issue, the Supreme Court called the charade, and determined that Amtrak was an agency.
PJS1If airlines, intercity bus companies, taxis, for hire limos, Uber, Lyft, etc. are expected to cover all of their costs or go out of business, why should passenger trains be exempt?
NKP guy I can't quite get over railfans (! ?) being in favor of abolishing Amtrak.
Who mentioned anything about abolishing Amtrak. It makes sense in relatively short, high density corridors. The issue is whether it makes any sense, economic or otherwise, to run once a day long-distance trains that are used by less than one percent of intercity travelers?
TVA was funded by federal government and municipal bonds. It funds its projects at a lower cost than would have been the case if it had to borrow money in the open markets.
The average retail price of residential electric energy in the United States is 13.30 cents per kWh. The highest rates are found in the New England States, Middle Atlantic States, upper Midwest, California, Alaska, and Hawaii.
The rates in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Florida, for which the retail companies are able to wholesale power from the TVA, range from 11 to 14 cents per kWh. The average rates for Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia are the same. The cost of electric energy is a factor in deciding where to locate a facility, but it not the only one.
The TVA has paid back everything that it has borrowed and then some. Amtrak has never earned enough to pay back anything. More importantly, however, the TVA has nothing to do with the issue of how many taxpayer dollars should be directed to Amtrak and for what purposes.
BaltACD PJS1 A key point is the importance of what people in one part of the country are being asked to support in another part of the country that is not likely to benefit them directly. I am happy to have my federal tax dollars go to support the NEC, as well as several other high density corridors, because they are important or maybe even critical alternatives for mobility in those corridors. Likewise, I would support using some of my state tax dollars to support better passenger rail service along the I-35 corridor between DFW and San Antonio, even though I would not be able to use it that much. But I don't want my tax dollars going to support once a day, often late running long distance trains, that could go away tomorrow and very few people would miss them. They are not critical transport for but a tiny fraction of the nation's population. It is a matter of priorities. We have become a nation of I don't give a sh.t or a tax dollar if I don't benefit from it. Service is Service. The movie 'Cars' gives a insight to what happens when 'service' is put on another route. Former US 66 fading into dust with the establishment of I-40. Of course this all takes place in 'fly over' territory so no one cares and what happens in fly over country is of no priority. LD Amtrak service's fly over country, for those that don't fly and don't drive - they are tax paying citizens too!
A key point is the importance of what people in one part of the country are being asked to support in another part of the country that is not likely to benefit them directly.
I am happy to have my federal tax dollars go to support the NEC, as well as several other high density corridors, because they are important or maybe even critical alternatives for mobility in those corridors.
Likewise, I would support using some of my state tax dollars to support better passenger rail service along the I-35 corridor between DFW and San Antonio, even though I would not be able to use it that much.
But I don't want my tax dollars going to support once a day, often late running long distance trains, that could go away tomorrow and very few people would miss them. They are not critical transport for but a tiny fraction of the nation's population.
It is a matter of priorities.
We have become a nation of I don't give a sh.t or a tax dollar if I don't benefit from it.
Service is Service.
The movie 'Cars' gives a insight to what happens when 'service' is put on another route. Former US 66 fading into dust with the establishment of I-40.
Of course this all takes place in 'fly over' territory so no one cares and what happens in fly over country is of no priority. LD Amtrak service's fly over country, for those that don't fly and don't drive - they are tax paying citizens too!
Apparently you did not read my posting carefully. If it is important, i.e. a key link in the nation's transport scheme, using tax dollars to help it is approrpiate.
But how anyone could argue that the long distance trains, which carry less than one percent of intercity travelers in the U.S., is a critical link in the nation's transport system escapes me.
In the long run, however, if passenger rail cannot be sustained without massive federal and/or state subsidies, it should be put on the shelf.
People in flyover country get lots of federal dollars for things that are important. Look up federally subsidized crop insurance, price supports, and the Essential Air Service Program for openers.
NKP guy I don't know about you, but I received very little recently in the way of tax relief, while the 1% got nearly all of it. But I do like, need, and use Amtrak, and you would take that away from your countrymen because it would increase the federal deficit?
I don't know about you, but I received very little recently in the way of tax relief, while the 1% got nearly all of it. But I do like, need, and use Amtrak, and you would take that away from your countrymen because it would increase the federal deficit?
NKPguy, I can't take time now to address your questions fully. I do prepare tax returns as part of my livelihood. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed last December for all intents and purposes doesn't go into effect until 2018. Except for the IRS change of withholding tables last winter, you likely haven't experienced an impact from the act one way or the other. If you require it, I hope you have kept an eye on your withholdings to make sure enough has been paid in during the year. We think many people will have smaller refunds or owe this time around, because they've gotten more money in their paychecks during the year, and haven't adjusted their withholdings. The act changes will be reflected with the upcoming 2018 returns. We usually don't start considering the tax changes as being "written in stone" until Christmas week, because Congress or the IRS always make changes at the last minute. Last year, even after "the last minute". Many people had to amend their returns because they had already filed. The actual forms for 2018 will be much different than previous years.
[quote user="Philly Amtrak Fan"]A lot of the country doesn't have access to Amtrak (within say 100 mile radius). Is it fair for someone living in Columbus, OH to pay tax money for Amtrak when they can't use it?
Quite right! No, it isn't fair. Those unserved taxpayers ought to be demanding that Amtrak serve their towns, too, by expanding.
Is it fair that citizens in states unaffected by hurricanes have to subsidize people who live in those zones by underwriting or subsidizing insurance for those who do? If people want to live on the beach or in hurricane-prone areas, why should (for example) Ohioans subsidize that?
Also, for years folks in northern states paid taxes to build the TVA. Subsequently, the cheaper costs of electricity in TVA areas was a lure or strong incentive to take businesses from the North and have them relocate in the South. Was that fair to Northerners?
I can't quite get over railfans (! ?) being in favor of abolishing Amtrak, for whatever reason. I also notice no one here (yet, anyway) mentioned the $1.5 trillion tax cut as making sense, while Amtrak's subsidy doesn't.
To quote a former Congressman: "Beam me up, Scotty."
PJS1 blue streak 1 But Philly those persons in the western states have to pay taxes for your waterways that they cannot use unless they go to those locations. A key point is the importance of what people in one part of the country are being asked to support in another part of the country that is not likely to benefit them directly. I am happy to have my federal tax dollars go to support the NEC, as well as several other high density corridors, because they are important or maybe even critical alternatives for mobility in those corridors. Likewise, I would support using some of my state tax dollars to support better passenger rail service along the I-35 corridor between DFW and San Antonio, even though I would not be able to use it that much. But I don't want my tax dollars going to support once a day, often late running long distance trains, that could go away tomorrow and very few people would miss them. They are not critical transport for but a tiny fraction of the nation's population. It is a matter of priorities.
blue streak 1 But Philly those persons in the western states have to pay taxes for your waterways that they cannot use unless they go to those locations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.