Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think people are misusing the word subsidy in this thread. The federal government giving farmers money to keep prices low is a subsidy, especially when that money is collected outside of taxes related to the sale of those goods.
Taxes collected and spent for the sole purpose of road maintenance is not a subsidy, especially when said taxes are collected from owning and operating a car or truck.
It's done intentionally to confuse the issue. Most people don't know the difference but believe "subsidies" are bad.
Like spending on roads or schools is renamed to be an "investment".
We had a Mayor many years ago who interchanged the words bonding and grants in order to confuse people. Things like, "Well we're getting a grant for that project" when it was actually being financed by ad valorum bonds. Damned near bankrupted the Town and was why I originally got involved.
Do know BART says it needs Billions in addition to the 3.5 Billion Voters just approved.
Funds for Highways are diverted for things like Bike Lanes on the Bay Bridge... with estimates as high as 500 million dollars and even Conservative estimates around 300 million... and Bikes cross for FREE
I think we may share a pet peeve. The elite cycling community in the SF Bay Area is very vocal and have been successful in getting bike lanes put in where they are not only not needed often, but are not needed, ever.
I live in a suburban area and all of a sudden there are brightly signed bike lanes, reducing driving lane width (and most drivers in SUV's), confusing some drivers and where I don't see any cyclists, ever. Of course, there must be some cyclists, but certainly not the number to which all these lanes and amenities are dedicated.
With all the cost to implement these bike lanes (especially over the bridge), cyclists must be forced to pay for this amenity and ticketed if they don't.
It hasn't been said, to my knowledge, but people who are even just moderately disabled or who need to carry a lot of stuff with them (including canes, etc.) are not able to use bikes, and the speedier cyclists don't appear to be the least bit considerate of elderly who aren't as speedy as they are.
Are wheelchairs, whether push or electric, allowed in bike lanes?
It's done intentionally to confuse the issue. Most people don't know the difference but believe "subsidies" are bad.
Like spending on roads or schools is renamed to be an "investment".
We had a Mayor many years ago who interchanged the words bonding and grants in order to confuse people. Things like, "Well we're getting a grant for that project" when it was actually being financed by ad valorum bonds. Damned near bankrupted the Town and was why I originally got involved.
As long as the government spends money and collects taxes, what's a subsidy can be easily classified:
Subsidy = spending my tax dollars on something you want
Investment = spending your tax dollars on something I want
Most downtown area streets I'm familiar with have street parking.
In Denver, the main driving streets do not have parking. Some of the side streets do, most of them I guess. In Louisville, yes, parking on the streets, though several of the restaurants take out parking and set up tables outside during the summer (when they're the busiest, LOL!) Louisville just built another city lot in downtown.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-22-2017 at 07:44 AM..
Actually this article is incorrect in its assumptions. Cars are not the only ones using our public roads. Pedestrians and bicyclists use them too so it is pretty much the ENTIRE general public that uses everything with a public right-of-way. Also note that taxes on vehicles including gas taxes, vehicle fees and in some cases user fees (tolls) are used to pay for the roads. IF the article was not out to promote its writer's agenda, it would have proposed a user fee on pedestrians and bicyclists as well. Jay
Actually this article is incorrect in its assumptions. Cars are not the only ones using our public roads. Pedestrians and bicyclists use them too so it is pretty much the ENTIRE general public that uses everything with a public right-of-way. Also note that taxes on vehicles including gas taxes, vehicle fees and in some cases user fees (tolls) are used to pay for the roads. IF the article was not out to promote its writer's agenda, it would have proposed a user fee on pedestrians and bicyclists as well. Jay
Thank you, JayCT! "Subsidies" are a perennial topic on here, popping up every now and then. We could just as well say stop subsidizing bicycles, or transit (a heavy subsidy user), or even walking!
Actually this article is incorrect in its assumptions. Cars are not the only ones using our public roads. Pedestrians and bicyclists use them too so it is pretty much the ENTIRE general public that uses everything with a public right-of-way. Also note that taxes on vehicles including gas taxes, vehicle fees and in some cases user fees (tolls) are used to pay for the roads. IF the article was not out to promote its writer's agenda, it would have proposed a user fee on pedestrians and bicyclists as well. Jay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Thank you, JayCT! "Subsidies" are a perennial topic on here, popping up every now and then. We could just as well say stop subsidizing bicycles, or transit (a heavy subsidy user), or even walking!
OK, so we'll reduce property/income/sales/etc. taxes by the amount that is currently used for the construction and maintenance of local roads. And, instead, we'll charge a fee to everyone who wants to leave their yard/property.
Seriously, I don't think anyone is suggesting that non-drivers should pay nothing toward the maintenance and construction of roads. But, if alternatives were funded more equitably, (with the share of road funding that doesn't come from user fees) those alternatives would become more usable to more people, and so more people would likely use them.
Thank you, JayCT! "Subsidies" are a perennial topic on here, popping up every now and then. We could just as well say stop subsidizing bicycles, or transit (a heavy subsidy user), or even walking!
If you strip away the extremely loaded use of the term subsidy, this basically boils down to:
"If you want people to drive less, make it more expensive"
Which isn't exactly Earth shattering. I thought the idea to maybe town down the moralizing was nice.
The crazy parts come when actually trying to determine what constitutes a subsidy. I've seen driving subsidy calculations that have factored in the costs of foreign wars.
As long as the government spends money and collects taxes, what's a subsidy can be easily classified:
Subsidy = spending my tax dollars on something you want
Investment = spending your tax dollars on something I want
And in every day use, I have never heard it used in such context until I hit this thread. In that same vain, then every tax break and every government dollar spent would be a subsidy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
