- 13 Jan 2014 20:07
#14352486
I am saying that the revenues created through gas taxes are significantly less than the costs of maintaining the roads.
http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg ... themselves
http://daily.sightline.org/2008/07/23/d ... -of-roads/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... explains-4
...but end up subsidising car drivers by covering the difference between road building and maintenance and the taxes that are supposed to cover them and do not.
Sure. As long as we are clear that conservatives support the idea that the taxpayer pay for the pollution of companies and therefore help the company make more profit at the taxpayer's expense, due to the inaction of gov't.
Because you seem to agree that the gov't is effectively supporting such profiteering. You just see it as gov't supporting this transfer of wealth through inaction rather than action.
Okay. If the gov't stole your land and gave it to someone else, would you consider it an example of too much gov't intervention?
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Beal wrote:In what way? Those funds are earmarked for the Highway Trust fund. Are you referring to the recent shortfalls or raiding of the fund in prior years?
I am saying that the revenues created through gas taxes are significantly less than the costs of maintaining the roads.
http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg ... themselves
http://daily.sightline.org/2008/07/23/d ... -of-roads/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... explains-4
B wrote:...don't pay any fuel taxes at all.
...but end up subsidising car drivers by covering the difference between road building and maintenance and the taxes that are supposed to cover them and do not.
B wrote:You just told me I was wrong in characterizing your argument, then you restated exactly what I wrote. I acknowledge that you believe that in the cast of carbon "pollution," non-intervention equates to subsidy. What you refuse to acknowledge is that non-intervention, even if it is a subsidy, is the opposite of big government.
Big government = intervention.
You can't equate all subsidies to big government, then list an example of a subsidy that is obviously the opposite of big government in order to prove that someone who supports it is in favor of big government.
You have lost this point. You are just being obtuse.
Sure. As long as we are clear that conservatives support the idea that the taxpayer pay for the pollution of companies and therefore help the company make more profit at the taxpayer's expense, due to the inaction of gov't.
Because you seem to agree that the gov't is effectively supporting such profiteering. You just see it as gov't supporting this transfer of wealth through inaction rather than action.
B wrote:My point wasn't about whether it is a subsidy. My point is about whether it qualifies as big government. You are obviously incapable of discussing this rationally.
Okay. If the gov't stole your land and gave it to someone else, would you consider it an example of too much gov't intervention?
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...