From: Jym Dyer on
>> = Les Cargill
> = krw

>> The roads are financed by fuel taxes.

=v= Only in part.

> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient
> source of income for all sorts of social engineering,
> like "public" transit.

=v= This is what I mean by Rube Goldbergesque funding. Some
money from fuel taxes goes towards public transit, but it's
certainly not a surplus, no matter how loudly road-and-car
apologists squawk about it. The difference is paid, plus so
very much more, from other revenue sources such as property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, and in California, THE LARGEST
PUBLIC WORKS BOND IN U.S. HISTORY (and the 30 years of interest
that it will rack up).
<_Jym_>

From: Rod Speed on
Jym Dyer wrote:

>> plenty of roads are paid for by road use taxes like fuel taxes.

> =v= Paid for IN PART, yes. In full, no.

Plenty of them are paid for in full by road use taxes.


From: Rod Speed on
Jym Dyer wrote:
>>> = Les Cargill
>> = krw
>
>>> The roads are financed by fuel taxes.
>
> =v= Only in part.
>
>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient
>> source of income for all sorts of social engineering,
>> like "public" transit.
>
> =v= This is what I mean by Rube Goldbergesque funding. Some
> money from fuel taxes goes towards public transit, but it's
> certainly not a surplus, no matter how loudly road-and-car
> apologists squawk about it. The difference is paid, plus so
> very much more, from other revenue sources such as property
> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,

Its completely trivial to check the total collected in road use taxes
and compare that with what is spent on the roads. And when you
do that, plenty of places with the highest road use taxes do indeed
collect more in road use taxes than they spend on roads, so there
is no subsidy what so ever.

> and in California, THE LARGEST PUBLIC WORKS BOND IN
> U.S. HISTORY (and the 30 years of interest that it will rack up).

That is just a mechanism for paying off the initial cost of the road
over time with the road use taxes that will be collected over that time.


From: Jym Dyer on
> = Rod Speed

> Its [sic] completely trivial to check the total collected in
> road use taxes and compare that with what is spent on the
> roads. And when you do that, plenty of places with the highest
> road use taxes do indeed collect more in road use taxes than
> they spend on roads, so there is no subsidy what so ever [sic].

=v= Somebody else has already asked you name one such place.
Since there are "plenty," that shouldn't be too hard.

>> ... and in California, THE LARGEST PUBLIC WORKS BOND IN U.S.
>> HISTORY (and the 30 years of interest that it will rack up).
> That is just a mechanism for paying off the initial cost
> of the road over time with the road use taxes that will be
> collected over that time.

=v= Wow. Okay, basically what you're saying there is that
you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking
about, so it makes no sense trying to base a discussion with
you on something so mundane as the facts. Minor facts, like,
oh, you know, how road use taxes and bond financing are totally
different things.
<_Jym_>


From: Opus on
On Nov 12, 12:31 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>sinp<
> >> Its completely trivial to check the total collected in road
> >> use taxes and compare that with what is spent on the roads.
> >> And when you do that, plenty of places with the highest
> >> road use taxes do indeed collect more in road use taxes than
> >> they spend on roads, so there is no subsidy what so ever.
> > Somebody else has already asked you name one such place.
> > Since there are "plenty," that shouldn't be too hard.
>
> Bev already did, fuckwit.
>
That's nice, but Bev's posting didn't make it to this thread in this
forum, so would you be so nice as to put it here for us in
rec.bicycles.soc? I would be fascinated to find a place that funds
road building in the last decade with no subsidy from the General Fund
that also accounts for all the costs of maintaining those roads. I
know for a fact that TX doesn't do it, the last legislature pitched a
fit trying to find money to keep the roads we already have from
falling to pieces, much less build any new ones. I do know that they
had to pass a new law that would allow registration costs to be raised
to more than it costs to administer the registration program to help
cover some of the other costs associated with motor vehicles. In 2006
TxDOT estimated that if gas taxes alone were going to pay for road
costs the tax would have to be $2.21 per gallon, last I heard (2009)
that estimate has gone up to $3 tax per gallon of gas. And roads are
cheap to build in TX because of the "right to work" laws that
practically prohibit unions.