The USA speaks on raising taxes

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
still get allowances for children, tax credits (ie money paid to people on low-medium wages) for partners and children, transferrable tax allowance from spouse if spouse not employed and using theirs...

I don't subscribe to universal benefits. If you are well off, you don't need child allowances.

Im not really up on this being penniless, but last I checked there were still complex rules about how company cars are taxed or allowances for same. Yet company cars still exist, so someone thinks they are a benefit.

You pay your tax rate on 33% of the new car value.

Im afraid I think the 'grammar school' principle was correct. It is not general education which matters so much as having enough very well educated in areas which are vital. That is, general education to degree level. I understand the UK still has a significant amount of illiteracy, which is outrageous.

See my thread on education models in ETC.

I basically think that we need affordable housing and low taxes for low earners and no benefits for wealthy people.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
education comes under etc?

Wouldnt argue about housing. The only way the government can provide affordable housing at below market price is council houses, and they dont like that.... Or alternatively grant enough planning consents where people want to build to satisfy demand. They dont like that either, but we shall see if anything comes of their current initiative. All such initiatives for 20 years have been blocked.

The problem with means tested benefits is you only get them if you are poor. So to qualify, you have to make sure you are poor.... Which sounds perverse, but a lot of people are in a position where they might work more but be worse off. The only way round this is either raise minimum wages significantly up to a decent wage level (they dont like that...), or those universal benefits.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted213967

Guest
The problem with means tested benefits is you only get them if you are poor. So to qualify, you have to make sure you are poor.... Which sounds perverse, but a lot of people are in a position where they might work more but be worse off. The only way round this is either raise minimum wages significantly up to a decent wage level (they dont like that...), or those universal benefits.

This only happens because benefits are an absurd everything-or-nothing proposition, with rigidly-enforced "magic" thresholds of eligibility.

Benefits should be plotted on a continuum: when a recipient accepts part-time work, benefits should be reduced only so much as to still make working part-time a winning move.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The problem with means tested benefits is you only get them if you are poor. So to qualify, you have to make sure you are poor.... Which sounds perverse, but a lot of people are in a position where they might work more but be worse off. The only way round this is either raise minimum wages significantly up to a decent wage level (they dont like that...), or those universal benefits.

People living with HIV/AIDS and without insurance are means tested, and it's draconian. Here in Florida you need to reapply every six months, and it involves wasting at least a day sitting in a long line with all your paperwork.

It's a special sort of misery.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
I attribute most of if not all of the following on that you seem to have a very limited and skewed idea of what the United States is actually like. Almost all of your posts insinuate that, because it worked in Europe, it'll work here without consequence. I can appreciate your participation as an intellectual exercise but in terms of practicality what you propose comes off like exactly what it is- someone on the outside, looking in, and saying "You should be trying this."

But the US STILL doesnt agree even with the idea of doing this.

So the fact that gasoline prices have tripled in the last decade and continue to rise at rates too swiftly for a lot of people to afford suggests the US doesn't recognize that oil a.) is becoming more scarce and b.) should potentially be more expensive? It is more expensive... what better way is there to accomplish the task of saying it should be more expensive, Christ.


, as I said above. This is not a new problem. The arabs caused a world economic crash by breaking the US monopoly and raising prices 30-40 years ago. The US ignored this warning.

The argument is that suddenly spiking gas prices through the roof in the US by making US citizens pay what people who live on an infinitesimal fraction of the land mass in the UK pay would cause a disruption to not only the economy but to our society in general that would take decades to fix. Your response to this is "Fuck it, it happened in the 70's?" We do our best to avoid anarchy here regardless of whether or not it happened before.


Isnt that just what is needed if you have limited transport? Visiting a choice of stores is the luxury.

See, again, this is what I mean about a disconnect for you, not living anywhere near a US city. I'm not talking about Banana Republic and BMW Dealerships- I'm talking about places that provide the essentials. There are no such stores in the peripherals of that particular town. If you have a family of four, work on the North side where the pay is higher and live on the south side, but have no car? You've got a very, very difficult life in that everything is difficult for you- from paying bills to getting places on time, to doing simple things like grocery shopping (not a "luxury" like a summers drive from London to Aylesbury in an Aston Martin.)


which will no longer be best paying taking into account transport...

You're speaking very casually about up-ending an economy and you're speaking about it as though businesses and infrastructure just magically change once they're entrenched in a citys development. Again, the example given was a standard American city, not a super wealthy international tourist destination with impressive landmarks and the Queen.

Funnily enough people and freight actually do drive right across europe just as they drive right across the US. People have a legal right to live in any EU state they fancy and move freely between them, just like the US.


This seems like a pretty thick thing to suggest.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK commute 'longest in Europe'

The longest commute in Europe is in Britain. 8.5 fucking miles. To get to my mother's house on the outskirts of my hometown (where housing is nicer yet more affordable) to any retail destination (food, clothes, really anything) is 10.2 miles. To get to "choice grocery stores" is even further. To get the finest of the fine (a Wal-Mart) you have to drive almost 20 miles.

BTS | October 2003 - Volume 3, Issue 4

The average American commuter travels almost double what the average UK resident travels just to get to work. That doesn't include what you're deeming luxuries like paying bills, washing laundry, and and getting food to eat. And god forbid anyone should ever be able to afford the gas to go off the beaten path and visit a shopping mall once in a while.


You've insinuated that people just jaunt across Europe in a whimsical free for all and I'm sure there are people who do. They, however, are the exception and not the rule. People aren't commuting in mass numbers, on a daily basis, from Britain to Italy or France or Germany... not that that's relevant to what I said before anyway, since no one in the US commutes that far either. I bring it up because you make it sound like you don't understand that the US is a larger land mass than the UK... like because people go to the EU from the UK, it's the same size. That isn't the case... otherwise, I'm going to add on Canada and Mexico to this conversation since commerce (and people for that matter) travel back and forth between the US and those countries equally as freely. North America is twice the size of Europe.


So in summation; our drive times are longer, the distance we drive on a regular basis to get to work is further, and our infrastructure isn't designed for the radical change you suggest or for the European model you don't seem to grasp isn't applicable here.

Again, I do appreciate this as an intellectual exercise, but there are nuances and complexities to issues like this that no doubt escape someone without any first hand knowledge of our society. Certain propositions and suggestions come off as almost... ignorant when presented from that perspective. This is "I could fix that in ten minutes" syndrome and all I can say is that if it really were so simple as you've suggested, we wouldn't be facing the issues we are.




JSZ
 
Last edited:

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
I'd propose doing what europe did, start raising taxes slowly on fuel 30 years ago so people had time to adjust. But the US STILL doesnt agree even with the idea of doing this.

Exactly. Past time to change because this policy is doomed to lead to disaster.

, as I said above. This is not a new problem. The arabs caused a world economic crash by breaking the US monopoly and raising prices 30-40 years ago. The US ignored this warning.
I dont think you quite understand. Let me reiterate to you the challenge that you are presenting and how unreasonable it is. The last century has been built and designed around the idea of cars and cheap transportation. This country, the United States, has an area of 9.8 million km^2 and a population of about 300 million people. The EU (the entire EU) has an area of 4.3 million km^2 and a population of about 500 million people. That is twice as many people in a significantly smaller area. Higher population density means public transportation is more viable... you just have more people that are going to use it and can have more regular stops. The US is too spread out to make it a reasonable option.

I mean, hell... you have 62 million people in the same area as minnesota, which has 5.3 million people.

Everything about the situation is WORLDS different. I mean, the buildup is the easier part, once its built it becomes more difficult. There is a reason smaller cars are used in the UK, its because you have smaller roads (because you couldnt go bigger because it was already built up), so its more difficult to drive in a big car while in parts of the city.

I uploaded a population density map of the US, and I want you to tell me what to say to the hundreds of thousands of people in that entire yellow/light green midwest area when they learn they are going to be paying $10 for gas. Suddenly, those 10 mile drives into the closest town is gonna start to hurt, even though they dont have a ton of money as is. Want me to tell them to catch a bus that either doesnt exist or only comes a few times a day? Want me to tell them to suck it up? Want me to tell them to move to the coast like everybody else? What are you going to tell the farmers?

Just saying, "oh you can do it, no problem!" is not what you should be doing. Instead of taxing the shit out of everybody and hoping people are fine, you should look for alternative solutions. To me, it is plainly visible that what you propose is just not a possibility.

PS: Little tidbit of info about railways... the seattle light rail cost near $180 million per mile. Sounds completely viable to come up with a structured railway system for 3.8 million square miles. Totally.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

voodooyoudo

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Posts
66
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
151
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Wouldnt argue about housing. The only way the government can provide affordable housing at below market price is council houses, and they dont like that.... Or alternatively grant enough planning consents where people want to build to satisfy demand. They dont like that either, but we shall see if anything comes of their current initiative. All such initiatives for 20 years have been blocked.

The problem with means tested benefits is you only get them if you are poor. So to qualify, you have to make sure you are poor.... Which sounds perverse, but a lot of people are in a position where they might work more but be worse off. The only way round this is either raise minimum wages significantly up to a decent wage level (they dont like that...), or those universal benefits.

Wow. so I guess if I don't want to work, I can get free housing? and benefits? Shit, why would I want to work?

I just see it as a more complex situation of incentives.

Example: If I work hard, I'll get more respect/attention/etc. and possibly get a raise or promotion or add to my resume/experience and take that with me to somewhere where they will pay me more. And I won't be living in government provided housing.

Example: If I had a bad family life, skipped school, didn't graduate, don't see the value in work, ethics, or earning my own money. Therefore, yes, I'm inclined to take advantage of these government housing and benefit programs.

I'm not saying these people don't have a bad break and somehow deserve to be punished, but if there's no incentive to increase one's value to society, aren't we just exacerbating the situation by providing subsidized and unregulated housing and benefits?
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I attribute most of if not all of the following on that you seem to have a very limited and skewed idea of what the United States is actually like
Then explain where I am wrong. Admittedly this website may not be the best place to learn.

Almost all of your posts insinuate that, because it worked in Europe, it'll work here without consequence
People are people. If it works somewhere it can work everywhere.


I can appreciate your participation as an intellectual exercise...
...But the US does not accept advice from the rest of the world? Yes, we know. That is its big problem because the rest of the world is increasingly not following the line the US would like as its power declines.



So the fact that gasoline prices have tripled in the last decade and continue to rise at rates too swiftly for a lot of people to afford suggests the US doesn't recognize that oil a.) is becoming more scarce and b.) should potentially be more expensive?
When the price of oil fell back after the earlier price shocks, many countries took the opportunity to impose taxes gradually. This meant people and companies adjusted to higher fuel costs. As you say, this takes time, to move closer to work or your supplier, to change machinery, to insulate homes, everything it takes to change the infrastructure. Then when the price of the raw oil went up the actual shock to those companies, people, was less, because they were already using less oil. The damage to their way of life was less because the percentage change in oil price was less and it was a lower percentage of their costs. This is the essential point which the country using more oil in total and more oil per head than any other has failed to grasp.

The argument is that suddenly spiking gas prices through the roof in the US by making US citizens pay what people who live on an infinitesimal fraction of the land mass in the UK pay would cause a disruption to not only the economy but to our society in general that would take decades to fix.
It is exactly this sudden spike in costs which the rest of the world has managed to mitigate by already weaning its industry off oil. Because the US has failed to impose taxes in good times, it has suffered this sudden spike now having made no attempt to get people off their fuel fix.

I'm talking about places that provide the essentials. There are no such stores in the peripherals of that particular town.
Well the US did not deliberately tax oil when it was cheap so now has to live with the high price happening suddenly. It is not going to come down unless we have a world recession, and then it wont be worrying about transport but not having a job. What the US has to accept is the concept that it must adjust to using less oil. If the price stabilises again, then the US has to accept the concept of taxing oil in anticipation of further rises, which will happen. The economy has to be forced to adjust to what is going to happen.

You're speaking very casually about up-ending an economy
No. I did not up-end the economy. The world did that by using more and more oil when there is a limited supply. I am saying the US has absoultely no choice except to adjust. The only issue is how to manage it. The problem is the US still does not accep the concept of high fuel prices and that they will only ever go up and up and up.

[QQUOTE] To get the finest of the fine (a Wal-Mart) you have to drive almost 20 miles. [/QUOTE]I'm not arguing about how US cities are structured. The question is how are you going to reorganise your society now it is too expensive to drive so far? I would suggest that what will really happen is that americans will spend more on fuel and less on something else. This is not necessarily all bad, depending on whether some industries have scope to cut their prices. For example, again from the UK, UK property prices are way above building cost. There is lots of scope for house prices to fall if people have less spare cash to spend on their housing and this forces down prices. The UK has a very painful adjustment process to go through to reduce property prices but essentially housholds could be spending much less on this and still own the same things. I dont know how the US property market is doing now and whether it has scope to fall further?

People aren't commuting in mass numbers, on a daily basis, from Britain to Italy or France or Germany...
You reckon the world would be a better place if they were, or do you think commuting such distances is frankly insane? Ok, I guess from what you say next you go for the 'insane' side. But why is the US a better place BECAUSE people commute further?

Again, I do appreciate this as an intellectual exercise,
No, it isnt. That is what the US isnt grasping. Fuel is going up.

Tax policy affects what people do. All congress believes that, all economists believe that, you believe that. If taxes are to be imposed then a very good place to impose them is on fuel. This is not an 'extra' tax, because someone somewhere has decided the total amount which will be raised. This is a matter of where you choose to place the tax. If you place the tax on fuel, instead of on a payroll health care tax for example, then you reduce the costs to people taking on employees but increase the cost to people driving. This can come out neutral, with the same eventual bill per person, but you as an individual then have the choice of whether to cut down on your driving to save some money for something else. So now you have the choice to move closer to work, or get a more economical car.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Let me reiterate to you the challenge that you are presenting and how unreasonable it is.
No, I do understand. As I just said, above, the problem is the US still does not seem to understand that it has no choice but to change.


you have 62 million people in the same area as minnesota, which has 5.3 million people.
And you are saying it is a good thing the UK is overcrowded? I think the Uk would be a much better place if half its population went elsewhere. I dont disagree that things in the US have been organised assuming cheap transport, but this is only because the US has chosen to do it that way. It has been clear to anyone who cared to look that this is not sustainable and the US has had decades to do something about it. It has chosen not to, so now you have a big problem.

There is a reason smaller cars are used in the UK, its because you have smaller roads (because you couldnt go bigger because it was already built up), so its more difficult to drive in a big car while in parts of the city.
I havnt heard that one before. In the last decade there has been a big rise in 'chelsea tractors'. Rich people driving around London in big 4WD vehicles. So now the tax on people driving into London has been adjusted to charge them more, so as to discourge them. The reason people have chosen small cars is because big cars cost more to run. The UK accepts that big cars/more driving is a bad thing and frames its tax policy accordingly. The US does not seem to have reached first base of accepting the concept that driving more is bad.

I want you to tell me what to say to the hundreds of thousands of people in that entire yellow/light green midwest area when they learn they are going to be paying $10 for gas. Suddenly, those 10 mile drives into the closest town is gonna start to hurt, even though they dont have a ton of money as is.
So adjust other taxes. Reduce their property taxes if you think they are paying too much overall.


Want me to tell them to catch a bus that either doesnt exist or only comes a few times a day? Want me to tell them to suck it up?
So what will you tell them when gas reaches $20? Becaue it will. How are you going to prepare them for this in a few years time?


What are you going to tell the farmers?
In europe I am telling them they can have a subsidy of £100 per acre to carry on farming. How are US farm subsidies?
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Wow. so I guess if I don't want to work, I can get free housing? and benefits? Shit, why would I want to work?
Why indeed?

if there's no incentive to increase one's value to society, aren't we just exacerbating the situation by providing subsidized and unregulated housing and benefits?
So what is the alternative? The reason we and you have a welfare state is because society decided that having a class of starving poor living in the streets was not acceptable. That is what you are talking about. Now, i remember reading a biography written by a UK naval man who was amazed when he visited the US perhaps about 1860 because there were no beggars on the streets. There is a reason why people flocked to the US in the 1800s and 1900s, because it was much easier to make a living. So maybe the problem of the starving poor has always been more obvious in the UK than the US. The solution we have come to is that everyone should be given a minimum subsistence allowance just to keep the streets clear of bodies.

To divide the first part of your comment from the second, what is needed is to to provide an incentive for people to get on within society and it is this bit which is the problem. My take is that providing housing helps people do this, because who wants to employ someone who doesnt even have an address? Who wants them living in doorways or their garden because there is nowhere else? Who wants to employ a labourer who is weak and starving? Without finding some exact figures, house prices in the uk are now at something like 10x average annual wages, whereas economists seem to think an affordable amount to borrow is around 4x annual wage. It is ludicrous to suggest the poor can afford market rates for housing. The subject of housing subsidy for the poor has become controversial because the price tag has risen with the market costs of housing. It is simply too expensive for the poor. That situation is ludicrous but the problem is one of housing shortage, not the principle of giving people housing if they need it.
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
four posts in a row, Ah the difficulties of time zone conversation. The new york times says:

" Imagine where we’d be today if on the morning of 9/12 Bush had announced (as some of us advocated) a “Patriot Tax” of $1 per gallon of gas to pay for education, infrastructure and government research, to help finance our wars and to slash our dependence on Middle East oil. Gasoline in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, averaged $1.66 a gallon." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/o...truth-and-nothing-but.html?src=me&ref=general
 

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
No, I do understand. As I just said, above, the problem is the US still does not seem to understand that it has no choice but to change.
Except that we are changing, just not by taxing the shit out of people.


And you are saying it is a good thing the UK is overcrowded? I think the Uk would be a much better place if half its population went elsewhere. I dont disagree that things in the US have been organised assuming cheap transport, but this is only because the US has chosen to do it that way. It has been clear to anyone who cared to look that this is not sustainable and the US has had decades to do something about it. It has chosen not to, so now you have a big problem.
Being overpopulated is a good thing when it comes to developing a different transportation infrastructure. You can count on more people in a given area to be using public transportation because you have more people. If the UK had 1/10th the population it currently has, then public transportation would be making 1/10th the amount of money, it would be running 1/10th as frequently, it would take 10 times as long to make itself worth the money. This doesnt even factor in the distances required for public transportation.

I havnt heard that one before. In the last decade there has been a big rise in 'chelsea tractors'. Rich people driving around London in big 4WD vehicles. So now the tax on people driving into London has been adjusted to charge them more, so as to discourge them. The reason people have chosen small cars is because big cars cost more to run. The UK accepts that big cars/more driving is a bad thing and frames its tax policy accordingly. The US does not seem to have reached first base of accepting the concept that driving more is bad.
This ideology doesnt really make sense to me. So if rich people that clearly have the money to afford it are getting these high gas vehicles you just keep raising the tax until they cant afford it? That, to me, seems retarded...

Also, I notice (especially now) that you seem to be very "americans are ignorant of the times". We know that gas is expensive, and that gas prices are going to rise, and everything related to it. The problem is the amount of money people and the government has.

So adjust other taxes. Reduce their property taxes if you think they are paying too much overall.
And if property taxes are low already? You would have to cut taxes a significant amount and what you are postulating as a "relief" for the higher gas prices simply doesnt make sense, it just shows that you actually dont quite understand the gravity of changing a country of this size.

So what will you tell them when gas reaches $20? Becaue it will. How are you going to prepare them for this in a few years time?
Gas prices wont be $20 in a few years time. If this was such a case, there would be no need to put in your gas tax that triples the price of gas because in a few years there would be no way to prepare anyway. It took decades for a country that is 1/40th the size of the US to do any amount of change at all. Does that REALLY sound feasible?

In europe I am telling them they can have a subsidy of £100 per acre to carry on farming. How are US farm subsidies?
I dont know what the current standing is, but I do know that they get subsidies.

Why did you ignore my last point in regards to the cost per mile to get public transportation going?

People are people. If it works somewhere it can work everywhere.
This.... doesnt even make sense. Sure, people are people... but driving twice as much, having a more spread out open country, different economies, different needs, different structure, different everything really... kind of makes the situation different. Or are you going to tell me that if the UK went to a country in africa and set up camp and made all of the same laws/structure as the UK they would be the same place?

If you want the amount we pay to be equal to that of the UK, based on the average commute, it would be closer to $5/gallon instead of $10/gallon. It is basically impossible to change the commute distance of people. Many people live farther out of town because they already cant afford the places closer to town.

What you are asking of us, is if you were to double your current gas prices. That is the effect that you are asking of us. If we tripled ours, would you double yours? Does that sound good to you?
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
850
Media
29
Likes
4,042
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
The average population density east of the Mississippi is equal to the average population density of Europe. So the "we're too spread out to have public transit" argument fails for over 1/3 of the country.

I live in the outskirts of a city and I have grocery stores and shopping within a short distance from my house yet I still don't have a public transit option to get to either without hours of wait time between buses.

I stay in Cologne, Germany often. I can get from anywhere to anywhere in the city in less than 30 minutes via U-Bahn or StrassenBahn. Or, from my place in Cologne to the Frankfurt Airport, a distance of 137 miles, in an hour and 30.

It is no exaggeration to say that traveling 147 miles in Germany via public transit takes less time than a grocery trip via public transit less than 2 miles away in Pittsburgh even if all I bought was a candy bar.

Now, don't you think that we as Americans can do better than this?

Edit: I live 7 miles from Pittsburgh city center. I have an express bus that takes me in to work and back home, but only runs during the morning/evening rush hours. If I have to leave work during the day, I'm sunk. The cost of round trip per day is $6 or roughly double that of an U-Bahn ticket. The buses are unreliable for being on time and also break down frequently. They are poorly cleaned and some even have mechanical problems that, in my view, are dangerous to the passengers. But yet, I still ride the bus as much as possible, for if I am to talk the talk on public transit, I must walk the walk.
 
Last edited:

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
850
Media
29
Likes
4,042
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Almost all of the arguments against public transit are about how our cities are too spread out for them to be of use. Has it occurred to anyone that the issue isn't that the cities are too spread out, but that the transit systems are grossly underfunded?

Building up a robust public transit system that people can use is FAR cheaper than building or enlarging existing highways. But because "others" use the bus, no one wants to fund it.

People forget that for every well run bus on a well run bus line, 40 idiots blocking your way on the highway are removed. If you enjoy driving at all, as I do, you should support Public Transit because it will remove people who don't enjoy driving from the road.
 

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
The average population density east of the Mississippi is equal to the average population density of Europe. So the "we're too spread out to have public transit" argument fails for over 1/3 of the country.

I live in the outskirts of a city and I have grocery stores and shopping within a short distance from my house yet I still don't have a public transit option to get to either without hours of wait time between buses.

I stay in Cologne, Germany often. I can get from anywhere to anywhere in the city in less than 30 minutes via U-Bahn or StrassenBahn. Or, from my place in Cologne to the Frankfurt Airport, a distance of 137 miles, in an hour and 30.

It is no exaggeration to say that traveling 147 miles in Germany via public transit takes less time than a grocery trip via public transit less than 2 miles away in Pittsburgh even if all I bought was a candy bar.

Now, don't you think that we as Americans can do better than this?

Edit: I live 7 miles from Pittsburgh city center. I have an express bus that takes me in to work and back home, but only runs during the morning/evening rush hours. If I have to leave work during the day, I'm sunk. The cost of round trip per day is $6 or roughly double that of an U-Bahn ticket. The buses are unreliable for being on time and also break down frequently. They are poorly cleaned and some even have mechanical problems that, in my view, are dangerous to the passengers. But yet, I still ride the bus as much as possible, for if I am to talk the talk on public transit, I must walk the walk.
Yea, we can easily do better, but I dont think that tripling gas costs without anything set up to replace cars is a good idea.

Also, your population density in regards to the UK is pretty far off (I only use the entire EU as a demonstration of size, since this is supposed to be more of a direct comparison with the way the UK has things set up). The average for the entire UK is about 255.6 people per km^2. There is a total of 5 states (new jersey, rhode island, massachusetts, connecticut, and maryland) that even have a population density above 200 people per km^2. In fact, there are only 10 states that are above 100.
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
850
Media
29
Likes
4,042
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I didn't say in regards to the UK. I said in regards to the EU... and I did that on purpose.

The EU, as a whole, is a lot more demographically and geographically diverse than just the UK and is a far better match to compare to the US east of the Mississippi.

I think we should set up a series of large loans that go to fund public transit growth.... large public transit growth. Then, after about the first year being enacted, add a "public transit fund" tax to each gallon of gas and to each public parking garage or meter system in downtown areas. Large shopping malls with parking areas over a certain square footage would also have a tax added to their property tax bills so as to remove the "flight" from downtown areas to the suburbs. Businesses in downtown or business areas would be able to offer transit discount coupons to their employees and paying customers.

This tax goes directly into paying down the loans for public transit. Each year, the tax is ratcheted up a notch. That increase goes to fund further growth, the original amount of the tax goes to pay on the loan.
 

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
I didn't say in regards to the UK. I said in regards to the EU... and I did that on purpose.

The EU, as a whole, is a lot more demographically and geographically diverse than just the UK and is a far better match to compare to the US east of the Mississippi.

I think we should set up a series of large loans that go to fund public transit growth.... large public transit growth. Then, after about the first year being enacted, add a "public transit fund" tax to each gallon of gas and to each public parking garage or meter system in downtown areas. Large shopping malls with parking areas over a certain square footage would also have a tax added to their property tax bills so as to remove the "flight" from downtown areas to the suburbs. Businesses in downtown or business areas would be able to offer transit discount coupons to their employees and paying customers.

This tax goes directly into paying down the loans for public transit. Each year, the tax is ratcheted up a notch. That increase goes to fund further growth, the original amount of the tax goes to pay on the loan.
I could get behind that a lot more than increasing the tax on gas to absurd levels. Adding $.10/gallon to put towards a significantly better public transit system would be nice. Though I still dont quite know what to do with everything that isnt east of the mississippi, because I dont think it is viable to do in that area.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Except that we are changing, just not by taxing the shit out of people.
Well I guess that 30 years ago the US decided the rise in oil price was just an aberration and they could go back to cheap oil. Are you saying the US now accepts this is not going to happen and that it must come to terms with fuel at european prices?

Being overpopulated is a good thing when it comes to developing a different transportation infrastructure. You can count on more people in a given area to be using public transportation because you have more people.
Thats 10 million in the London economic area. This is way more than it would take to justify a functional public transport system. You do not have to have this number in a state to arrange them more conveniently. Amazingly society operated before the invention of the motor car. You seem to be assuming that all the UK has a fantastic public transport system. It doesnt.

Most people rely upon cars just as in the US. Somehow they manage. What do you reckon is a typical annual mileage? My mother, a pensioner, is pushing 10,000 a year and affords it well enough on a basic state pension living in a town of 50,000. She has a small car, but if it had really been an issue she could have chosen one with a better mileage. I suspect the US is just shocked that something they believed was cheap turns out not to be. Theyll adjust.

So if rich people that clearly have the money to afford it are getting these high gas vehicles you just keep raising the tax until they cant afford it? That, to me, seems retarded...
Why? seems to work. The price is not so high as to be prohibitive but is enough to make people realise they are paying for a luxury. Its their choice if thats how they want to spend their money. Annual road tax license fee to use a vehicle on the road is graded going up the more fuel they use and free at the bottom.

We know that gas is expensive, and that gas prices are going to rise, and everything related to it. The problem is the amount of money people and the government has.
But seriously, do you? You accept that prices are going to stay at the current level and the country must learn to live with this. That in a generation's time prices will be much higher?

And if property taxes are low already?
Are they?

You would have to cut taxes a significant amount
Again, what is a typical anuual mileage, therefore typical number of gallons, therefore actual amount we are talking about?

It took decades for a country that is 1/40th the size of the US to do any amount of change at all. Does that REALLY sound feasible?
So your going to hope it lasts out your lifetime rather than try to change things?

Why did you ignore my last point in regards to the cost per mile to get public transportation going?
Because I have already posted miles and didnt want to get started on the new Edinburgh tram system which probably has a similar cost. Currently arguing about cancelling it because it is so vastly over estimate. But, on balance, it is going ahead. There was a similar scheme for a new tramway in London which is probably still being discussed. I looked at the blurb about that and came to the conclusion it was damn stupid. Far better if they bought more buses. Their own figures showed buses were much cheaper per passenger mile and much more flexible if you want to change the route. Since they were planning to dedicate big parts of existing roads to the trams they might just as well turn them into bus lanes.

.. but driving twice as much..
ONLY driving twice as much? It is way within the technology to produce cars with twice the mileage of the existing stock in the UK. Then it wouldnt cost the US any more than the UK. British people really arent hung up on efficient cars to the extent they couldnt change to much more efficient cars if they needed to. Its a steady economic push from government to get them there.

It is basically impossible to change the commute distance of people. Many people live farther out of town because they already cant afford the places closer to town.
Why is this different to the UK? Are houses on bigger plots so the town is bigger? Cant people just in-fill and double the number of closer houses? That is what has happened in the Uk, though I suppose you are correct that London is significantlydesigned as a pre-motor car city. I guess no US cities were built before the car came into common use?

What you are asking of us, is if you were to double your current gas prices. That is the effect that you are asking of us. If we tripled ours, would you double yours? Does that sound good to you?
I do not know exactly what the us gas price is now, but Uk tax is around 1/2 to 2/3 the pump price. So whatever your price is excluding any tax, we pay 2-3x that. What is typical tax now?
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
850
Media
29
Likes
4,042
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I could get behind that a lot more than increasing the tax on gas to absurd levels. Adding $.10/gallon to put towards a significantly better public transit system would be nice. Though I still dont quite know what to do with everything that isnt east of the mississippi, because I dont think it is viable to do in that area.

They still have metro areas west of the mississippi.

The main problem we have is that the current cost of goods is distorted downward by the unnaturally cheap fuel we currently use. The current gas tax only covers about 40% of our road system costs at present. You will likely see a number of a much higher percentage, however, that only counts the Interstate highway system. Local roads get very little money from the gas tax. Most of them are paid through local property taxes.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Yea, we can easily do better, but I dont think that tripling gas costs without anything set up to replace cars is a good idea.
Experience shows that all the time cars are cheap no one is interested in demanding an alternative, so no politician will ever build it.

Adding $.10/gallon to put towards a significantly better public transit system would be nice.
1% of the UK price?