Guest Remo Williams Posted July 22, 2006 Report Share Posted July 22, 2006 The only thing the US government is good at overseeing these days are ways to waste our tax dollars. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out just look around the evidence is every where. [ 07-23-2006, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: ShoHashi ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Prezioso Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 Can't we conservatives just get along? I hate seeing conservatives I respect argue amogst each other. Let's agree to disagree and focus on what unites us! Hatred of pinko, egg-sucking, commie, tree-hugging, yellow-bellied, terrorist sympathizing LIBERALS! Dear LIBERALS: Just kidding. Maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 Soback: Your logic completely ignores my point. The tax dollars ARE reocvered by way of future tax savings. You said it: 5 year old math. $1 million road. $100 per citizen PLUS maintanence costs. Company buys road. PAYS $5 million (YOUR OWN argument stated, "at a premium"). That's $500 IN TAX SAVINGS TO THE CITIZENS, by your math. But wait - there's more: company pays taxes on profits and land. MILLIONS of dollars in taxes. That's EVEN MORE savings. Dude, did you seriously think the GOVERNMENT, of all entities said "we don't want to make as much money!" quote:Can't we conservatives just get along? I hate seeing conservatives I respect argue amogst each other. Let's agree to disagree and focus on what unites us! Hatred of pinko, egg-sucking, commie, tree-hugging, yellow-bellied, terrorist sympathizing LIBERALS! LOL! My only problem is when conservatives take issues and liberalize them. He may not think it, but I DO understand where he's coming from. It's just that he's oversimplified it. I think we face a typical case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The fact is that everywhere that roads have been privatized there have been tremendous cost savings. Sure, people pay at the tolls - but only the people using the roads. Therefore, EVERYONE saves money come tax time. [ 07-23-2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: ShoHashi ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 You know what, though - I think we may be talking about 2 different things. Are we talking about a GOVERNMENT toll road going to a private toll road or a government FREE road going to a private toll road? In the latter case, I STILL think it's a good idea because I don't believe in redistribution of wealth (everyone paying for something not everyone uses), but my argument would be far different and would include the private company fronting the money to build the road in the first place or to pay the construction costs + the premium leasing fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soback Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 Aha, and the money that company pays out it toll taxes, lease, income (profits) taxes, ALL have to come from you, the citizen. The company can not have more going out than it brings it, otherwise the whole venture would fail. So YOU are paying for all those taxes, + other costs which go to the company for oversight and profits. Oh, and don't forget, your DMV fees, property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, ALL those don't decrease. The citizen is getting taxes TWICE. It's aking to buying a new car for $20,000 and paying 8.5% sales tax. Money to car = $20,000, Money to government = $1,700 Then selling that car for $15,000 and the other person pays 8.5% sales tax. Remember, the car didn't miracuously build value, it's not an investment, NOBODY but the manufacturer and the dealer made money on it, AND the taxes on the item have already been paid. At second sale, money to the government = $2,975 The second owner sells it for $10,000. Same deal, he didn't make any money, he just spend $5,000 grand of his own money for a couple of years ownership. The item is taxed AGAIN, for the third time. Money to government = $3,825 Oh, and don't forget. The registration fees. Every new owner, has to re-register it. And then register it once a year there after. The registration fees are based on what the car cost. Why? Is a car that is worth $100,000 costs more to register than a car that is worth $20,000? Yeah, it's like that. At fourth sale for $5,000 the government would've collected a total of $4,250. Taxed the same item which value was $20,000 a total of 4 times, and raked in a tax that is 21.25%. How about the estate tax. What right does the government have to tax the family of a person that died. Every little thing that person owned has already been taxed. Same thing is happening here. Everyone is already taxed for those roads. Now they are imposing an additional tax on users of those roads. But not just an additional tax, a tax at the PREMIUM, allowing a private company to profit off of public property. Take a read about Air traffic control services being privatized in Canada and Australia. You will notice how that turned out. The taxes the citizens had to pay didn't decrease. The users (passengers) had to pay an increase in ticket prices because airliners now have to pay the cost of ATC services. But that's only half the story, EVERYONE pays higher costs, from mail stamps (remember, mail is tranported by aircraft), to the products you buy at the store (the ones that had to be shipped by air). That's what happens when you privatize something that has been build with public money. All it is, is a second tax. If not third when you count that you are paying the original tax, and the fee which is calculated to recoup the lease/maintenance/profits. But hey, we can have a group hug. As long as everyone in that group agrees that I am right. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 23, 2006 Report Share Posted July 23, 2006 quote:Originally posted by aramike: What do you think is easier: maintaining the roads or telling someone to maintain them? Telling someone? You mean like telling someone to supply you with toilet seats ... then pay $640 for each seat? Easier, yeah. Cheaper, no. More efficient? Yeah, right. It's a case of being stuck either way. But, if I'm gonna get stuck, I'd rather it be locally instead of by some foreign company that can then waive the tolls for fellow countrymen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 Soback: Sure, we get taxed twice on many things. Still not being taxed any more than we would otherwise be regarding privatized roadways... General taxation isn't really related here. quote:Telling someone? You mean like telling someone to supply you with toilet seats ... then pay $640 for each seat?Dude, that's somewhat of an urban legend, first of all. Secondly, you've made my point (and didn't even know it). If the government was actually maintaining the road, they would have to pay contractors and suppliers (which, as you pointed out, would be at somewhat inflationary prices). However, if the responsibility fell onto a private company, then that COMPANY would have to pay - and trust me, if you're private, you do ANYTHING to keep costs down. We're not talking about a private company contracting to REPAIR roads, as your point would suggest. quote:Easier, yeah. Cheaper, no. More efficient? Yeah, right.Exactly. I would be more expensive to have the government running the operation. When I said "government oversight" where on earth did you get the idea that meant the government would be running the operation, ESPECIALLY considering that my point was to the direct contrary? Government oversight is NOT the government contracting someone to do something. It's the government assuring that someone does something using legal ramifications. Dude, thanks for arguing my point for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 quote:Originally posted by aramike: Government oversight is NOT the government contracting someone to do something. It's the government assuring that someone does something using legal ramifications.Agreed. Mostly. But it takes a lot of faith to think the government is any better at assuring a foreign company remains legal in its dealings ... any better than it is at running something themselves or contracting out. If the government can be nudged aside when it comes to savings & loans, cable TV, the airlines, and utility companies ... what makes you think they can't be made as impotent in other cases of oversight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted July 24, 2006 Report Share Posted July 24, 2006 quote:Agreed. Mostly. But it takes a lot of faith to think the government is any better at assuring a foreign company remains legal in its dealings ... any better than it is at running something themselves or contracting out.Typically speaking, in situations like this, governments require a substantial bond to be placed in order to prevent such problems. quote:If the government can be nudged aside when it comes to savings & loans, cable TV, the airlines, and utility companies ... what makes you think they can't be made as impotent in other cases of oversight?Again, that's a problem with government and for another thread. It's a typical catch-22. Which is exactly why I'm all for privatization. Private companies actually have something to lose and are invested in their success whereas a government agency really faces very little in the way of accountability. While I do agree that there could be some problems with such a deal, there are also some benefits worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now