 |
Re: So what constitures "within reason' when it comes to the subsidy you feel would benefit rural America? Compared to what??
Author: BOB2
Date: 05-10-2019 - 14:36
"If subsidies are within reason there isn't a lot of harm in making rural living a little more palatable where at all possible."
So how much of a subsidy is "within reason"?
How much traffic delay benefit does a Montana taxpayer get for using that subsidy to buy a trip off of I-90. And, since most rural states are "recipient" states already, in getting more Federal transportation funds than they pay in in things like gas taxes. How much of a benefit will I get as a CA taxpayer (the largest "donor" state where taxpayers pay in more in transportation taxes than they get back)?
How does that subsidy per passenger, or passenger mile, and offsetting benefits from such a subsidy compare, in things like travel times savings, to the taxpayer who's stuck right now in the 5 hour daily traffic jam getting from LA to San Diego on I-5?
And, I know I'm kind of strange this way, but, since that subsidy is coming out of my pocket, I would kind of hope, that if a subsidy is needed to provide a service the market fails to sufficiently provide, due to imperfect market conditions, that it is at least be spent where it does the most good, for the most folks, producing the most benefits.
Is the question you are actually asking us, are we willing to subsidize "needed" services, or is it about subsidizing a lifestyle choice, in a miniscule number of rural communities, that are actually served by any Amtrak long distance service?
My question to you is, how "reasonable" do the vast majority of America's taxpayer's, who live and work in congested urban centers, and are paying for that subsidy, think that is, in order to make rural life a bit more "palatable" in a tiny handful of rural communities?
So how much of a subsidy is "within reason"?
How much traffic delay benefit does a Montana taxpayer get for using that subsidy to buy a trip off of I-90. And, since most rural states are "recipient" states already, in getting more Federal transportation funds than they pay in in things like gas taxes. How much of a benefit will I get as a CA taxpayer (the largest "donor" state where taxpayers pay in more in transportation taxes than they get back)?
How does that subsidy per passenger, or passenger mile, and offsetting benefits from such a subsidy compare, in things like travel times savings, to the taxpayer who's stuck right now in the 5 hour daily traffic jam getting from LA to San Diego on I-5?
And, I know I'm kind of strange this way, but, since that subsidy is coming out of my pocket, I would kind of hope, that if a subsidy is needed to provide a service the market fails to sufficiently provide, due to imperfect market conditions, that it is at least be spent where it does the most good, for the most folks, producing the most benefits.
Is the question you are actually asking us, are we willing to subsidize "needed" services, or is it about subsidizing a lifestyle choice, in a miniscule number of rural communities, that are actually served by any Amtrak long distance service?
My question to you is, how "reasonable" do the vast majority of America's taxpayer's, who live and work in congested urban centers, and are paying for that subsidy, think that is, in order to make rural life a bit more "palatable" in a tiny handful of rural communities?
