|
|
| Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal (1430987) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 23 02:08:52 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 21:01:57 2017. You are so busy delivering Econ 101 sermonsWe're talking about economics. You know nothing about economics. As such, I have attempted to educate you. Are you saying you're willfully ignorant and I shouldn't bother trying to teach you the facts? to cover the fact you don't know a damned thing about RR land grants, which ceased to exist 100 years ago If I give you something for nothing, how much time needs to pass before you can legitimately say you never received something for nothing? Forget economics, you're struggling with basic logic now. In any case, the railroads were subsidised again in the 1940s as per your own link, and passenger rail has been entirely funded by the government since 1971 so I'm not sure where you got the idea that the land grants were the sole subsidy. Yes, the land was worthless. It was taken from the Indians and sold to the railroads. If the land was worthless, then why was it taken? THERE WAS NO SUBSIDY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SHELLED OUT NO MONEY TO START WITH. See, the problem here is that you don't know what a "subsidy" is. A subsidy is when the government gives a company something for nothing. It doesn't have to be cash; it can be any consideration including (but not limited to) land, stocks, debt forgiveness, tax exemptions, permission to externalise costs, or the right to buy something for less than its actual value. The government gave land to the railroads for less than its actual value. Therefore, the railroads received something for nothing. That's a subsidy. That the government stole the land rather than buying it doesn't make it any less of a subsidy. If I steal your car and give it to Bob for free, can Bob legitimately claim he never got a free car? After all, it's not like I paid for it, so the fact that Bob didn't pay for it doesn't make it free. Tax-free airports is an implicit subsidy. No they aren't. Tenants do NOT pay property taxes. Try deducting property taxes on your apartment, if you have an apartment, and see how fast the auditors come after you. If that's an "implicit subsidy," then everyone who rents anything is receiving subsidies since they obviously don't pay property taxes on the property they rent. That land would be ratable and pay a lot of property taxes with buildings on it. If the land is owned by the government, then it's not exactly "tax exempt," it's just that the government doesn't feel the need to pay taxes to itself for its own property. Although considering that passenger rail is completely run by the government, this is an irrelevant side issue anyway. Even if the airlines got their airports entirely for free, they'd still be receiving far less subsidies than passenger rail, thus proving my point that the free market considers them superior. |
|
|
|