|
|
| Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal (1429871) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
|
| (1430622) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 17:45:54 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 17:10:17 2017. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/development-west/essays/financing-transcontinental-railroad"The government bonds received for construction—the so-called subsidy—remained a bone of contention for another quarter century. Ultimately both RAILROADS PAID OFF their government debt in full. From the first, the government also received ANOTHER payment in the form of REDUCED RATES on its troops and freight carried by the roads. " Do you understand the concept that when a mortgage is paid off, the lender has no claim or lien on it at all any longer ? |
|
|
| (1430626) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 19:14:59 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 17:34:56 2017. Land Grants are NO LONGER subsidies. Nobody gives a shit about the 1890's.If the government gives you something for free (or lets you buy it for less than it's worth), then that's a subsidy. At no point can you legitimately claim you never received a subsidy— especially not when you're still using the thing you got for free. The railroads now OWN the land Yes, if you get something for free then you own it. That's sort of how it works. That doesn't mean you can legitimately claim you've paid for it. pay property taxes on that land What does this have to do with anything? That you bring up this non sequitur suggests a fundamental lack of comprehension about how anything works. and the government has nothing to do with that land. And yet, you'd probably complain about SNAP recipients receiving "welfare." Paying property taxes occurs whether the trains runs or not. Yes, and? Everyone pays property taxes. Even airlines. In what way is this relevant? The infrastructure is NOT subsidized by the government in any way shape or form. It was paid for by the government. That's a subsidy. Railroads have the own traffic control system for THEIR rights of way. Airlines do not own airports and do not control traffic - the government does. Airlines rent airport access and traffic control. There's no meaningful economic difference— and there's plenty of railroads who have rented trackage rights. |
|
|
| (1430627) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 19:17:12 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 17:45:54 2017. Do you understand the concept that when a mortgage is paid off, the lender has no claim or lien on it at all any longer ?Your link pertains to one line. If I buy 100 houses with 100 mortgages, and then pay off 2 mortgages in full, can I legitimately claim free and clear ownership of all 100 houses? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1430633) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 19:36:29 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 19:17:12 2017. The railroads have long since paid off their loans and own it free and clear. You are the only one around who thinks they have not. |
|
|
| (1430634) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 19:37:50 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 19:14:59 2017. See the next response.You know NOTHING of this subject matter and are wrong on all counts. |
|
|
| (1430635) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 19:42:56 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 19:36:29 2017. The railroads have long since paid off their loans and own it free and clear.Bullshit. You probably think Goldman Sachs paid back the bailout money too. You are the only one around who thinks they have not. Since you've apparently never heard of airport use fees and think no one but railroads has ever paid property taxes, I think I may be the only one around here who thinks at all. |
|
|
| (1430636) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 19:48:05 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 19:37:50 2017. See the next response.You know NOTHING of this subject matter and are wrong on all counts. I already addressed your bullshit about subsidies in your other response, but I notice you left a few things conspicuously unaddressed. Railroads and airlines are both subject to the same property taxes, yet you claim property taxes are an excessive burden only on railroads. Why? Airlines are taxed at the same rates. Railroads and airlines both pay for traffic control and the maintenance of their vital infrastructure, but you claimed this represented a subsidy only to the airlines. Why? Airlines don't get anything from the government for free. |
|
|
| (1430638) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 19:55:54 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 19:42:56 2017. You want to live in fantasyland, go ahead.They paid it off decades ago, and no one except you disputes that. Airlines paying fees amounts to RENT, not ownership for LOCAL government owned airports. You obviously cannot decipher between tenant and owner. Government owned airports do NOT pay property taxes. And those fees do NOT amount to support of the air traffic control system. which is partially funded by the air ticket tax. The airlines contribute NOTHING. |
|
|
| (1430639) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 20:00:05 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 19:48:05 2017. Airlines do NOT pay property taxes.Government owned Airports do NOT pay property taxes. Airlines do NOT own airports. Railroads OWN property. Railroads PAY property taxes. Property taxes are NOT income taxes. Airlines do NOT pay for air traffic control. Air passengers DO through the ticket tax. An airline is nothing more than a flying bus company. |
|
|
| (1430640) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sun Mar 19 20:01:36 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 19:55:54 2017. To throw a wrinkle into the property tax discussion, certain states provide favorable rates for rail property used in furtherance of the states interests. As an example, NYS has a deal for property owned by a railroad that carries state or federally subsidized routes. That binds the municipalities or counties that they traverse, since in NY they are the ones that actually impose property taxes. |
|
|
| (1430641) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 20:03:29 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Sun Mar 19 20:01:36 2017. Yes, NYS made a deal with Conrail, or it may have been CSX by that time, to reduce their locally-charged property taxes. |
|
|
| (1430646) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 20:27:26 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 19:55:54 2017. Airlines paying fees amounts to RENT, not ownership for LOCAL government owned airports. You obviously cannot decipher between tenant and owner.Considering that I just explained this to you, maybe you should avoid accusing me of not understanding it. Government owned airports do NOT pay property taxes. But they also don't provide free services to airlines. Airlines don't own the airports, so they don't pay tax— but they do pay rent. Either way, they're paying. The government doesn't receive property tax from itself— but it does receive rent. Either way, they're getting money in. And those fees do NOT amount to support of the air traffic control system. which is partially funded by the air ticket tax. So when the government levies a tax on railroad tickets, it's a conspiracy to destroy the railroads. And when the government levies a tax on airline tickets, it's a subsidy to support the airlines. Gotcha. The airlines contribute NOTHING. Well, except the rent they pay. You know, landing fees and all that? |
|
|
| (1430647) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 20:42:46 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 19 20:00:05 2017. Airlines do NOT pay property taxes.So in your magic fantasy world, airlines are somehow exempt from property taxes? Because here in the real world, property taxes apply to everyone. If you own property, you pay taxes on it. Government owned Airports do NOT pay property taxes. No, but they don't fly planes either. Government owned airports receive rent. Airlines do NOT own airports. Railroads OWN property. Railroads PAY property taxes. I think the argument you're trying to make here is that a property tax that applies to everyone is unfair to railroads because railroads need to own large amounts of real estate for their infrastructure while airlines don't. If you're trying to defend the idea that airlines are unfairly subsidised, then you've just shot yourself in the foot— you've actually conceded that according to the free market, airlines are a superior transportation method because they occupy less space for their infrastructure. After all, imagine that the government decided to stop running airports and sold them off to the airlines. At the same time, they bought up all the railroad tracks and rented them back to the railroads. Now, airlines would own property and pay taxes on it. Railroads would pay no property tax, but they'd have to pay rent on their tracks. The rent paid by the railroads on tens of thousands of miles of track would be greater than the property taxes owed by the airlines— and you would indignantly claim that the airlines are unfairly subsidised because the government isn't charging them rent. Property taxes are NOT income taxes. Who said they were? You're just spewing non sequiturs now. Airlines do NOT pay for air traffic control. They pay airport landing fees. Air passengers DO through the ticket tax. That's the same thing. After all, an entire industry's cost is ultimately paid by its customers; if costs go up, prices go up too. This is just a roundabout way of doing it— instead of paying $110 to the airline for the ticket, which then pays $10 to the airport in fees, you pay $110 to the airline, of which $100 is kept by the airline for the ticket and $10 is paid to the airport in fees. It's the same thing. An airline is nothing more than a flying bus company. In the sense that, unlike passenger trains, they continue to operate without government subsidy or mandate instead of shutting down in the 1960s. The free market has spoken. |
|
|
| (1430648) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 20:52:13 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Sun Mar 19 20:01:36 2017. If Joe wants to stretch for the advanced topics, he should consider this:Railroads are currently making profits. Which means that all the taxes and alleged airline subsidies that supposedly give them an unfair advantage haven't stopped them from running freight. But as long as they run freight, they need tracks and signals, which means most of the infrastructure is already there and already paid for. Airlines need to pay rent to use airports, but passenger trains receive a massive "subsidy" because they use infrastructure that needs to be paid for whether the passenger trains run or not. Yet passenger trains have been almost completely unprofitable since the 1950s (and probably earlier). Airlines continue to fly, but private passenger rail was kept on life support until 1971 and allowed to die because it was so unprofitable it nearly took down the rail freight industry with it. |
|
|
| (1430653) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 19 21:18:51 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Sun Mar 19 20:01:36 2017. That's not "favorable" per se. |
|
|
| (1430670) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Mar 20 08:38:11 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 18 21:36:11 2017. Nice pic, though Henry put out a reasonable counter to it. Still, I can imagine them trying to find any loophole they can to run bare minimum passenger service, to the point that it would Amtrak look positively luxurious. |
|
|
| (1430671) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 20 09:28:30 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by 3-9 on Mon Mar 20 08:38:11 2017. though Henry put out a reasonable counter to itThere is no "reasonable counter" to the government deliberately slowing down rail service to benefit other transportation modes. Still, I can imagine them trying to find any loophole they can to run bare minimum passenger service, to the point that it would Amtrak look positively luxurious The point is not to find "loopholes" in regulations but to scrap the regulations and the regulators. |
|
|
| (1430677) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Mar 20 12:46:22 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 20 09:28:30 2017. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, Henry put a reasonable counter to my point that the railroads might try to get the tax cut by sticking a passenger car in a freight train. However, that doesn't mean they won't try some other way of getting the tax cut by running substandard passenger service. |
|
|
| (1430678) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Mar 20 12:57:13 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by 3-9 on Mon Mar 20 12:46:22 2017. Companies try to maximize benefits to themselves, either in the form of profits, returns to investors, rising stock prices, or a combination of them. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that. It is the primary reason why they exist. Unfortunately, it is not always done honestly, and occasionally the best interests of a company do not coincide with the interests of some parts of the population. There are certainly valid reasons for some regulations, do you think transportation companies would not try to get away with unreasonable hours of service? |
|
|
| (1430679) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 20 13:01:42 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Mon Mar 20 12:57:13 2017. Unfortunately, it is not always done honestly, and occasionally the best interests of a company do not coincide with the interests of some parts of the populationThat's where criminal law steps in. Not regulations that are written by unelected bureaucrats with the intent of degrading a business' viability. |
|
|
| (1430680) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Mar 20 13:05:24 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 20 13:01:42 2017. Not everything that is wrong is criminal, and not every regulation is intended to hurt a business' viability, assuming that one believes that limits should be imposed on them in the first place. |
|
|
| (1430684) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Mar 20 13:27:19 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 18 19:57:30 2017. Only if all the states agree. If at least one state doesn't, it could kill the line unless the other states make up for the shortfall. |
|
|
| (1430685) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Mar 20 13:34:50 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Mon Mar 20 12:57:13 2017. Considering that passenger service is generally an undesirable undertaking for all-freight railroads, yes, I totally expect them to try to get away with the barest minimum of passenger service, which in the end probably won't be very helpful. |
|
|
| (1430687) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 20 13:59:57 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Mon Mar 20 13:05:24 2017. Not everything that is wrong is criminalOnly in a society that's falling apart does that apply. and not every regulation is intended to hurt a business' viability Those not written by Congress (the only body empowered by the Constitution to do so) but by unconstitutional unelected bureaucrats who answer only to the chief executive are certainly those regulations that hurt business viability. |
|
|
| (1430702) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Mar 20 17:33:23 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 20 13:59:57 2017. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but I suspect they are not the prevailing views of our society. Many regulations are written by agencies empowered by Congress specifically to do what Congress by itself would never be able to do. |
|
|
| (1430703) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 20 17:35:47 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 20:42:46 2017. You don't what you are talking about.AIRLINES DO NOT OWN AIRPORTS. Therefore they do not pay property taxes for them, PERIOD. 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. LANDING FEES DO NOT SUPPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL. The airport is owned by the local government authority. Air Traffic Controllers are paid by US-DOT. As for as you nonsense that railroads are "subsidized" because of 19th century land grants, the US Congress disproved that myth SEVENTY-TWO YEAR AGO: "In 1945, when Congress relieved railroads of their obligation to provide the government with reduced rates, Congress stated that, through the years the government has gotten all and more than it bargained for in the original land grant transaction...the time has come for the government to close its books on this transaction [and]...relieve the land grant railroads of the injustice of being required to continue to make payments on a debt that has long been extinguished.” Likewise, in 1951, a Senate committee observed that railroad land-grant aid “has been repaid several times over.” "Government studies have shown that railroads have already paid several times over for the land grants they received, mainly by giving the government discounted rates for decades. The days are long past when railroad land grants should be a source of controversy. " https://www.aar.org/BackgroundPapers/Railroad%20Land%20Grants%20-%20Paid%20in%20Full.pdf That has been further proven by "The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History": "The government bonds received for construction—the so-called subsidy—remained a bone of contention for another quarter century. Ultimately both railroads paid off their government debt in full. From the first, the government also received another payment in the form of reduced rates on its troops and freight carried by the roads. " https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/development-west/essays/financing-transcontinental-railroad |
|
|
| (1430704) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 20 17:40:57 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 19 20:27:26 2017. "So when the government levies a tax on railroad tickets, it's a conspiracy to destroy the railroads. And when the government levies a tax on airline tickets, it's a subsidy to support the airlines. Gotcha."The RR ticket tax went to general funds. Not one penny of it was returned back to them even though WWII wore the shit out of them. Then that Socialist fool Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System and put half of them out of business, as well as all private passenger trains Airline ticket tax goes to PARTIALLY cover FEDERAL air traffic control Landing fees are nothing more than rent to the LOCAL airport. |
|
|
| (1430707) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 20 19:56:01 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by 3-9 on Mon Mar 20 13:27:19 2017. Founding Fathers thought of that. That's why "Interstate Commerce" (which meant Transportation in the 1790's) made that the domain of the federal government.No Amtrak service subsidized by more than 2 states, without federal subsidy, has ever survived more than a few months. The Mobile-New Orleans section of the Crescent ("Gulf Breeze") was the last to go over 20 years ago. |
|
|
| (1430713) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Mar 20 21:07:34 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by pragmatist on Mon Mar 20 17:33:23 2017. Many regulations are written by agencies empowered by Congress specifically to do what Congress by itself would never be able to do.That's OK. He thinks Congress is illegitimate too. |
|
|
| (1430714) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Mar 20 21:25:43 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 20 17:35:47 2017. You don't what you are talking about. Seriously, you might want to try putting on your thinking brain— you're embarrassing yourself.AIRLINES DO NOT OWN AIRPORTS. Yes. We've already covered that. Therefore they do not pay property taxes for them, PERIOD. I just explained that to you in my last post. You might want to learn reading comprehension. 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. True, but completely irrelevant to anything either of us has said. Your entire argument relies on the idea that railroads are subject to property tax while airlines are not, which is unfair to the railroads. However, both are taxed at the same rate— the only reason railroads pay more taxes is because they own more property. However, the reason they own more property is because they need more land; a railroad can't run without miles and miles of tracks but an airline only needs airports. Which means that rather than prove passenger rail was the victim of government meddling, you proved it was the victim of the free market. Which means you concede that my initial statement was correct— cars and airplanes pushed the private sector out of passenger rail. That's how free markets work. LANDING FEES DO NOT SUPPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL. They support the airport. The airport is owned by the local government authority. Which, in lieu of property tax, receives rent from airlines. Air Traffic Controllers are paid by US-DOT. No, they're paid for by airlines (albeit indirectly). As for as you nonsense that railroads are "subsidized" because of 19th century land grants, the US Congress disproved that myth SEVENTY-TWO YEAR AGO: Except your quote proves the exact opposite— "In 1945, when Congress relieved railroads of their obligation to provide the government with reduced rates. Releasing someone from a contractual obligation for free is called a subsidy. So in an effort to "prove" railroads aren't subsidised, you provide examples of the subsidies they were given. Nice one. You really much logic, don'tcha? |
|
|
| (1430715) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Mar 20 21:27:04 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 20 17:40:57 2017. Then that Socialist fool EisenhowerLolwut? OK, that line alone proves that you're living in a complete fantasy world and nothing you say is really worth listening to. |
|
|
| (1430723) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Mar 20 22:03:15 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Mon Mar 20 21:25:43 2017. Nitpick:"In 1945, when Congress relieved railroads of their obligation to provide the government with reduced rates. Releasing someone from a contractual obligation for free is called a subsidy. So in an effort to "prove" railroads aren't subsidised, you provide examples of the subsidies they were given. Nice one. You really much logic, don'tcha? This isn't anymore of a subsidy than this logical leap: the mob stops charging you protection money therefore, the mob is giving you money It was a relaxed requirement, meaning they took a leech off the RR's bottom line. The person who removes the leeches from the patient is not giving them more blood. Subsidy is cold hard cash. |
|
|
| (1430727) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Mar 20 22:35:37 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Mar 20 22:03:15 2017. the mob stops charging you protection moneytherefore, the mob is giving you money You were never under contractual obligation to give the mob money in the first place. It was a relaxed requirement, meaning they took a leech off the RR's bottom line. The person who removes the leeches from the patient is not giving them more blood. But if I give you money in exchange for your agreement to allow the leeches, and I release you from your obligation to accept the leeches while allowing you to keep the money, then I have given you something for nothing. Subsidy is cold hard cash. Not true. Any form of consideration can count as a subsidy. It can be cash, debt forgiveness, releasing you from your side of a contract while still upholding mine, or allowing you to get away with externalising your costs. As long as you're getting something for nothing, it counts as a subsidy. If I have a house and I allow you to live there for free for life on the condition that you (a) keep the house in good repair, (b) keep the yard tidy, and (c) look after my pets and houseplants, then I have exchanged value for value— you get a free house, I get your labour. If I then release you of your obligations for maintenance, yard work, and pet sitting while allowing you to retain your lifetime rights to the house, then I have given you something for free. |
|
|
| (1430729) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Mar 20 22:38:06 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Mar 20 22:03:15 2017. Subsidy is cold hard cash.Here's a better example. If I give you $500, that's a subsidy. If I lend you $500, and then immediately release you from your obligation to repay the loan, that's also a subsidy, even though I haven't given you a single penny in cold hard cash; I've merely "removed the leech" of loan repayments from your bottom line. |
|
|
| (1430782) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 17:41:59 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Mon Mar 20 21:27:04 2017. Look up "Socialist" in Webster's.Then read an Micro Econ 101 Textbook. Then (maybe) you'll get it. |
|
|
| (1430785) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 17:48:16 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Mon Mar 20 21:25:43 2017. Nilet,Congress determined their loan was more than paid off in 1945. AAR has also. Air Traffic Contollers are paid by US-DOT, not the PANYNY or any other local entity. It is not one big pot. Airports are not on municipal property tax ratables, another freebie. Airports were built by tax-free muni bonds, another hidden subsidy. You are totally hopeless. Get off your soap box. You sound like an idiot. |
|
|
| (1430796) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 19:00:36 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 17:41:59 2017. Considering I've been explaining basic economics to you this whole time and you've been consistently failing to get it, I think maybe you should learn when to shut up and stop embarrassing yourself. |
|
|
| (1430797) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 19:04:43 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 17:48:16 2017. Congress determined their loan was more than paid off in 1945.What loan? You were talking about land grants, but then you realised that was a subsidy so suddenly you switched to talking about loans, as if that makes the subsidies magically stop existing. Airports are not on municipal property tax ratables, another freebie. Airports were built by tax-free muni bonds, another hidden subsidy. And they're not owned by the airlines. The airlines have to pay to use them. You are totally hopeless. Get off your soap box. You sound like an idiot. |
|
|
| (1430800) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 19:10:57 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 19:04:43 2017. The land grant was a de facto loan. They have been paid off.You have sited no evidence otherwise than to babble for 3 days. Not even the craziest, right-winged crackpot in Congress has claimed otherwise. Airlines paying to use airports does not change the fact that AIRPORTS DO NOT PAY PROPERTY TAXES. |
|
|
| (1430801) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 19:13:14 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 19:00:36 2017. You don't have a clue about economics. Eisenhower shifted transportation from the private to public sector. That is plain old Socialism.I have 15 credits of Economics and a Finance MBA. I know more than a thing or two. |
|
|
| (1430806) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 19:24:24 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 19:10:57 2017. The land grant was a de facto loan. They have been paid off.What do you mean a "de facto loan?" You have sited no evidence otherwise than to babble for 3 days. OK, 1. The word is "cited." If you're going to spew nonsense, at least use correct grammar. 2. You've actually cited evidence to support my position, so that saves me the bother. 3. Since you think Eisenhower was a socialist, you're far too disconnected from reality to be worth much effort; any evidence I present, you will simply dismiss. 4. The evidence is a quick google away. For example: Without the assistance of the U.S. government, railroad construction between 1860 and 1900 would have been greatly curtailed. Building a railroad was an expensive venture. Private banks, fearing the railroad companies would need a long time to pay off their debts, were reluctant to loan money to the companies. To remedy the situation, Congress provided assistance to the railroad companies in the form of land grants. The land grant railroads, receiving millions of acres of public land, sold the land to make money, built their railroads, and contributed to a more rapid settlement of the West. In the end, four out of the five transcontinental railroads were built with help from the federal government. Source Signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on July 1, 1862, the 1862 Act authorized extensive land grants in the Western United States and the issuance of 30-year government bonds (at 6 percent) to the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad (later the Southern Pacific Railroad) companies in order to construct a continuous transcontinental railroad between the eastern side of the Missouri River at Council Bluffs, Iowa (opposite from Omaha, Nebraska) and the navigable waters of the Sacramento River in Sacramento, California. Section 2 of the Act granted each Company contiguous rights of way for their rail lines as well as all public lands within 200 feet (61 m) on either side of the track. Source But then, you're not actually disputing the existence of land grants, are you? No, you're trying to defend the even more absurd idea that because Congress gave the railroads subsidies in 1945, it proves the railroads never received any subsidies. Airlines paying to use airports does not change the fact that AIRPORTS DO NOT PAY PROPERTY TAXES. No one claimed airports pay property taxes. You claimed airlines are subsidised by virtue of the fact that they don't pay property taxes. However, they pay airport fees in lieu of property taxes, meaning they don't actually receive subsidies. So I think we can agree that: 1. Airports do not pay property taxes. 2. Airlines do not receive subsidies. 3. Cars and airplanes pushed the private sector out of passenger rail. That's how free markets work. |
|
|
| (1430808) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 19:27:30 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 19:13:14 2017. You don't have a clue about economics.And yet, in this very thread, I have educated you on remedial concepts such as subsidies and contracts about which you knew nothing. Eisenhower shifted transportation from the private to public sector. That is plain old Socialism. Lolwut? Yeah, you're gonna need to explain this one further. I have 15 credits of Economics and a Finance MBA. I know more than a thing or two. Like clockwork. Once a SubChatter is proved to be clueless on a particular subject, he indignantly claims he has several professional credentials in that subject. |
|
|
| (1430810) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 19:43:12 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 19:24:24 2017. Congress did NOT give railroads subsidies in 1945. That is when Congress determined their land grants to have been paid off. You refuse to grasp that has happened.Since government sponsored auto and airplane travel pushed passenger rail out of existence, that is NOT FREE MARKET - that is massive government interference in the free market. Yes that is pure, textbook SOCIALISM staring you right in the face and you can't see it. Airlines recieve subsidies in the form of FREE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL. and Government as their investment banker for airports. They are nothing more than FLYING BUS COMPANIES |
|
|
| (1430812) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 19:46:06 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 19:27:30 2017. In other words, you have ZERO backgound in either economics or finance.You have not educated me about anything - you know nothing, still trying to say railroads are subsidized today because of land grants some of them got 170 years ago. What an idiot. |
|
|
| (1430815) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 20:07:57 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 19:43:12 2017. Congress did NOT give railroads subsidies in 1945. That is when Congress determined their land grants to have been paid off. You refuse to grasp that has happened.Except the land grants weren't a loan that could be paid off. OK, time for another basic lesson in remedial economics. Suppose I want money to start up a business. You offer me $50,000 in exchange for 10% of my future profits. I accept your terms. I use your $50,000 to start up a business and in my first year, I make a whopping $10 million in profits. I write you a check for $250,000— five times what you paid me. Have I paid off the loan? No. Of course not. Because the terms of our arrangement is that you get 10% of my profits— I owe you $1 million for the first year and 10% of all future profits. If you decide to accept my $250,000 payment and forfeit both the remaining $750,000 and your right to collect 10% of my future profits, then that's your prerogative. However, if you do that, then you have given me something for nothing. That is, a gift (or a subsidy). You can say: "I've received five times my original investment, so I feel your debt to me has been paid," but you're still giving me something for nothing. That is, a gift (aka, a subsidy). In 1945, Congress gave the railroads something for nothing by forfeiting their right to preferential rates. That's a subsidy. Since government sponsored auto and airplane travel pushed passenger rail out of existence Seriously? Auto travel is 100% privately funded unless you want to count the roads themselves, and roads are one of the most basic functions every government is expected to provide by default. Claiming that government-funded road are unfair to to the railroad industry is like claiming water treatment plants are unfair to the bottled water industry or restrictions on air pollution are unfair to the gas mask industry. As for airlines, I've already explained repeatedly why they're not subsidised. Airlines recieve subsidies in the form of FREE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL. "Free" in the sense of "paid for by air passengers." That's not free by any stretch of the imagination. |
|
|
| (1430816) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 20:11:22 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 21 19:46:06 2017. In other words, you have ZERO backgound in either economics or finance.I know more about both than you do. That sort of speaks for itself. You can claim to have all the imaginary degrees and experience you want, but you still don't know how contracts work. You have not educated me about anything Only because you're incapable of learning. I've tried, though. still trying to say railroads are subsidized today because of land grants some of them got 170 years ago. They were subsidised through land grants in the 1860s. They were subsidised by Congress in the 1940s. They have been subsidised by Amtrak continuously since 1971. But in your little world, none of those things exist because of the choice of words in the card accompanying one of the gifts means none of the gifts were ever given. |
|
|
| (1430835) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 07:17:21 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 20:11:22 2017. You have done nothing but pick sentences apart to sound smart, BUT- you know NOTHING of the Land Grant issue - you know NOTHING of Congress's decree in 1945 untold I told you - you know nothing of economic principles - you don't understand what the term "de facto" means - you don't understand what the term "free market" means, or you have not made such a STUPID remark of "that's how free markets work' when the government run highways and airports assumed market share from private railroads (HINT "Free" means NO government intervention). Furthermore: - Congress did NOT subsidize the railroads in the 1940's. Their WWII movements were done as customers, wore them to the bone, and then put them out of business with the socialistic interstate highway system. - Amtrak does NOT subsidize private railroads. They pay very low track usage fees at incremental NOT market costs, which no other passenger rail carrier is allowed to do. |
|
|
| (1430836) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 22 07:25:53 2017, in response to Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal, posted by Nilet on Tue Mar 21 20:07:57 2017. Land Grans were a de facto loan in which railroads had to offer reduced rates so as to pay them off . What part of that URL from the AAR did you not understand ?Your STUPID analogies are meaningless. in 1945, Congress determined their land grants to have been more than paid off. THERE WAS NO SUBSIDY from that point on. Furthemore, they OWNED their right of way. The loan lender was the federal government acting as investment banker. Loans are NOT subsidies by the government or the investment bank. Airlines get FREE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL and the Air ticket tax does not come close to covering all expenses. The expense borne by the passenger has no impact on the airlines bank account. Therefore they don't pay it - they pass it through. Airports get a subsidy by residing on non-ratable property, so there is no expense to be passed to the airlines, therefor they benefit from that subsidy as well. |
|
|
| (1430906) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Mar 22 17:09:45 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 07:17:21 2017. socialistic interstate highway system.I get that being proven wrong is considered a tremendous shame according to the warped values of SubChat, but you're seriously just embarrassing yourself. You don't know what a subsidy is. You don't know what a loan is. You don't know how contracts work. You don't know anything about economic principles. You don't know what the phrase "de facto" means. And in this one line, you prove you don't have the slightest clue what socialism is. Not to mention, you have trouble with basic reading comprehension. Such as: Amtrak does NOT subsidize private railroads. In my previous post, I explained to you that the passenger rail industry is subsidised by Amtrak, by virtue of the fact that Amtrak is, you know, government-run. However, you were unable to comprehend that and indignantly replied that Amtrak doesn't subsidise the freight rail industry. That's true. However, we were interested in the passenger rail industry. Since the free market has determined cars and planes to be superior to passenger rail, the only way passenger trains can run is if the government runs them, in stark contrast to automobiles (which are 100% private) and airlines (which are 100% private). |
|
|
| (1430914) | |
Re: NY congressman Higgins writes Amtrak's Moorman in support of reopening Buffalo Central Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Mar 22 17:39:31 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 07:25:53 2017. Land Grans were a de facto loan in which railroads had to offer reduced rates so as to pay them off .You seriously don't understand how contracts work, do you? Let me try giving you a Remedial Economics lesson again. Suppose I own a building with 100 apartments. I offer to give you the building for free, on the condition that you set aside 10 apartment and rent them to me and my friends for $1 annual rent. Since this leaves you with 90 apartments to rent at market rate, you take the deal. Note that my leases on the 10 apartments are only good for a year, but the initial contract never expires; at the end of a year, I have the right to renew my lease for another year for only $1 annual rent. Question 1: Suppose after 30 years of my renting the apartments for $1/year each, you decide that you're not going to let me renew at that preferential rate— you demand I pay market rent or move out. When I point to the initial contract under which I'm entitled to the preferential rate in exchange for giving you the building for free, you declare that the contract was a "de facto loan" and that by honouring it for 30 years, you have fully paid your debt to me. Are you within your rights to do so? Question 2: Suppose after 30 years, I voluntarily forfeit my rights to the 10 apartments and allow you to rent them at market rate. Have I given you something for nothing? Question 3: Suppose that when I make the decision in Question 2, I write you a card saying that after 30 years, I feel you've paid off any debt you owe me. Does that change your answer from Question 2? What part of that URL from the AAR did you not understand ? The URL you gave talked about bonds, not grants. The government gave both— free land (ie, a subsidy), and loans (technically a subsidy, but not relevant here). The railroads paid back the loan, but they kept the subsidy. So maybe you should try reading links before posting them, because your evidence actually proves me right. in 1945, Congress determined their land grants to have been more than paid off. Except your own link proves the exact opposite. In 1945, Congress forfeited their rights to preferential rates— that is, they gave the railroads something for nothing. IE, a subsidy. Refer to Questions 2 and 3 above. Your STUPID analogies are meaningless. Yes, I get that because you know nothing about economics, it's hard for you to understand Furthemore, they OWNED their right of way. Yes, they own it because the government gave it to them for free. That's called a "subsidy." The loan lender was the federal government acting as investment banker. Loans are NOT subsidies by the government or the investment bank. Actually, if the government lends you money at a low interest rate despite the fact that you're such a bad credit risk that no bank will touch you, that actually is a subsidy. But you don't know what a "subsidy" is and you struggle to understand basic concepts like contracts, so maybe you shouldn't worry your little head about that. The expense borne by the passenger has no impact on the airlines bank account. Yes, it does, actually. If all airline passengers have to pay an extra fee to fly, then that effectively increases the cost of flying. Increasing the cost of flying drives up ticket prices, which, in turn, reduces demand for them. Reduced demand in turn reduces the airlines' profitability. If you'd taken Econ 101, you might have learned about something called a demand curve. I'll be happy to tell you about that but I think you need to take remedial courses first since you don't even understand concepts like loans, gifts, subsidies, and contracts first. Airports get a subsidy by residing on non-ratable property, so there is no expense to be passed to the airlines, therefor they benefit from that subsidy as well. If you're talking about the property used for their routes, then it's true— railroads own land for their tracks and have to pay property taxes on it, while airlines do not own or rent any land for their routes because planes fly. That's not a subsidy though— that's an inherent superiority which is rewarded by the free market with greater profitability. Which is how free markets work. If you're claiming a better product is unfairly "subsidised" by virtue of being better, then you probably ought to give up on economics entirely. If you're referring to the airports, we've already gone over that. Airlines do pay for their airports; they just pay rent instead of tax. Renting property is not a subsidy; people who rent apartments don't get to live there for free just because they're not paying property tax. If you can't understand the idea that renting something means paying for it, then again, you probably ought to give up on economics entirely. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
