Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (361018)	12/1/2007 8:20:48 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574007

Yes but the tax on gas is not enough to do all the work that needs to be done on the US's infrastructure. That's why the bridge collapse happened in MN. We have a lot of deferred maintenance. And why is that? The US has been unwilling to tax gas in the amount it should be taxed to do all the improvements that need to be done as well as develop new infrastructure. Hence, many of this country's roads and bridges are a time bomb waiting to happen. More money is always the answer isn't it? Have you ever considered looking into where the tax money collected to repair our roads went instead of into the bridge? If you hate corporate fraud, you should really look into government fraud and where your tax dollars are going. How can feeding the addicts MORE like you're advocating, be the solution?

To: tejek who wrote (361018)	12/1/2007 8:44:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574007

The federal gas tax produces more revenue than is needed to do maintenance needed to deal with the wear and tear caused by cars on interstates. Of course interstates aren't the only roads, but federal gasoline taxes aren't the only taxes that drivers pay. They pay a lot of other fees and charges. In my state there is s personal property tax, I have to pay over $500 a year for my car. They also pay tolls. Maybe drivers still get a net subsidy, but when you take off the portion of the costs involved with repairing wear and damage from trucks (remember I'm just talking about cars, not trucks, trucks cause more damage), and somehow take in to account the use of roads for official and or emergency purposes (not just in terms of the costs for maintenance caused by such use, but also the fact that the very existence of the roads is important for such purposes) and its not so clear that cars really do receive a subsidy. As for the bridge in MN, well that isn't primarily a lack of total funds, it might be a problem in properly allocating them, or it might be that they where spent for other purposes. It ain't going to happen. Public transportation is a difficult industry on which to make a profit. Absent the subsidies some airlines would go under. I say let them. The rest should be more capable of making a profit. How much the normal operations of airlines are subsidized is not an easy question to answer. There is a lot of spending that could be considered subsidies, but could also be considered not to be a subsidy. But other spending like the billions tossed around to the airlines after 9/11, and other lesser handouts clearly are subsidies.