Originally Posted by
kebosabi
I put question to that theory.
In Singapore for example, they tax 100% for a car and high gas taxes. Buying a Toyota Corolla there is reserved for the upper middle class.
So in a way, that puts a lot of Singaporeans off from car ownership. If there are so much taxes, there will be very few people owning cars, in the end, it won't contribute too much to building roads and maintenance, no?
There is some point on the Laffer curve where increasing taxes will decrease revenues. The US is nowhere close to that point, and I don't think Singapore is either, but I don't know much about personal finances there.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
In Taiwan, gas taxes and car ownership costs are so high, there are a lot more scooter and motorcycle riders than car drivers. And with scooters getting way better gas mileages (in the 80-100+ MPG range) than most cars out there, the gas tax doesn't do as much as it hopes to do.
Same as above.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
Even the US is putting into question about gas taxes. Newer technologies are coming out everyday that makes cars more and more fuel efficient. The days of 15 MPG cars being the norm are long gone. Hybrid vehicles get 40+ MPG, we even have all-electric vehicles coming out on the market that uses absolutely no gas at all. The US can raise the gas tax all they want, but if 0 gas is put in, 0 x $5.00/gal gas tax is still $0 in gas tax revenue.
That is why the gas tax should be a percentage rather than a flat amount per gallon. That way, it automatically adjusts for inflation and changing market conditions without legislative action. Regarding hybrids and electrics, I think it's fine to let them pay less gas tax as an incentive, since they do reduce pollution.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
Or to put it another way, if it costs like over $10,000 just to get a drivers license, $100,000 just to buy a Corolla and gas prices are at $10/gal, very few people will even own cars to begin with. Very few cars then means very few gas consumption no matter how high the bar is set, therefore very few gas tax collected. In the end, tax revenues will be dismal to do anything.
No?
Once again, refer to Laffer curve. Your example is obviously past the vertex.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
Take for example, the old JNR, the predecessor for the current JR. It was riddled with tax inefficiencies, labor union strikes, poor service, it never made any money and it was burden on Japanese taxpayers.
But even then they still decided to go public. And in less than five years it went from a poorly run government agency to the darling child on the Nikkei Index. (hint hint TSA vs private screeners?
)
The same with the HKMTR. Under 100% government control it was looked as the ugly child of taxpayers. Faced with the similar budget and debt problems like JNR, they were pretty much forced to go public-private enterprise from the bondholders. When they privatized, its stock plummeted and was on the verge bankruptcy.
But after a series of pro-profit reforms, it stabilized fares with record profits year after year; they made 22% profit over the previous year in 2011. And at the same time, they have not had a fare increase in the past five years, and the only recent one was a paltry fare hike of HKD $0.37 (USD $0.04) adjustment based on inflation.
So why can this be done in Tokyo and Hong Kong but not in NYC? My guess is that most Americans aren't patient enough or have the minds "click in" to see public transit being a for-profit enterprise. The idea just doesn't click into their minds. They want to see fast and immediate returns like Google and Apple IPOs, whereas if it was seemingly like the Facebook IPO, they sue.
I don't think that's the reason. The main reason, as I said earlier, is because roads in the US are so heavily subsidized, meaning driving is cheap. Other forms of transit, therefore, cannot compete.
If you subsidize an enterprise, you need to subsidize its competitors as well, or they will go out of business.
Originally Posted by
kebosabi
Contractual service is a bit different from true public-private enterprise. It's just like the US Government contracting with Boeing or Northrop Grumman to build new fighter jets. Our tax money just flows into Boeing and Northrop Grumman sales.
Besides rarely do contracted private transit companies have any say about stupid municipal laws and regulations regarding making public transit go for profit.
If it were the case, why wouldn't these private transit companies just operate their own routes and services on their own instead of being contracted by the municipal governments in the first place?
Because their own services would not be profitable without subsidies.