🚀 go-pugleaf

 
In ca.politics dlow@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) said: 
 
 
>Rick Herrick (rherrick@us.oracle.com) wrote: : No, they haven't become a  
>surplus.  Perhaps it can be considered a 
>: surplus if you ignore the fact that much of the costs of subsidizing 
>: autos is paid for completely from other sources and thus is never 
>: counted against the auto and fuel taxes.   
> 
>If autos were required to pay true cost then many auto fees would GO DOWN.
In  
>the San Francisco area, all bridge tolls would be eliminated. They exist
to  
>subsidize mass transit. In California auto registration fees would be
reduced  
>to 1/4 of the current level as 3/4 of the fee is actually a general tax
that is  
>used for such things as mass transit subsidies. So autos are in fact  
>subsidizing others. In a true cost accounting, auto owners would see fee  
>reductions as well as increases. 
> 
>		 
 
 
Since you think it is appropriate to call someones idea stupid when you
think it is stupid maybe you should do so in this case. The idea that the
bridge that is used for cars has fees that are only for mass transit and
not for the cars makes no sense. You mean to say that the cost to build the
bridge is zero. This is clearly ridiculous.  
 
 
Who pays for the roads. Who pays for the traffic cops and the traffic
courts. Who pays for the pollution. Who pays for the public parking and so
on.