🚀 go-pugleaf

Bruce Harper wrote in message <170219991010025727%bharper@vt.edu>...
>In article <36ca8e92$0$29682@mojo.crosslink.net>, "John Gilmer"
><gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote:
>
>> There are few (if any) taxes on railroad specific operations.   Railroads
>> don't pay $.20/.30  per gal in tax on fuel.   Railroad passenger don't
pay a
>> "security fee" to get on the train.  [Eric wasn't counting Amtrak.]
>
>Railroads pay property taxes on their (privately owned) right of way.
>Norfolk Southern's movement of trains is handled by the railroad's own
>in-house dispatchers, not the government-provided air traffic control
>system (and the weather services provided by the government agency
>NOAA).  Railroad profits and stockholder dividends are taxed, yes, but
>profits aren't counted until after the cost of the infrastructure is
>removed.  Truckers and airlines don't have to pay the full cost to
>build and maintain their lanes of travel.

I don't understand why you super-pro-railroad types keep beating the dead
horse of "government support" of planes and trucks.

Both the governent highway system(s) and the air traffic control/regulation
system(s) return more money to the government by direct fees charged to
users than the government spends.   The money the US spends generating
weather reports is down in the noise but I am sure the other transportation
profits will more than cover it.

You may have a good point in regard to the railroads paying real estate tax
on the right of way.    However, operating railroads have it in their
collective and individual power the ability to change this and for their own
reasons have choosen not to.

If a railroad things it's right of way is overtaxed, then request that the
government purchase these rights of way and run the rail network on a
highest bidder/first come first served basis!   The railroads aren't doing
this do they think the real estate taxes they pay are no big deal.   So why
do you think it is?

Just to put things into prospectivel, if the right of way were 100' wide (it
ain't) each mile of track would take up about 13 acres of land.   Most of
this land is the "middle  of nowhere" type which pays about $10/year in tax.
This is $130/year/mile.    If a town decides that the railroad property is
prime, the railroad can seek permission to construct new tracks outside of
town.   Everyone knows this, and real estate taxes on railroad property are
not much of a problem!

Also, on the whole the railroads have done quite well in the real estate
business.   This is another reason I suspect they are happy with RE taxes
the way they are now run.
>
>> Road transporation pays its share through extra taxes.  To imply that a
tax
>> paid road is an economic subsidy is nonsense.   The cost accounting may
not
>> be perfect (revenues generated by a road section may not equal
expenditures)
>> but the gas tax road building system ends up with a government surplus.
>
>One thing that seems to get left out of the equation is the government
>ownership of the highway right of way.  Land owned by the Commonwealth
>isn't subject to local real estate taxes, which cuts into local
>revenues.  There may be a trade-off in that increased development
>brought by the highway increases other property values, but there are
>also cases where a county looses out.  VDOT is pushing big time to
>widen I-81 for the length of the state.  In a number of sections, more
>right of way will be needed, since the median can't be used for the
>additional lanes.  Some localities may benefit from the increased
>capacity, some may see no change, and others could lose more taxable
>land to the state.

Those units (counties or independent cities) that claim that improvements to
a major highway injure their tax base are just trying to extort more money
from VADOT and the Feds.   Even if a highway has no exits in a town, the
town realestate interests benefit from the sale of bill board space.
>
>Bruce in Blacksburg
>
>
>--
>Bruce B. Harper
>Blacksburg, Virginia

___________________________
The Senate Sucks!

John Gilmer@Crosslink.net