I don't think anyone here is advocating just giving a company tax dollars and letting them have carte-blanc to do whatever they want with the roads after that. I would like to see a company have a contract with the city, where they have to maintain roads, for example, and are paid in tax dollars directly (ie, they're entitled to a percentage of property taxes). If they're doing a poor job, they'll simply lose their contract and the city will hire another company, presumably a company from a city that is happy with their maintenance work. Which is why you're above statement doesn't make any sense, Penelope. How does a company having a contract to maintain local roads means my freedom to step out the door becomes a commodity? It's clear scaremongering is the only tactic you have left. If you can't tell the difference between: 1.) Making private companies compete for the right to maintain local infrastructure and 2.) Deregulating a government-created monopoly (which should never have existed in the first place) You're not old enough to participate in these types of debates.
That is EXACTLY how our road maintenance works now. I pay taxes to the city, and what they can't provide directly, they contract out. What you've described isn't a free market, which is what this discussion is about- free market infrastructure. A free market is just that: giving the companies carte-blanche to do what they want. How is it a free market if there is a government regulating how they do business? In a free market, if you can't afford to buy a toothbrush, you don't buy one. The rest of us don't have to chip in and provide one for you. What happens if my neighbor can't afford to pay for his share of road maintenance? Since the rest of us in the neighborhood need roads, the rest of us will end up paying his share. Which is exactly how our tax system works now. That is not a consumption tax. Road maintenance is never going to be a very profitable business. We have to have roads in the most rural sections of this country and we have to have roads in the poorest sections of this country. Those roads will always lose money. So when a road maintenance business fails, because they aren't profitable in the first place, what on earth makes you believe that there will just be companies lining up to take over? In order to make rural roads more profitable, the price of using them would have to rise. This isn't scare mongering, this is the most basic of economic principles- supply and demand. Poor people will be even more regulated to urban environments, while the rich will have the freedom to go where they want to go. Please tell me how you and I benefit from that?
In our current system, we also don't take into account how much of each public service or product each individual uses. To use the road example, if you can't afford to pay your share of road maintenance, chances are you don't have a car! If you don't have a car, and take public transportation, then you can pay an indirect tax through that. If you don't have a car, and choose to walk or ride a bike or w.e you really believe they have to pay the same amount of road maintenance as the people who drive every day?!? You think they should have to pay at all?! They're fucken walking for fucks sake! If you buy a car, and then can't pay your share for road maintenance, then you might want to rethink your priorities. It's like taking out a loan on house you won't be able to make payments on. Oh yeah, no surprise there, that already happens in our current system. I don't believe that in a free market system people will never pay for another's share either. But it wouldn't be to the extreme and inconsistent manner it occurs in the current system. Why does that even bother you if you're whole thing is that you believe WE SHOULD pay for the share of those that can't afford it? That's part of the reason we get taxed in our current system, an economic system you constantly defend, then you try to use it against us, because you think anyone who advocates a free market is just a greedy capitalist who would never stand for any of their money being used to help someone else. Wrong! Or do you simply support the current government managed economy because you think the it keeps those greedy, evil corporations in line? Welfare just happens to be an undesired side effect of this dynamic?
I have lots to say. I just don't have hours and hours of my life to respond to everyone. Do I have a deadline?
But what if there are no competitors? What if no one is waiting in the wings to take over our rural roads or poor communities because they are unprofitable? If the government puts a cap on how much a utility can charge, then IT IS NOT A FREE MARKET. AGAIN... Private businesses are able to DO THE JOB because they don't have to serve everyone. If you can't afford their product or service, then you go without. And if you can't pay them, they aren't going to give it to you anyway. You can't just shut down part of an infrastructure because it's not profitable, if you don't provide people with an alternative service. It's not a consumption tax. Once again, I ask... what happens if someone can't afford to pay their "consumption tax"?? Are you going to force someone to stay home bound? Someone please answer that question... I've asked it a dozen times already. How would the average person, living in an average neighborhood, leave their house (either by car or on foot) without using a road? If it is a TRUE consumption tax, then someone who doesn't pay will not be able to leave their house. If they can't use the roads to get to their jobs, how do they make the money necessary to pay for their consumption tax? Is that what Libertarians call freedom??? As far as the extra money we'd have because we're "not paying taxes"... Road maintenance is primarily funded through property taxes. Most poor people don't own houses, so they aren't paying the majority of those taxes in the first place. That won't mean extra money in their pocket to pay for these new road fees. It will just mean new road fees for them. It's very simple economics. Supply and demand. Let's use a road in Vermont as an example. This road is necessary for connecting two towns, but the road itself only has 4 houses and it isn't heavily traveled. It's a windy, narrow road through the mountains, so it can get upwards of 10-15 feet of snow in any given winter. It's an expensive road to maintain, but it's a necessary road. All of a sudden your "consumption tax" means that the cost to those who use it just went up by an exorbitant amount. Now instead of 2 entire towns splitting the cost of maintenance, it's divided up among the few people and industries that rely upon it. So, you are right in that people who can't afford it will move closer to town. But what about the people who CAN afford it? Industry and the wealthy. Now they have a much greater access to our rural areas then those of us who can't afford to use them, while our cities become more crowded. Is THAT what Libertarians refer to as "freedom"? I have no problem with a private industry, setting up a private alternative route and charging for it. Provided they purchase all of the land, and fund all of the costs themselves. But if that means taking away existing PUBLIC routes, and replacing them with toll routes, then no. That's not an infrastructure. So we agree then????
The one major wrong assumption you're making here is that people would be paying this on top of existing taxes. You cry out for the little man who can't afford to pay a consumption tax. The reality is that if we used consumption taxes, had minimal government that had a very specific arena that it acted on and left the rest to private entities, we'd be taxed *SIGNIFICANTLY LESS* and thus people would keep more of the money they earn and be able to pay the minimal consumption tax. Worst case scenario in that situation is poverty-stricken people would be in the same situation as they are now. The reality is if you're making 22-25k a year it doesn't matter how much assistance you get, you're racking up large debt simply by living and theres nothing that can be done to help that besides educating yourself and getting a better job. People are allowed to live unsustainable lives, but there is a cost to everything and going on and on about how you're being unfairly singled out is silly. There is no global conspiracy to keep you down, there is a cost to everything and your choices dictate that. And again, that has *nothing* to do with the concept and implementation of a consumption tax INSTEAD of a flat income tax. ---- To your other main point, which is that people in rural areas will be unfairly charged higher rates, you clearly didn't read my proposal because that is not an issue at all. Now watch carefully here because I know it goes by fast: The Formula for a fair road consumption tax 1)Federal Govt. Tallys up all costs from private companies creating and maintaining the infrastructure 2) Federal Govt. Divides that cost by the total number of miles driven (reported twice yearly) by taxpayers 3) Infrastructure Cost/Miles Driven = Per Mile Cost 4) Publish the per mile rate for that year, each individuals consumption tax is their number of miles driven x infrastructure rate That way the burden of the ENTIRE infrastructure is shared by all taxpayers... "Where' you drive is irrelevent, its how much you use the infrastructure AS A WHOLE that dictates the cost per mile. According to some basic internet searches, the average american drives 12,000 miles a year, there are approx. 600 million americans - 600,000,000 multiplied by 12,000 comes to approx. 7 trilllion, 200 billion miles driven each year by americans. According to this recent report on what it would cost to fix our infrastructure, the government estimates it would cost 2.2 trillion dollars over the next 5 years to completely fix our infrastructure and bring it up to modern standards (Also note that this year they're only allotting 200 billion to it) So if we take 2.2 trillion, divide it into a yearly amount, that comes to 440 billion dollars yearly. Divide 440 billion by the 7.2 trillion miles driven by Americans each year and you get a /mile rate of .06111 repeating. What this means is that the AVERAGE AMERICAN, to COMPLETELY MODERNIZE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE would have a consumption tax of $733.33 YEARLY!!! The reality is the government is inefficient at everything except for taking taxpayer dollars. They're very good at that. With that in mind, why would ANYONE want to leave them in charge of projects that require expertise, budget consciousness and finesse when they've proven OVER and OVER again that they are simply incapable of performing at a satisfactory level... Why not do a regional infrastructure bidding system, create some competition and only use government employees to do quality assurance. Something like roads that have inherent limitations on the amount don't need to be 100% free market, and I wouldn't advocate for that - My focus is on getting the governments involvement down to an absolute minimum with federal and state employees literally "governing" rather than governmental employees being the ones to do the work because, as mentioned, they've proven incapable of performing at a sufficient level.
I'm not forgetting about that part at all. I'm just thinking of everything else I would have to pay for, out-of-pocket, including the savings plan I'd have to start. You want the government to monitor how much you drive every year? In this formula, how will those private entities accurately get paid? You seem to be missing that pretty key factor. Won't they need to know exactly how many cars/vehicles they are serving vs. the maintenance costs, so they can accurately bill the government and predict future expenses? Where you drive will absolutely be important. The infrastructure will be a bunch of privately owned enterprises (being paid by the federal government), and those enterprises are going to want their money, first and foremost. They will want to know where people are driving, how much they are driving, what they are driving, and they will want to be paid accordingly. That's how private businesses operate so damn efficiently. Do you REALLY want either the government OR a for-profit enterprise monitoring your driving to that extent? Not to mention that you are talking about having the federal government take over our infrastructure from our towns, cities and states. Do I need to point out the obvious constitutional fail here?
Right, because to do so would be a pretty massive intrusion into our privacy. Are you seriously suggesting there should be MORE government intrusion? How about just saying we all use our fair share? Or do you really care to nitpick over how many miles your neighbor drove last week?
You're putting the cart before the horse penelope, if roads were a consumable resource that would be the case but they're not. Roads and other transport infrastructure systems are a 1 time major purchase and *IF PROPERLY MANAGED* maintained at a much lower cost. Its not like "Oh, well 100,000 people are going to drive over this road so we have to rip it out and replace it every 6 months". The only reason the cost for our roads and bridges is so high even now is because of how poorly the government has managed it and NOT maintained it, in a private contractor situation if a company performed like that they would be replaced by SOMEONE WHO WOULD DO THE JOB. Regarding invasions of privacy, I proposed a twice yearly odometer reading... If the number of miles you drive every 6 months is something you want to cling to than I guess you could make that arguement, but the benefits of such a system seems to outweigh any privacy concerns by far... If it was potentially sensitive information, or a GPS system inside your car that reported mileage along with GPS data than yeah, thats an issue but thats not what we're talking about here. This information is *actually* already recorded every time you go get your car tuned up, isn't it?
Let me explain this again. The reason why the government is not as efficient as private business is because the government has to serve everybody. Private business does not. The the government needs to operate certain roads, even if those roads are expensive to maintain. A private business is NOT going to do that. What happens if a section of road costs too much for a private business to maintain, and it is not profitable?? They will shut it down. It's not an infrastructure if parts of it are subject to closing down. You can't expect a private business to operate at a loss. And if it's an unprofitable section of road, there will not be businesses waiting in the wings to take over. Roads ARE a consumable resource. No, not consumable like a mcdonald's cheeseburger, but they need to be consistently maintained, or they will eventually become unusable. ALL of our roads need to be maintained, not just the busy and profitable ones. What you don't seem to be understanding is that not all roads cost the same to maintain. Roads in the north cost exponentially more to maintain then roads in the south. Roads with high levels of traffic are going to need to be maintained more frequently then roads with low levels of traffic. The type of cars that drive on it will determine the costs. Roads that get lots of snow, or are near flood plains, are going to be more expensive then a dry, flat, stretch of road in the midwest. So of course, where you drive, when you drive, how you drive, what kind of car you drive, is all going to become "market research" so these companies can DO THE JOB as efficiently as you want them to, and so they can make more money off of you. You think the government is all up in your business now?? Just wait! That information may be recorded now, but no one does anything with that information. I really don't want my yearly mileage to become fodder for some CEO's bank account. If you are actually advocating that the government (or anyone for that matter) keep track of how much I drive every year, then yes... that is absolutely an invasion of privacy. It's amazing to me that the very people who bleat on and on and on about "freedom" don't seem to understand just how much freedom our public infrastructure gives us. I guess you only deserve to be free if you can afford it.
How are they leaching off of drivers? They are providing a service. Are grocery stores "leaching" off of consumers? Or are they providing a service? Is Toyota "leaching" off of its customers or are they provide products that consumers want? Please explain why a road company, in the business of making money, would price their roads so high that only the rich could travel on them? Europe and Japan were constrained by space, not policy. European cities are very old and the streets very narrow. They do not have the room for super highways like we do here. They have very small cars because roads are very narrow for the most part. Their excessive taxes on fuel also contribute to the size of their vehicles as well as the amount of mass transit they use. And no, I do not want the government to regulate anything. I go off of first hand experience. My water bill since moving into the city is about 25% higher than it was a year ago and the water taste worse than the water from the private company I had. I read your study but haven't dug into it but I have found a common problem associated with all places that had issues with privatization: there was no competition. Again, the free market solution is competition. Account after account in that study showed that cities would contract with ONE company to provide water treatment and delivery services. This is not a free market solution. It is fascism. It is just government giving something to a private corporation. I am not talking about fascism, which is, whether they recognize it or not, what this study is debunking. I am talking about free market competition. That is multiple companies competing for customers. Go right ahead and focus a small bit of wealth to promote reading. If you really believe in libraries then privatizing libraries isn't going to be that big of a deal. You would give some of your wealth to support one, wouldn't you? I'm sure there are more people like you that would do the same thing. I would not. I've never used a library and never will. I have no need for one. I buy books I want to read or I read them for free, or at a low cost, on the internet. Others are different. Other people enjoy libraries very much and go there often. The people that patronize a library would pay for one if they so wanted. I however will not. Yes, there is a reason for that. In most incidences (and since you do not post your references I cannot verify what you have noted) "deregulation" has not really happened. California is a great example of how government doesn't solve problems. Their idea of "deregulation" is to impose price caps on companies and force them to sell wholesale power for less than the cost of production. Texas, where I live, is the same way. The law states that a power company can only charge X amount of dollars for electricity. In order to raise rates they must get permission from the state. We had "deregulation" but it is not free market deregulation. There are still too many government price controls, controls on transmission and production for it to be considered "deregulated" in any sense. Try reading what I wrote again. They didn't privatize anything. They set price controls on electricity and limited the ability for companies to expand or build new plants. That is not privatization or deregulation.
It's called supply and demand- the most basic of economic principals. I've explained it a half a dozen times in this thread alone. I've owned a successful business for over 10 years and the only way I can be successful is by charging enough money to cover my overhead, meet my living expenses, and make a profit. This means that there will always be people who won't be able to afford my service. Luckily, I don't provide an essential, necessary service, LIKE A ROAD. The more a road costs to maintain, and the less it is used, the more it will cost you to use it. The more a road costs to use, the more "exclusive" it will become. No private industry is just going to take all of their maintenance costs, and average it out to get an "average cost per road". EVERY SINGLE ROAD is going to be evaluated to see how it can be made more profitable. If a road is not profitable, it will not stay open. Again, that is how private business is so efficient. Private industry is successful and efficient, because they will not operate at a loss. That means if a road costs more to maintain then it is worth, it goes away or they charge you more for it What if you live on that road? Do you think any private industry is going to let you walk, bike, or drive on their private property without getting their money first? If they aren't charging you directly, then they will be charging for advertisements- so that means more billboards beautifying America. All this would do is create an extremely unstable infrastructure and suddenly my daily driving habits become "market research" for some CEO to try to make a profit on. More freedom, my ass.
dont you people get it, once we relenquish all of our public works to private enteties, then we will have paradise! You'll get to pay to use roads, interstates, parks. Hell let's privatise the court systems too!
You made a successful case for increased need for road repairs, but failed to explain how the "free market" would improve the situation. I see it as appropriate for private companies to be contracted to do road repairs, but the ultimate responsibility must be the governments. The private companies would only keep their bridges in line with the current government standards. There is not one shred of evidence in your post to support the claim that privatizing infrastructure would improve the quality or cost. No private companies should own the road. These are public roads for a good reason. There is no way to exclude citizens that do not pay. How could any road company manage their road, and effectively charge for the road. There would have to be tolls set up often to catch every traveler, and some roads would cost more than others. How would they charge the people that walk, and bike on the road? How far do you extend your wish for privatization of our infrastructure? The road companies would need to work seamlessly with utility companies during projects for sewage tunnels, water pipes, and electrical/telephone poles. Private companies would not want to re-do there roads to improve and maintain utility lines for other companies. Even if the government paid for the repairs, the private companies wouldn't want to have to close down there roads. The time and cost of infrastructure would increase, due to competing interests. You are right, one reasons we have have taxes is to pay for infrastructure. We simply can not turn over our infrastructural integrity to private companies, that care exclusively about the bottom line. Besides it being unintelligent, it is impossible. Infrastructure can not be a free market industry, because there is no way to exclude patrons that do not pay.
We all chip in and pay for them. Which is exactly how a private system would be, except our roads would be private property, not public. And if you can't afford to use them. Too bad.
Says who? This is a hypothetical, and nobody has proposed how to make the switch. There's a simple solution to the issue of access, make roads a GSE. Everybody has access. However, instead of gasoline taxes and tolls being paid to the state, they are paid to the local maintenance companies. If you're driving a vehicle on the road that means you've contributed. Since most of our roads were forcefully acquired through eminent domain it would not be fair to exclude taxpayers. I'm sure we could come up with other hybrid systems, like the states already do now when they sell sponsorships of sections of highway. I personally think roads should be left to the state, but I could see a privatization plan working out for the better.