Inheritance Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 10:50 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 10:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your understanding of your favorite example is flawed. Tram systems worldwide disappeared during the mid-twentieth century. That had nothing to do with U.S. law or GM.

Please name one other country which was blanketed with ubiquitous tram systems that handled 90% of all trips, and then saw nearly all of them were dismantled so that now there is almost no public transport in the whole country and the average household has over 2 cars.

No, this was a uniquely American situation. In the rest of the world governments had always played a major role in transportation infrastructure, so they never saw the breakneck innovation that the US had in the 19th century when it was totally private which allowed everybody to get anywhere on high-speed mass transit, nor did they see the collapse of the system when the government took over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 10:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 10:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your understanding of your favorite example is flawed. Tram systems worldwide disappeared during the mid-twentieth century. That had nothing to do with U.S. law or GM.

Please name one other country which was blanketed with ubiquitous tram systems that handled 90% of all trips, and then saw nearly all of them were dismantled so that now there is almost no public transport in the whole country and the average household has over 2 cars.

No, this was a uniquely American situation. In the rest of the world governments had always played a major role in transportation infrastructure, so they never saw the breakneck innovation that the US had in the 19th century when it was totally private which allowed everybody to get anywhere on high-speed mass transit, nor did they see the collapse of the system when the government took over.

The phenomenon was not unique to America.

Quote:The advent of personal motor vehicles and the improvements in motorized buses caused the rapid disappearance of the tram from most western and Asian countries by the end of the 1950s (for example the first major UK city to completely abandon its trams was Manchester by January 1949). Continuing technical improvements in buses made them more reliable (than before), and a serious competitor to trams because they did not require the construction of costly infrastructure. [3] However, the demise of the streetcar came when lines were torn out of the major cities by "bus manufacturing or oil marketing companies for the specific purpose of replacing rail service with buses."

Quote:Tram networks:
  • Closed completely in many countries like - Algeria, Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Cuba, Uruguay, Panama, Trinidad, Guyana, Jamaica, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, South Korea, Shrilanka, Syria, Lebanon, Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar etc.
  • Closed almost except one or two towns/cities like - Uzbekistan, India, Sweden etc.
  • Previously closed but later returned as heritage system - South Africa, New Zealand, Peru etc.
  • Previously closed but later returned as modern system - Tunisia etc.
  • Some systems closed, some remains, some returned - Egypt, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, North Korea, Turkey, China, Japan etc.

And I dispute your "90% of all trips". All what trips? Certainly not 90% of trips in cities and towns without trams, which was the vast majority.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 11:55 AM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 10:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your understanding of your favorite example is flawed. Tram systems worldwide disappeared during the mid-twentieth century. That had nothing to do with U.S. law or GM.

Oh, Chas. No, no, no.

United States governmental policy is literally the only independent variable in the entire world. Nothing else could possibly be involved.

Supposing anything to the contrary would naturally be that famed "illogical" mode the forum is so known for.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 10:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:25 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Weren't you the guy who said something like 'stop claiming you know what I'm thinking and what my intentions are'? Hmm. Must have been another Chas.

You took a clear swipe at the forum members with your comment. "As always your post is way too logical for this forum." There is no misunderstanding it.

Funnily enough, that's just what the vaccine crazies and climate denialists say, too. "Oh, if only you weren't so emotional/biased/closed-minded, you'd accept my obviously correct unsubstantiated nonsense".

Well; maybe not those exact words for the last part.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 09:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 10:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The phenomenon was not unique to America.

Look, Chas, I'll concede I over-reached saying the US was the only country which saw the demise of the electric light rail. However, even the source you use confirms what I said that "the demise of the streetcar came when lines were torn out of the major cities by 'bus manufacturing or oil marketing companies for the specific purpose of replacing rail service with buses.'". And that couldn't have happened without government help. One company can't just confiscate their competitors business for pennies on the dollar and destroy the infrastructure with government help. Your source also confirms what I said that the trams couldn't compete with buses didn't require the construction of costly infrastructure, since, taxpayers were FORCED by the government to pay for the buses infrastructure (roads) while the tram companies had to pay for their own infrastructure. Obviously, if you have a business and have to buy your own infrastructure, and the government forces the public to pay for your competitors infrastructure so your competitor offers his products for free, you clearly cannot compete.

So, rather than jumping on me for minor inaccuracies, why not address the core issue that whenever people are forced to buy a product against their will it has consequences? And this also goes to back to the libertarian mandate that these coercive laws be local. Why did the 1935 law that forced electric tram companies to divest their assets have to be national, and why did the road-building campaign in the New Deal have to mandate every state to participate, with no option to opt out? If, for example, California continued to have a private transportation and were allowed to opt out of the new deal and other laws, then maybe Robert Goddard, the engineer working on the super-sonic vactrain might have moved to Calfornia and continued his work in a place where he had a chance to bring it to market? And then, maybe, he, or a successor, would have perfected the technology, brought it to market, and then citizens in other states with government-run transport would have been able to vote to have it in their state too. But we'll never know because the laws were passed at the national level, so there was no place Goddard could legally move to and bring his product to market without the impossible situation of having his competition get all the costs paid for through taxation?

I keep asking what pragmatic, measurable standard you use to determine when a law MUST be universal (ie federal) vs state to allow people the option of trying something different. Your answer is 'well certain laws NEED to be federal'. And with that standard, back in the 1920's, people THOUGHT government transportation was one of those things that 'needed' to be done at the federal level. But in hindsight, it didn't, and it likely resulted in major unintended consequences, and now we'll never know what the profit-motivated entrepreneurs would have have been able to come up with.

(17-05-2014 09:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  And I dispute your "90% of all trips". All what trips? Certainly not 90% of trips in cities and towns without trams, which was the vast majority.

Come on, I've given you the source many times. If you disagree with Snell's analysis, find one other source with a different number. But the fact is that back then there was only 1 car for every 10 families, and now there's 24 cars for every 10 families. And you'll argue that urban-flight made mass-transit impractical, but the dismantling of mass-transit came first before the urban-flight, and it's only logical that without mass-transit, dense urban living is impractical so, of course, people will move to the suburbs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
Well yeah, I`d make a deal with people who dont want to pay taxes.

You dont get to pay taxes, but in return:

You are not allowed to use roads.
The police wont come when you call them.
The police wont investigate any crimes commited against you.
The courts will not hold any trials involving you as a witness.
You dont get any safety lables on anything you buy.
A foreign country can kill you and take your property at any given time.

And possibly more.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 01:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 09:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  

Look, Chas, I'll concede I over-reached saying the US was the only country which saw the demise of the electric light rail. However, even the source you use confirms what I said that "the demise of the streetcar came when lines were torn out of the major cities by 'bus manufacturing or oil marketing companies for the specific purpose of replacing rail service with buses.'". And that couldn't have happened without government help. One company can't just confiscate their competitors business for pennies on the dollar and destroy the infrastructure with government help. Your source also confirms what I said that the trams couldn't compete with buses didn't require the construction of costly infrastructure, since, taxpayers were FORCED by the government to pay for the buses infrastructure (roads) while the tram companies had to pay for their own infrastructure. Obviously, if you have a business and have to buy your own infrastructure, and the government forces the public to pay for your competitors infrastructure so your competitor offers his products for free, you clearly cannot compete.

So, rather than jumping on me for minor inaccuracies, why not address the core issue that whenever people are forced to buy a product against their will it has consequences? And this also goes to back to the libertarian mandate that these coercive laws be local. Why did the 1935 law that forced electric tram companies to divest their assets have to be national, and why did the road-building campaign in the New Deal have to mandate every state to participate, with no option to opt out? If, for example, California continued to have a private transportation and were allowed to opt out of the new deal and other laws, then maybe Robert Goddard, the engineer working on the super-sonic vactrain might have moved to Calfornia and continued his work in a place where he had a chance to bring it to market? And then, maybe, he, or a successor, would have perfected the technology, brought it to market, and then citizens in other states with government-run transport would have been able to vote to have it in their state too. But we'll never know because the laws were passed at the national level, so there was no place Goddard could legally move to and bring his product to market without the impossible situation of having his competition get all the costs paid for through taxation?

Your inaccuracies are anything but minor. You completely change the story by your quote mining and quoting out of context. You use inaccurate quotes to bolster your big bad government ideology.

You rail example bears about as much resemblance to the historical facts as the Hobbit movie does to the book.

Quote:I keep asking what pragmatic, measurable standard you use to determine when a law MUST be universal (ie federal) vs state to allow people the option of trying something different. Your answer is 'well certain laws NEED to be federal'. And with that standard, back in the 1920's, people THOUGHT government transportation was one of those things that 'needed' to be done at the federal level. But in hindsight, it didn't, and it likely resulted in major unintended consequences, and now we'll never know what the profit-motivated entrepreneurs would have have been able to come up with.

No, you don't 'keep asking' me. You have asked twice and this is not the thread for it.

Quote:
(17-05-2014 09:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  And I dispute your "90% of all trips". All what trips? Certainly not 90% of trips in cities and towns without trams, which was the vast majority.

Come on, I've given you the source many times. If you disagree with Snell's analysis, find one other source with a different number. But the fact is that back then there was only 1 car for every 10 families, and now there's 24 cars for every 10 families. And you'll argue that urban-flight made mass-transit impractical, but the dismantling of mass-transit came first before the urban-flight, and it's only logical that without mass-transit, dense urban living is impractical so, of course, people will move to the suburbs.

You said "90% of all trips". That is a patently false statement without the qualifications of what it is 90% of. You do this shit all the time - it's sort of like quote mining. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-05-2014, 04:16 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 01:52 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Well yeah, I`d make a deal with people who dont want to pay taxes.

For once I agree with you. YES, I agree 1 million %, people should be given free choice to pay for services, no matter who it comes from, government or private enterprise. If you don't think your dentist is giving a good service, absolutely, don't pay him, and don't expect free dental work. Here, here, here!!!

My complaint is when people are forced to pay for government services even when they don't use them. I gave the example of myself, moving to Switzerland, never setting foot on US soil for 10 years, not using any government services at all. I don't use the roads. The police do nothing to help me. I don't use the courts. I don't get any US safety labels here. And the US does nothing to protect me from foreign invaders. I would be THRILLED to not pay taxes and not get those services I don't want or use anyway.

Even locally, within Germany, YES, let people decide if they want to pay for the roads, and have use of them, or not. Then other newer, more modern technologies would have a chance to compete. Maybe one company could start building a high-speed mag-lev automated transport pod system, and tell Germans "instead of paying for those stupid antiquated roads, here we have a better product to offer." But that'll never happen because Germans HAVE to pay for roads whether they use them or not, so there's no possibility of a newer, better product to be invented.

I can't believe we actually agree on something. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 04:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I can't believe we actually agree on something. Smile

I think you'll find people do not disagree with the rudiments of your ideas so much as they disagree with you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-05-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 04:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  You said "90% of all trips". That is a patently false statement without the qualifications of what it is 90% of. You do this shit all the time - it's sort of like quote mining. Consider

Look, the source on wikipedia just says "in 1920, 90% of all trips were via rail". Look, if, by "trip" the author meant anything other than the usual and obvious meaning of the word (ie going from point a to point b), others on Wikipedia would have flagged it. Therefore, it's pretty clear that, according to Snell, an expert on the matter, 90% of the time when people left their home to go somewhere that wasn't within walking distance, they took public transit. Many other experts have said the same thing, and I haven't seen anybody but you dispute this.

Assuming it's true, that speaks volumes that back then, before all the modern technology that makes construction so fast and efficient, back when the population was much less than it is now making a nationwide public transit system much harder, the private sector was able to pull it off. They built a viable public transit system that people determined was the best way to get from point a to point b 90% of the time. Now, 100 years later, now that we rely on government to provide this, with all the modern technology that should make this task infinitely easier, despite all that, it's an impossible task for government today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: