From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   bob  wrote:   
   >On 2015-03-21 13:51:50 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:   
   >>bob  wrote:   
      
   >>>Considering that things like compulsory purchase powers over land are a   
   >>>form of subsidy (because the buyer of that land is forcing the owner to   
   >>>sell it at less than they would otherwise chose to sell it at), I would   
   >>>extend that to any transportation infrastructure of any kind.   
      
   >>>Transportation infrastructure is the classic case of the economic   
   >>>benefits being almost entirely external to the owner of the   
   >>>infrastructure.  In cases like this, it is pretty much universally   
   >>>recognised that government provision (or interference in the market to   
   >>>bring about the required objective) is beneficial to all.   
      
   >>Dude, you have a logic gap there:   
      
   >>You lept from "benefits are external", which is correct, to "beneficial   
   >>to all", which is false.   
      
   >In the general case it is false, but in the specific case of   
   >transportation infrastructure it is true.  There is not a single person   
   >alive in the developed world today who does not have a better quality   
   >of life than they would if there were no transportation infrastructure.   
   > Something as simple as being able to buy a whole week's worth of   
   >groceries in one place, for an afordable cost, and bring them home   
   >would be impossible without transportation infrastructure.   
      
   There are plenty of people alive who don't benefit from transportation   
   infrastructure, say paraplegics traumatically injured in crashes   
   in highway traffic, or pedestrians who find life dangerous and   
   inconvenient because of highway traffic.   
      
   Of course benefit from transportation is widespread, but you can't even hint   
   that benefits are equally distributed, because that's wrong.   
      
   If I own land of little value but the state highway department decides   
   to make a major improvement to a nearby highway or build an   
   interchange on a freeway, I benefit hugely because I've been given a   
   massive bump up in land value.   
      
   Now I might think it's perfectly fair that general taxes pay for   
   that highway improvement, but you might not.   
      
   >>The benefits of transportation go to land   
   >>value, and it depends on the proximity of the land to the transportation   
   >>infrastructure. Also, if one owns residential land, one might not   
   >>appreciate being under an airport landing approach path.   
      
   >>What would be universally beneficial to all would be if there was a   
   >>strict relationship between costs and benefits, so that those with a   
   >>proportionate benefit pay a proportionate share of costs; a bit of   
   >>hedging as it's difficult to avoid outside subsidy whenever government   
   >>has its hand in anything.   
      
   >It would be lovely if the word were simple enough that every benefit   
   >every person gains could be assigned a dollar value, and these could be   
   >neatly attributed to specific bits of government spending.   
      
   Yeah, but it's not necessary. Change in land value is so easy to measure,   
   so taxing land value is close enough to pay for government, especially   
   transportation infrastructure.   
      
   >Unfortunately the world doesn't work like that.  There are an awful lot   
   >of things where I benefit from something existing that I don't use.  I   
   >benefit from the military existing.  I hope the military never has to   
   >be used, and in some ways it won't need to be used *because* it exists.   
   > How much is that benefit worth?  I benefit from the fact that it is   
   >economically viable for a car company to make a car that I can afford.   
   >I don't own a car right now, but nevertheless I benefit from that.  I   
   >benefit from the education system.  I finished school years ago and   
   >have no kids, but I still benefit from the education system because it   
   >means the other people I depend on in society are better educated. . . .   
      
   If you own a house, if your local schools are excellent, it means that   
   you can sell your house for more money to a family with school-age   
   children. That's actually a direct benefit to you, despite not   
   being in school or having children attending that school.   
      
   And it's for the reason that you stated, that there's a value to society   
   that its citizens are better educated.   
      
   >>With government, most of the time, there's no direct relationship between   
   >>taxation and benefit, which is exactly what prevents government "good"   
   >>being universally beneficial and can distort the economy.   
      
   >The relationship between taxation and benefit is evaluated through the   
   >ballot box.   
      
   Hardly. Almost never. Voters can be pretty stupid sometimes.   
      
   >People offer a proposal for what they thing we should do and what it   
   >will cost us, and we decide whether to support that proposal or not.   
      
   Well, I'd like to do a lot more referendums for major spending, yes.   
   Sometimes the spending is a good, whilst the taxation is a bad. I might   
   favor more railroad transportation and government owned infrastructure   
   to provide it, but I'm not voting for a sales tax increase, a typical   
   way that transit is financed in America.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)