21. The conclusion of this editorial is that the government should lower property taxes
" D. o& ^6 R- t5 ?/ |1 Ifor railroad companies. The first reason given is that railroads spend billions per year
5 @) ]! n: `8 d4 b2 g2 c6 K& qmaintaining and upgrading their facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by
; Q1 ]+ t" i- Jrail is cost-effective and environmentally sound. This argument is unconvincing for
* G( M3 L6 j# h' Q8 lseveral reasons.
/ S0 g- V( _5 D5 t4 E First of alt, the argument depends upon a misleading comparison between railroad
0 n' h3 q P- |* f! e1 cand truck company expenditures. Although trucking companies do not pay property tax
A+ k5 b3 I+ a) s% a* k. s3 ~on roads they use, they do pay such taxes on the yards, warehouses and maintenance
. p+ \& d/ U% z+ Rfacilities they own. And while trucking companies pay only a portion of road 5 {1 h- R) {2 A, S
maintenance costs, this is because they are not sole users of public roads. Railroad 7 J0 p N' x- q; T
companies shoulder the entire burden of maintenance and taxes on their own facilities - P2 ^" x0 S0 ]$ g* e% G
and tracks; but they distribute these costs to other users through usage fees.9 {; |7 i/ h: O1 V. W
In addition, the author assumes that property taxes should be structured to provide
b( b; ^. [! |$ e8 Oincentives for cost-effective and environmentally beneficial business practices. This 9 v" D% g" X) E) f2 r
assumption is questionable because property taxes are normally structured to reflect the
$ C. ]0 [6 v8 [value of property. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effectiveness and 3 Q* u* U Z2 L% o, O
environmental soundness are equally relevant to the question of tax relief. However, , {, _# L7 {/ n% V" J0 n* H: A
these are separate considerations. The environmental soundness of a practice might be y; d; l- I3 I; Y% Q5 R
relevant in determining tax structuring, but society does not compensate a business for
6 V) V# e) D% E4 F2 s2 O' u6 Gits cost-efficiency.5 @" a* U! |! Q
Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact highlights an }: U6 D7 _, f( I8 Z, l" r
ambiguity in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it , C2 ]0 M& ], u! X
may be appropriate, or prudent, for me to ship furniture by rail because it is cost-
% c/ y8 }4 y0 S; ?effective; on the other hand, it might be appropriate, or socially correct, to encourage
7 k0 ?( c( u' z% P5 v3 Fmore railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus trades ) G/ h6 ~3 a* |' ]
on an equivocation between social correctness on the one hand, and personal or business * D) T% ^9 q8 c3 }* n
prudence on the other./ e0 e: g( Y, x, ~1 ^+ h' K
In sum, this argument is a confusion of weak comparisons, mixed issues and ' l5 L+ C, `# E. I5 o
equivocal claims. I would not accept the conclusion without first determining: (1) the 9 ]$ u- s# v( C& q, G. K' S0 m
factors relevant to tax structure, (2) whether specific tax benefits should accrue to
% n1 u0 M A% u9 a3 F1 {* W) p* Jproperty as well as to income and capital gains taxes, (3) whether railway shipping
& s ^* {% K3 ?( }/ kreally does provide greater social benefits, and (4) whether it is correct to motivate more 3 U8 P# A" Z3 x
railway shipping on this basis. |
发表于 2012-8-15 21:50:16
