21. The conclusion of this editorial is that the government should lower property taxes $ x6 G; q7 n( C! t1 I
for railroad companies. The first reason given is that railroads spend billions per year
6 q2 s; r4 r3 p) S: b$ Qmaintaining and upgrading their facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by " }) I, A F2 ^7 `9 q
rail is cost-effective and environmentally sound. This argument is unconvincing for
. F$ Y T. V1 }+ p, `several reasons.1 Z6 _; ^ J% l# o9 G
First of alt, the argument depends upon a misleading comparison between railroad
2 [: F, q& z3 s$ eand truck company expenditures. Although trucking companies do not pay property tax
" M+ k4 }% v7 mon roads they use, they do pay such taxes on the yards, warehouses and maintenance
6 R4 a, R- D& n! Qfacilities they own. And while trucking companies pay only a portion of road
7 Z$ f* ]$ b) y8 u" Zmaintenance costs, this is because they are not sole users of public roads. Railroad Q1 a! n0 j9 `
companies shoulder the entire burden of maintenance and taxes on their own facilities 6 i7 n2 l/ }# ]% l, \
and tracks; but they distribute these costs to other users through usage fees.8 h( W, ]" O' H0 V5 @
In addition, the author assumes that property taxes should be structured to provide
9 i/ T% d: q: c7 }7 [/ @1 ?0 Y5 Rincentives for cost-effective and environmentally beneficial business practices. This : K7 i3 S# ~7 _, r, m% F
assumption is questionable because property taxes are normally structured to reflect the
7 s. s' j. b7 t8 R* E; ~value of property. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effectiveness and
; c0 a2 A; r* A6 zenvironmental soundness are equally relevant to the question of tax relief. However, ! _9 B+ y7 t8 ?* V+ B
these are separate considerations. The environmental soundness of a practice might be
' I1 O1 W, Q$ b# h8 h& }relevant in determining tax structuring, but society does not compensate a business for
`4 Q s0 B! j* I; Tits cost-efficiency.0 r8 }, z& V5 H& ]2 } Z
Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact highlights an
' k2 K; q6 J4 }- D6 R% d. ^ambiguity in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it : ?/ Q, _- k" \6 z* s( K
may be appropriate, or prudent, for me to ship furniture by rail because it is cost-+ G' Z) `3 I) G1 F1 W$ s0 H
effective; on the other hand, it might be appropriate, or socially correct, to encourage
* Y4 w0 @+ y/ L i- R, Cmore railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus trades - a8 w8 c9 w, B8 p7 D
on an equivocation between social correctness on the one hand, and personal or business & a8 E- `" y/ v" H! b
prudence on the other.; Q) `" j4 @$ E$ f: n$ i: z# o
In sum, this argument is a confusion of weak comparisons, mixed issues and ! A, S0 M/ Y7 w S2 j6 ]
equivocal claims. I would not accept the conclusion without first determining: (1) the
7 s) I+ @. \' g- mfactors relevant to tax structure, (2) whether specific tax benefits should accrue to
2 V, a, W* w: h, w. Gproperty as well as to income and capital gains taxes, (3) whether railway shipping ; l$ m U: X7 ^
really does provide greater social benefits, and (4) whether it is correct to motivate more ) h4 k& M5 Y, D
railway shipping on this basis. |
发表于 2012-8-15 21:50:16
