21. The conclusion of this editorial is that the government should lower property taxes 1 W& x; P0 [1 X1 x# u
for railroad companies. The first reason given is that railroads spend billions per year # U3 C9 ^3 b' w. Y& Q9 m7 Q+ d! w
maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by
+ R+ U" `# a8 v n/ t+ H# K# o5 Brail is cost-effective and environmentally sound. This argument is unconvincing for 8 w( B) L) C3 E4 t7 J
several reasons.& b) H m) S% E$ o8 \$ e5 n: l
First of alt, the argument depends upon a misleading comparison between railroad
: E9 g0 F8 R. }and truck company expenditures. Although trucking companies do not pay property tax
( o, U! E* `6 U- @& e% lon roads they use, they do pay such taxes on the yards, warehouses and maintenance 0 P. }1 P; ?# ? r0 h
facilities they own. And while trucking companies pay only a portion of road 6 s& w) F! F# U" `( ~4 {
maintenance costs, this is because they are not sole users of public roads. Railroad
( _4 c8 b% m/ @7 @( q) D8 H* a( icompanies shoulder the entire burden of maintenance and taxes on their own facilities : V8 W( y2 J4 ~' O# z) x p
and tracks; but they distribute these costs to other users through usage fees.! P; L& R8 V' Q' W, I! u8 L8 W0 m
In addition, the author assumes that property taxes should be structured to provide
5 Y; D* | {) k/ P* | }& Zincentives for cost-effective and environmentally beneficial business practices. This 4 @$ l. ?/ N* f2 R
assumption is questionable because property taxes are normally structured to reflect the
2 A: @/ r9 Q H( u1 h9 zvalue of property. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effectiveness and 2 T/ h6 Y% e) l8 J
environmental soundness are equally relevant to the question of tax relief. However,
. q! ?. v; d$ F! P) s2 o0 p; Tthese are separate considerations. The environmental soundness of a practice might be
3 o. M4 j. n: ?, h% I, orelevant in determining tax structuring, but society does not compensate a business for & J' W+ W6 Z0 ~: ^; |7 H
its cost-efficiency.- x9 K+ A5 q. w; ^2 R3 ?# J7 J
Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact highlights an . u2 D* x W0 g- Z% Y
ambiguity in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it
' U5 V9 j* W6 b$ _9 f, U4 Z0 Tmay be appropriate, or prudent, for me to ship furniture by rail because it is cost-% U U, l* v4 l8 U/ Z
effective; on the other hand, it might be appropriate, or socially correct, to encourage 0 b! X, y* _+ G# |5 n
more railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus trades
& O" A+ m4 G& A, ?on an equivocation between social correctness on the one hand, and personal or business
. U" ^/ \# J0 Y# E$ V. r1 Wprudence on the other.& k: y" \; ]3 m7 e: @
In sum, this argument is a confusion of weak comparisons, mixed issues and
3 g4 W* j, C. {equivocal claims. I would not accept the conclusion without first determining: (1) the 0 a* q! W5 u7 Q. T6 I
factors relevant to tax structure, (2) whether specific tax benefits should accrue to 8 B: ]3 J- K' J% E8 N$ b" l! p: l$ i
property as well as to income and capital gains taxes, (3) whether railway shipping
. P H6 J6 x- D4 ^+ Z9 z# }really does provide greater social benefits, and (4) whether it is correct to motivate more 1 \, p3 m, z9 [" H5 ]# g8 ?
railway shipping on this basis. |
发表于 2012-8-15 21:50:16
