21. The conclusion of this editorial is that the government should lower property taxes
7 l4 m9 |3 ]0 \8 V" wfor railroad companies. The first reason given is that railroads spend billions per year % @, g N* P; E, Z2 ~$ ?
maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by ; N# E/ L. p9 ^2 L' h3 @2 h
rail is cost-effective and environmentally sound. This argument is unconvincing for
6 J- u% p2 r0 z" q. x* fseveral reasons.0 y* i8 r& [3 j+ q* ? g
First of alt, the argument depends upon a misleading comparison between railroad
0 Y/ i5 v0 n- T! t1 Oand truck company expenditures. Although trucking companies do not pay property tax % ?/ ^/ C' X: g$ Q" H6 f( k4 D
on roads they use, they do pay such taxes on the yards, warehouses and maintenance $ V2 z/ t' R1 J
facilities they own. And while trucking companies pay only a portion of road ( R P. B0 G7 ?
maintenance costs, this is because they are not sole users of public roads. Railroad - S; i1 k- ^( i0 N! R
companies shoulder the entire burden of maintenance and taxes on their own facilities 1 E6 D6 y! f; m3 a) w
and tracks; but they distribute these costs to other users through usage fees.0 ]0 j# q0 M1 ]# y! v0 N9 V# Z$ r
In addition, the author assumes that property taxes should be structured to provide
+ z$ \5 z, n# F v- \ j0 Nincentives for cost-effective and environmentally beneficial business practices. This 1 z) K. v! ?2 |7 v4 k
assumption is questionable because property taxes are normally structured to reflect the
( M5 c# M* d2 g9 Vvalue of property. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effectiveness and
5 y: D# s, w( V# {# p7 Kenvironmental soundness are equally relevant to the question of tax relief. However, : G* \0 j8 W8 l3 S: o
these are separate considerations. The environmental soundness of a practice might be
7 G: [% p8 u4 c( u1 d z3 Crelevant in determining tax structuring, but society does not compensate a business for
# f! ^- d1 B( Z9 }4 V+ hits cost-efficiency.
! N$ i$ u2 Z2 ] S( B6 ? Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact highlights an
' U" g/ k1 S% lambiguity in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it 3 O5 K2 z" L/ a0 ?; E" X# H
may be appropriate, or prudent, for me to ship furniture by rail because it is cost-" Y+ Z z$ K- C3 x
effective; on the other hand, it might be appropriate, or socially correct, to encourage
# P) y9 A# R$ x/ e( ]% pmore railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus trades
3 f7 w( B9 J6 _- n" y: }on an equivocation between social correctness on the one hand, and personal or business
$ Y: ]9 f# B- g- ?prudence on the other.
2 r' B/ }8 C J In sum, this argument is a confusion of weak comparisons, mixed issues and # B" T) T5 N, b+ Q
equivocal claims. I would not accept the conclusion without first determining: (1) the
7 m4 h! |+ }; Ffactors relevant to tax structure, (2) whether specific tax benefits should accrue to
2 a; r3 S+ S% ~9 Y" ^property as well as to income and capital gains taxes, (3) whether railway shipping
; q+ K; i0 k) I7 h2 ereally does provide greater social benefits, and (4) whether it is correct to motivate more
% J3 L0 A) l& F# w% C/ Drailway shipping on this basis. |
发表于 2012-8-15 21:50:16
