Chicago Sun-Times publishes taxpayer 'receipt'

[jacorbett70]

I saw today's Chicago Sun Times cover about the Federal budget and "Where does your money go"?. It has an itemized receipt showing ten selected items with their rank and "your share" (based on working couple two kids $80,000 income)

These were among the ten chosen for the cover out of the top 50 items:

ranked 14th in the budget... Federal Highways... $110.06

ranked 44th in the budget... Amtrak... $3.83

http://www.suntimes.com/2828231-417/debt-percent-spending-tax-budget.html

 

[had8ley]

I saw today's Chicago Sun Times cover about the Federal budget and "Where does your money go"?. It has an itemized receipt showing ten selected items with their rank and "your share" (based on working couple two kids $80,000 income)

These were among the ten chosen for the cover out of the top 50 items:

ranked 14th in the budget... Federal Highways... $110.06

ranked 44th in the budget... Amtrak... $3.83

http://www.suntimes.com/2828231-417/debt-percent-spending-tax-budget.html

Great find ! But....getting those people who pay a paltry $3.83 for Amtrak service to use it and generate good will towards HSP is a whole different ball game.

 

[Gratt]

I saw today's Chicago Sun Times cover about the Federal budget and "Where does your money go"?. It has an itemized receipt showing ten selected items with their rank and "your share" (based on working couple two kids $80,000 income)

These were among the ten chosen for the cover out of the top 50 items:

ranked 14th in the budget... Federal Highways... $110.06

ranked 44th in the budget... Amtrak... $3.83

http://www.suntimes.com/2828231-417/debt-percent-spending-tax-budget.html

Is it really that high? that means the Federal highway budget is only 30X more than Amtrak. I would bet those roads carry a lot more than 30x more passengers than Amtrak... even on LD trips. This cannot be a good statistic for them... :unsure:

 

[saxman]

Airport security is even higher than Amtrak though. Ranked at 36 for a total of $13.30. I didn't see the FAA on there. It must be under other programs at the bottom, which is surprising.

This will be an excellent source when debating about Amtrak/rail though. Keep in mind that that $110 we each spend on highways does not include the gas tax you pay at the pump. This makes highways cost even more then the chart really says.

 

[B&Ofan]

Yes while it is true that for 30x the investment you move much more then 30x the people, however this is quite an unfair assessment. At best you would need to compare Amtrak's trackage fees to the highway number and even that is apples to oranges. Of course I am telling most of the people here nothing new. Now if you add in to the highway number the total spent on local roads, what individuals spend on car costs, upkeep,fuel and insurance and throw in police and other emergency services you might come close.

Well not really, Amtrak has a couple of other issues that distort the numbers in favor of autos. For the most part if Amtrak were larger it would clearly have the potential of being more efficient. If it's fleet was in the several thousand range, the ratio of spares needed would be much smaller plus they would have more flexibility to add capacity for high demand special events.

Also there is a bit of a rules disparity. If autos had to be built to the crash standards standards that is forced on Amtrak by the FRA, 10 MPG would likely be very good. Amtrak is forced to buy overweight one off equipment from the rest of the world which if not for the efficiencies of steel on steel would make better immovable objects then a form of transit.

Now to give the car their due, there number is also higher then it needs to be. If highways were built to only handle cars, the maintenance and construction cost would be much lower. The reason why despite that big number our highways are in such terrible shape is because the interstate system is basically a subsidy for very heavy trucks. They may state proudly how much taxes they pay, unfortunately that number falls short of the actual damage they do to the roads and bridges.

Now I know I am preaching to the choir here but it's good to get it off my chest once in a while.

 

[Pastor Dave]

I saw today's Chicago Sun Times cover about the Federal budget and "Where does your money go"?. It has an itemized receipt showing ten selected items with their rank and "your share" (based on working couple two kids $80,000 income)

These were among the ten chosen for the cover out of the top 50 items:

ranked 14th in the budget... Federal Highways... $110.06

ranked 44th in the budget... Amtrak... $3.83

http://www.suntimes.com/2828231-417/debt-percent-spending-tax-budget.html

Is it really that high? that means the Federal highway budget is only 30X more than Amtrak. I would bet those roads carry a lot more than 30x more passengers than Amtrak... even on LD trips. This cannot be a good statistic for them... :unsure:

I utilize federal highways (mostly I-80) 4 to 5 times per month, while I ride Amtrak 4 to 5 times per year. Each has its merit and I'm okay with subsidizing both. It does seem, when considering overall useage, that the highway $$ are a bargain.

 

[Anderson]

I think this is a wash, honestly. Of course, I think if you added state funding, the difference would grow substantially in most cases: A lot of states put $0 into Amtrak, and of those that do pony up funding, I think it's only equivalent to about 10% of federal funding.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

It really is like comparing apples and oranges.

To utilize roads for personal transportation one must have a vehicle. When you consider all the personal expenses for that - purchasing, insurance, upkeep, gas, fees (registration, state taxes, driving permit, etc.) it gets to be a lot of dough. Then there are the 'externalities': Things you don't pay for directly, but still have a cost to society- examples being air and water pollution, land used etc. The cost gets even higher.

For rail travel it is a whole different can of potatoes...

It gets pretty dang complicated to figure costs pretty quickly... :unsure:

 

[Guest]

I would take the numbers with a large grain of salt. Following back through the links they eventually get to citing the Office of Management and Budget, but those numbers seem to reflect direct expenditures by the government regardless of source of income. For a specific example, #42 on the list, the Patent Office does not receive any money from general taxation. It is an entirely fee supported agency. In fact, money from the Patent Office has been diverted to other places such as Homeland security. So, these numbers may very well include errors or take into account money from the gas tax or other federal fees.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Keep in mind that that $110 we each spend on highways does not include the gas tax you pay at the pump. This makes highways cost even more then the chart really says.

And don't forget State monies and various Authorities monies that go toward highways too.

 

[Spokker]

The full cost to taxpayers, hell, all people, of an auto-centric transportation network is much higher than $110. You need to include social costs as well. Also, does the Chicago Sun Times figure include the cost to secure oil in volatile regions?

Then compare that to an all-electric, robust rail system that actually attracts a large amount of riders.