|
Some doubters of the existence of automobile subsidies use the
following type of argument (from van.general newsgroup 29 Jul
1995):
What is the auto industry worth to BC? How many people are
employed by it? How much money goes to the economy/government
from auto sales, repairs, gas, tires, accessories, auto
stores, junk yards, private auto sales, driving schools,
licence/insurance fees, fines, salaries of highway patrol,
parkades, parking meters, ICBC points premiums, and on and on
and on? If you think that the taxes paid and the revenue
generated by all the people who are employed directly and
indirectly by the auto industry does not effectively 'pay'
for the roads and everything related to them, then explain it
to me.
My response:
Ok, I'll try. Your argument about general economic activity
resulting in income for the government is fine, but you haven't
explained why it is necessary that that economic activity be car
related. If cars were not so common, there would be alternative
forms of employment. Furthermore, the same argument can be made
to justify the tobacco industry, lawyers, weapons production, ...
just because it is done today doesn't mean it has to be done.
Saying that the auto industry is good because it generates lots
of economic activity as it uses up lots of raw materials that end
up becoming land, water and air pollution is, let's just say, not
environmentally friendly. If you really want to stimulate the
economy, you should encourage less spending on safety related
things - the more car crashes, the better! More business for auto
sales, repairs, tires, accessories, auto stores, junk yards,
morgues...
One more point: using the argument that general tax revenue generated
from a specific industry segment pays for things related to
that industry segment is bogus. General tax revenue is just that
- general. It should be spent in a way agreed to by society in
general, not by an industry special interest group. If I and
others like me say "woah, it's not ok to spend hundreds of
my tax dollars per year to support roads", shouldn't we be
listened to? Don't you think there are more important things to
spend money on? In fact, it gets even better - if we don't
spend money on car-oriented development, we can save money
overall because the alternatives are much cheaper.
As for whether
road related taxes and fees cover the cost of the roads...
James Strickland
|
