21.        The conclusion of this editorial is that the government should lower property taxes
for railroad companies. The first reason given is that railroads spend billions per year
maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The second reason is that shipping goods by
rail is cost-effective and environmentally sound. This argument is unconvincing for
several reasons.
      First of alt, the argument depends upon a misleading comparison between railroad
and truck company expenditures. Although trucking companies do not pay property tax
on roads they use, they do pay such taxes on the yards, warehouses and maintenance
facilities they own. And while trucking companies pay only a portion of road
maintenance costs, this is because they are not sole users of public roads. Railroad
companies shoulder the entire burden of maintenance and taxes on their own facilities
and tracks; but they distribute these costs to other users through usage fees.
      In addition, the author assumes that property taxes should be structured to provide
incentives for cost-effective and environmentally beneficial business practices. This
assumption is questionable because property taxes are normally structured to reflect the
value of property. Moreover, the author seems to think that cost-effectiveness and
environmental soundness are equally relevant to the question of tax relief. However,
these are separate considerations. The environmental soundness of a practice might be
relevant in determining tax structuring, but society does not compensate a business for
its cost-efficiency.
      Splitting the issues of cost-efficiency and environmental impact highlights an
ambiguity in the claim that railway shipping is more appropriate. On the one hand, it
may be appropriate, or prudent, for me to ship furniture by rail because it is cost-
effective; on the other hand, it might be appropriate, or socially correct, to encourage
more railway shipping because it is environmentally sound. The argument thus trades
on an equivocation between social correctness on the one hand, and personal or business
prudence on the other.
      In sum, this argument is a confusion of weak comparisons, mixed issues and
equivocal claims. I would not accept the conclusion without first determining: (1) the
factors relevant to tax structure, (2) whether specific tax benefits should accrue to
property as well as to income and capital gains taxes, (3) whether railway shipping 
really does provide greater social benefits, and (4) whether it is correct to motivate more
railway shipping on this basis