The future of US infrastructure
- Thread starter fdcg27
- Start date
- Status
Mandate a balanced budget. Make the government pick and choose spending given the money that's available.
Have a flat tax rate that eliminates all tax deductions and tax credits. Why is having children subsidized? Why is home ownership subsidized?
Scott
Have a flat tax rate that eliminates all tax deductions and tax credits. Why is having children subsidized? Why is home ownership subsidized?
Scott
Need to mandate the federal deficit with a cap. AND mandate a percentage reduction in the deficit each year until its minimal.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Investment in fast and robust light rail, preferably subway is the only way of accomplishing this and the cost will be huge, although the payoff will also be huge and very long-term.
I've beaten this drum before and I'm curious what others think of this idea.
It's crazy to plan to spend a trillion dollars per mile for subway when a bus system is much cheaper and more flexible. And in a few years when the politicians realize that that most taxpayers still don't want to ride public transit they can sell the busses.
Or just charge $10,000/yr for license plates and force people onto the bus.
Investment in fast and robust light rail, preferably subway is the only way of accomplishing this and the cost will be huge, although the payoff will also be huge and very long-term.
I've beaten this drum before and I'm curious what others think of this idea.
It's crazy to plan to spend a trillion dollars per mile for subway when a bus system is much cheaper and more flexible. And in a few years when the politicians realize that that most taxpayers still don't want to ride public transit they can sell the busses.
Or just charge $10,000/yr for license plates and force people onto the bus.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Hey … just add it to the trans corridor and make NAFTA great again …
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Investment in fast and robust light rail, preferably subway is the only way of accomplishing this and the cost will be huge, although the payoff will also be huge and very long-term.
I've beaten this drum before and I'm curious what others think of this idea.
The kalifornia high speed rail is a perfect example of why this can't happen.
Investment in fast and robust light rail, preferably subway is the only way of accomplishing this and the cost will be huge, although the payoff will also be huge and very long-term.
I've beaten this drum before and I'm curious what others think of this idea.
The kalifornia high speed rail is a perfect example of why this can't happen.
The most important thing for the US to have a capitalist economics system that's cranking to. When a capitalist system is going full bore opportunities abound for all and if the government needs taxes then they'll have to deal with the voters eventually. Infrastructure? Heck I'd just like to see a balanced budget....
The main federal focus right now is the border wall. That's why we're on furlough right now.
Originally Posted by MrHorspwer
Blaming it on foreign aid, immigrants, and welfare recipients (not corporate welfare though... that's different) allows one to place blame. Figuring out who is to blame is the first and most important step in problem solving! Actually solving the problem is optional once you've found someone to blame.
Considering the main point of infrastructure is commerce and those the benefit most from commerce is business and industry (followed by us lowly employees), I'd probably say that they should shoulder a fair amount of the cost. Wasn't their tax burden just reduced though? So they could invest in America by buying back a record amount of stock? Huh.
The money's run out, buddy.
The commoner is sick of seeing an increasing amount of their their paycheck go towards social services and aid for foreigners while their wages are frozen or are decreasing. There have been polls taken in Canada where a majority of those polled thought that we were "too generous" towards immigrants. Funding social programs across the west has left their infrastructure crumbling, because infrastructure projects don't have the same ROI for votes that social programs do. The same thing is happening here in Toronto, the population exploded and all of the sudden there is no money for new subways, highways or repairs even though in theory there should be more tax revenue due to higher population.
Increasing taxes on businesses is how you get them to close up shop and move somewhere with less tax. Then you have to provide social programs for their employees and people affected by their leaving. Congratulations, you just cost a lot of people their jobs so you could make businesses "shoulder a fair amount of the cost" for a few quarters until they hit the road and leave you to pick up the pieces.
People ALWAYS want businesses to pay more taxes but then will lament when they leave for greener pastures. Managing an economy is complex.
Blaming it on foreign aid, immigrants, and welfare recipients (not corporate welfare though... that's different) allows one to place blame. Figuring out who is to blame is the first and most important step in problem solving! Actually solving the problem is optional once you've found someone to blame.
Considering the main point of infrastructure is commerce and those the benefit most from commerce is business and industry (followed by us lowly employees), I'd probably say that they should shoulder a fair amount of the cost. Wasn't their tax burden just reduced though? So they could invest in America by buying back a record amount of stock? Huh.
The money's run out, buddy.
The commoner is sick of seeing an increasing amount of their their paycheck go towards social services and aid for foreigners while their wages are frozen or are decreasing. There have been polls taken in Canada where a majority of those polled thought that we were "too generous" towards immigrants. Funding social programs across the west has left their infrastructure crumbling, because infrastructure projects don't have the same ROI for votes that social programs do. The same thing is happening here in Toronto, the population exploded and all of the sudden there is no money for new subways, highways or repairs even though in theory there should be more tax revenue due to higher population.
Increasing taxes on businesses is how you get them to close up shop and move somewhere with less tax. Then you have to provide social programs for their employees and people affected by their leaving. Congratulations, you just cost a lot of people their jobs so you could make businesses "shoulder a fair amount of the cost" for a few quarters until they hit the road and leave you to pick up the pieces.
People ALWAYS want businesses to pay more taxes but then will lament when they leave for greener pastures. Managing an economy is complex.
Those who say that they want to see a current balanced budget should carefully consider how this would be achieved.
Many oxen would have to be gored in both reduced expenditures that most of us would feel at least indirectly as well as significantly higher taxes for all.
Austerity as a national economic policy has never proven to yield positive results wherever its been tried, usually by imposition from the IMF or the ECB since few nations volunteer for impoverishment. The reduction in aggregate demand would bring the rapid onset of a deep recession.
Another thing to consider is that based upon current government accounting we don't actually know what the deficit is.
If we were to reform government accounting to include a capital budget, the current deficit might actually be revealed to be a lot lower than it appears. It would certainly be somewhat lower.
Finally, if we don't at least begin to move toward the rehabilitation of our infrastructure, we'll see a gradual economic decline that won't be noticeable until well after the damage is done. We can still move goods and people pretty efficiently and this medium over which we discuss and debate has certainly helped in that regard, but things can only get progressively worse unless we do something to reverse that progression.
Entropy must not be allowed to continue as the principal force in much of our infrastructure.
A continued inadequate level of planning and expenditure is not an infrastructure policy but rather the lack of one.
Many oxen would have to be gored in both reduced expenditures that most of us would feel at least indirectly as well as significantly higher taxes for all.
Austerity as a national economic policy has never proven to yield positive results wherever its been tried, usually by imposition from the IMF or the ECB since few nations volunteer for impoverishment. The reduction in aggregate demand would bring the rapid onset of a deep recession.
Another thing to consider is that based upon current government accounting we don't actually know what the deficit is.
If we were to reform government accounting to include a capital budget, the current deficit might actually be revealed to be a lot lower than it appears. It would certainly be somewhat lower.
Finally, if we don't at least begin to move toward the rehabilitation of our infrastructure, we'll see a gradual economic decline that won't be noticeable until well after the damage is done. We can still move goods and people pretty efficiently and this medium over which we discuss and debate has certainly helped in that regard, but things can only get progressively worse unless we do something to reverse that progression.
Entropy must not be allowed to continue as the principal force in much of our infrastructure.
A continued inadequate level of planning and expenditure is not an infrastructure policy but rather the lack of one.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Those who say that they want to see a current balanced budget should carefully consider how this would be achieved.
Many oxen would have to be gored in both reduced expenditures that most of us would feel at least indirectly as well as significantly higher taxes for all.
Austerity as a national economic policy has never proven to yield positive results wherever its been tried, usually by imposition from the IMF or the ECB since few nations volunteer for impoverishment. The reduction in aggregate demand would bring the rapid onset of a deep recession.
Another thing to consider is that based upon current government accounting we don't actually know what the deficit is.
If we were to reform government accounting to include a capital budget, the current deficit might actually be revealed to be a lot lower than it appears. It would certainly be somewhat lower.
Finally, if we don't at least begin to move toward the rehabilitation of our infrastructure, we'll see a gradual economic decline that won't be noticeable until well after the damage is done. We can still move goods and people pretty efficiently and this medium over which we discuss and debate has certainly helped in that regard, but things can only get progressively worse unless we do something to reverse that progression.
Entropy must not be allowed to continue as the principal force in much of our infrastructure.
That day of gored oxen will come either way. The choice is whether or not it is under an intentional, moderated and controlled method, or by overwhelming debt causing our credit rating to collapse and nobody loaning anymore money to the US Government. I'd prefer to do it in a controlled manner. Simply freeze the federal budget. Heck, even grow it by 1% a year. It would take time, but it would result in much less suffering to get there. Rand Paul floated a plan like this awhile back. It's the only rational way to get to a balanced budget.
As for what we know about the debt, I'd guarantee you the way the government accounts for it, we are given a lower number than what it really is. That's how they rigged unemployment data, which only shows the rate among people actively looking for work. It let Obama claim much lower unemployment than was really there and it let Trump claim the lowest figures in history. No way the government is overstating the debt. It isn't it's nature.
Those who say that they want to see a current balanced budget should carefully consider how this would be achieved.
Many oxen would have to be gored in both reduced expenditures that most of us would feel at least indirectly as well as significantly higher taxes for all.
Austerity as a national economic policy has never proven to yield positive results wherever its been tried, usually by imposition from the IMF or the ECB since few nations volunteer for impoverishment. The reduction in aggregate demand would bring the rapid onset of a deep recession.
Another thing to consider is that based upon current government accounting we don't actually know what the deficit is.
If we were to reform government accounting to include a capital budget, the current deficit might actually be revealed to be a lot lower than it appears. It would certainly be somewhat lower.
Finally, if we don't at least begin to move toward the rehabilitation of our infrastructure, we'll see a gradual economic decline that won't be noticeable until well after the damage is done. We can still move goods and people pretty efficiently and this medium over which we discuss and debate has certainly helped in that regard, but things can only get progressively worse unless we do something to reverse that progression.
Entropy must not be allowed to continue as the principal force in much of our infrastructure.
That day of gored oxen will come either way. The choice is whether or not it is under an intentional, moderated and controlled method, or by overwhelming debt causing our credit rating to collapse and nobody loaning anymore money to the US Government. I'd prefer to do it in a controlled manner. Simply freeze the federal budget. Heck, even grow it by 1% a year. It would take time, but it would result in much less suffering to get there. Rand Paul floated a plan like this awhile back. It's the only rational way to get to a balanced budget.
As for what we know about the debt, I'd guarantee you the way the government accounts for it, we are given a lower number than what it really is. That's how they rigged unemployment data, which only shows the rate among people actively looking for work. It let Obama claim much lower unemployment than was really there and it let Trump claim the lowest figures in history. No way the government is overstating the debt. It isn't it's nature.
We don't see infrastructure investment because of the supposed moral hazard of a state, responsible for a highway, neglecting it to the point where the Feds pay 90% of the rebuilding cost. And towns wait for the state to fix secondary highways.
Then when they want to spend a gazillion dollars on a project, one gets corrupt contractors or unions (depending on who you ask) pushing it way over budget, and environmentalists/ NIMBYs delaying decent rights-of-way. Then you get sparring politicians who don't want to "reward" the other side by actually green-lighting a project.
Yes, gas taxes need to go up-- there is no state where user fees actually cover road expenses.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/regulation/gas-tax-little-road-costs/
Now, soon, or the next recession is a great time to get some of this stuff done. When I pay social security out of my paycheck it goes to a retired guy who spends it this week. But I can't save my labor, my generations labor, for 30-40 years to "use" then. Closest thing I can do is build sturdy stuff that will last until/through then.
There's a labor shortage now but it's going to get worse. Might as well buckle down and do some stuff while we can.
Then when they want to spend a gazillion dollars on a project, one gets corrupt contractors or unions (depending on who you ask) pushing it way over budget, and environmentalists/ NIMBYs delaying decent rights-of-way. Then you get sparring politicians who don't want to "reward" the other side by actually green-lighting a project.
Yes, gas taxes need to go up-- there is no state where user fees actually cover road expenses.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/regulation/gas-tax-little-road-costs/
Now, soon, or the next recession is a great time to get some of this stuff done. When I pay social security out of my paycheck it goes to a retired guy who spends it this week. But I can't save my labor, my generations labor, for 30-40 years to "use" then. Closest thing I can do is build sturdy stuff that will last until/through then.
There's a labor shortage now but it's going to get worse. Might as well buckle down and do some stuff while we can.
Originally Posted by hatt
The government doesn't have an income problem, they have a spending problem.
I believe they have both.
The government doesn't have an income problem, they have a spending problem.
I believe they have both.
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by hatt
The government doesn't have an income problem, they have a spending problem.
I believe they have both.
I believe you're right.
We'd typically see fiscal deficits narrow during an economic expansion and grow during an economic contraction.
We've fixed that with a large tax cut so that we can see fiscal deficits growing all of the time.
If you think the current fiscal deficit is bad, wait until the next recession.
We are nowhere close to the limits of national debt as a proportion of GDP, for those who worry otherwise.
Japan has a national debt that's more than double that of our country as a proportion of GDP and other first world nations like France and the UK also have higher ratios of debt to GDP than we do.
They also lack a reserve currency preferred throughout the world and where do you suppose those dollars get parked?
Hint, it isn't under a big mattress.
Originally Posted by hatt
The government doesn't have an income problem, they have a spending problem.
I believe they have both.
I believe you're right.
We'd typically see fiscal deficits narrow during an economic expansion and grow during an economic contraction.
We've fixed that with a large tax cut so that we can see fiscal deficits growing all of the time.
If you think the current fiscal deficit is bad, wait until the next recession.
We are nowhere close to the limits of national debt as a proportion of GDP, for those who worry otherwise.
Japan has a national debt that's more than double that of our country as a proportion of GDP and other first world nations like France and the UK also have higher ratios of debt to GDP than we do.
They also lack a reserve currency preferred throughout the world and where do you suppose those dollars get parked?
Hint, it isn't under a big mattress.
Originally Posted by hatt
The government doesn't have an income problem, they have a spending problem.
Yes record income and record spending. 2018 was another year for record Federal income.
The government doesn't have an income problem, they have a spending problem.
Yes record income and record spending. 2018 was another year for record Federal income.
1 trillion dollars deficit in 80.... 3 trillion by 89...
4 trillion in 92.... 6 trillion by 2000... 10 trillion by 2009.... 20 trillion by 2017... The math is not good any way you cut it... And it's not getting better. Neither side is free of fault in this whole circumstance. Plus none of this takes into future unpaid outlays .. which are astronomical compared to the year over year deficit...
4 trillion in 92.... 6 trillion by 2000... 10 trillion by 2009.... 20 trillion by 2017... The math is not good any way you cut it... And it's not getting better. Neither side is free of fault in this whole circumstance. Plus none of this takes into future unpaid outlays .. which are astronomical compared to the year over year deficit...
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Originally Posted by fdcg27
I've long thought that there's plenty of public work that needs doing and that we could leverage benefits to the long-term unemployed by creating jobs in which people would do this work.
This could be a win-win proposition in that those unable to find work could make maybe ten bucks an hour while a lot of local improvement work could be done at low cost.
I read an article last week that there are over 1 MILLION open job postings in the country right now. I understand, some of them require special skills. But the majority of them are just jobs that people "don't want to do". That's a huge distinction from not being able to find work. But I still think the "public works" idea has merit... the working, taxpaying people don't get anything for free, and deserve to see the fruits of their taxes in their communities. Those who are "without" can perform the tasks that do not have a fulltime public position to accomplish them and be paid for their labor instead of just absorbing the energy of those that toil for their income.
I'm quoting this one, while I really agree with one of Subies earlier posts.
So many jobs just aren't "cost effective" for municipalities to do...(where they once were, mind you)...I agree that the social safety net should help do these not cost effective jobs....simply because it's infinitely more efficient to have someone on the safety net pull weeds, than to pay them to do nothing.
And pulling weeds isn't punishment...having a supervisor, performance feedback, and colleagues and team targets are work skills that get lost on the lounge.
But as to the OP...it's not new...Can see in this pic how it was done, how it was fixed, by civilsations that disappeared...Roman civil work similarly devolved.
Transaction tax would be a good thing...that's never going to happen when a robot can pump and dump $100M in stocks in a day.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
I've long thought that there's plenty of public work that needs doing and that we could leverage benefits to the long-term unemployed by creating jobs in which people would do this work.
This could be a win-win proposition in that those unable to find work could make maybe ten bucks an hour while a lot of local improvement work could be done at low cost.
I read an article last week that there are over 1 MILLION open job postings in the country right now. I understand, some of them require special skills. But the majority of them are just jobs that people "don't want to do". That's a huge distinction from not being able to find work. But I still think the "public works" idea has merit... the working, taxpaying people don't get anything for free, and deserve to see the fruits of their taxes in their communities. Those who are "without" can perform the tasks that do not have a fulltime public position to accomplish them and be paid for their labor instead of just absorbing the energy of those that toil for their income.
I'm quoting this one, while I really agree with one of Subies earlier posts.
So many jobs just aren't "cost effective" for municipalities to do...(where they once were, mind you)...I agree that the social safety net should help do these not cost effective jobs....simply because it's infinitely more efficient to have someone on the safety net pull weeds, than to pay them to do nothing.
And pulling weeds isn't punishment...having a supervisor, performance feedback, and colleagues and team targets are work skills that get lost on the lounge.
But as to the OP...it's not new...Can see in this pic how it was done, how it was fixed, by civilsations that disappeared...Roman civil work similarly devolved.
Transaction tax would be a good thing...that's never going to happen when a robot can pump and dump $100M in stocks in a day.
- Status
Similar threads
