|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
You shouldn't try to fix a broken system that you can't fix. Yes.
There's nowhere I can't reach.
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
If a bridge collapses, then the corporation can't extract tolls from it, obviously. Replacing the bridge would be far more expensive than simply repairing it. So, in order to avoid the greatest negative, there's an incentive to keep the bridges in good condition. Governments don't have this incentive, because if funds are required for a project, they are simply taken. There's no incentive for a government to avoid the greatest negative, since they're always making revenue through taxation. The result places road maintenance at a low priority, because it isn't in the government's interest to keep them well maintained. If the bridge collapses for the corporation, then tolls have to be raised in order to finance its replacement. If the bridge collapses for the government, then it's no sweat off their back. In both cases, the public/shareholders are losing money, but in the case of the corporation there is at least an incentive for the shareholders and the board to avoid the greatest cost with proper maintenance.
You live in, what, Arizona? What are the conditions of your roads? Because without many bridges, 25% approval may actually be the appropriate amount of spending.
I'm guessing that there's some non-privatizing solutions to the problem of infrastructure priority, but there is apparently no solution, according to you.
With state gas taxes you can get an inkling of where the money goes, but with a Federal money pool who the fuck knows? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Plus, we own part of what is probably the most important interstate highway in the country: I-10. We actually have many bridges (they are relatively new, however). Dry rivers still have to be crossed.
I was speaking idiomatically.
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
you're fucking trolling What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Let's say I accrue a tab at a local bar. It's been increasing for quite a while and it's been called in. I can't pay the tab, so I mug somebody and use the money I stole to pay it off. In this case, my tab is paid, but I lose nothing. The bar is paid, I take care of the debt, and the only person at a loss is the guy I mugged. Governments do not lose money because they don't produce wealth. If budgets dip into deficits, then the deficit is financed by either an increase in taxes, buying debt, or printing money. In all three cases the government loses nothing, because it doesn't finance the deficit. Taxpayers do. It costs taxpayers more to rebuild a bridge, and it costs the government nothing.
If the graph you provided is any indication, the state is certainly on the ball in regards to bridges.
FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Or do you just want these special non-government governments on everything? Jam it back in, in the dark.
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
Ghost |
All this shareholder idea is doing is creating a highly complicated second political system JUST for road maintenance. Rather than fancy tolls and such, set up semi-independant transportation ministers and use some of the taxes from licenses, or gasoline. So much simpler. But as noted, you don't avoid the political element.
You could try to pass a law requiring maintenance to be funded before building a new project. But then if there are bad times, and people let maintenance languish a bit, they're going to run up such a tab they won't want to build anything. A method that works on the small scale is the media. In a few towns I've lived in, the local paper would once a month shame the municipal government into filling in potholes. Similarily, maybe an advocacy group could hire a few civil inspectors to shame/scare the governments into action. How ya doing, buddy? |
Also, which taxes are they talking about? State taxes in Pennsylvania are actually pretty low, sales tax is 6% for most of the state (except for food and clothing where it's 0%), and property taxes and such vary greatly between counties and municipalities. Also, having been a frequent traveler on toll roads I have to say that it really doesn't make them any better to drive on than typical state roads. I just drove on I-80, a free road, and it was in better condition than the PA Turnpike which I pay around $16 each way to drive across most of the state. Finally, Brady, it's not like this is something new where a city is giving money to a sports team to stay in their city. It's a pretty established practice that many teams do when they either feel attendance is dropping or their facilities are lacking. After all, they're using their ability to move to a different city as a bargaining chip. What's so terrible about that? This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Where would I be if you didn't speak to me like a child with meaningless platitudes?
You're also skirting my question again. What would you say the state of roads and highways are in your state?
It's strong-arming millions out of taxpayers, and a disgusting form of rentseeking. Just because it occurs frequently does not make it okay. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
your libertarianism is the political equivalent of vore fetish. You sound like you're been out there and tried all the other things, but luckily it's imaginary so you don't actually have to do anything. I was speaking idiomatically. |
I can do this all day, don't start this bullshit. Everything is SO much more complicated. It's so complicated you don't have to explain any goddamn thing. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Paying taxes to government is no more theft than paying tolls to this corporate public works department of yours. FELIPE NO |
Paying a toll to use a road involves an act of consent. Paying taxes does not involve consent, since the taxes are extracted regardless. Governments do not have to compete for revenue, but a privately owned road does between alternative transit.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
What alternative transit? Your proposition involves taking public works away from government and turning it over to a non-profit corporation, which would handle it instead. There was only one of these in the original proposal, which would handle everything the government did. There wasn't any competition. The financial incentives you talked about would be about the corporation not being able to make money off damaged infrastructure, not that they might lose customers to competition.
This idea was pretty fucking stupid to start with; it just gets ever more so as this discussion goes on. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
You're not addressing what we're arguing, either, that tax is a form of theft and that there's a difference between collecting a toll and extracting a tax. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
However, in your case, you still couldn't escape the Coropration if you used them. The government is responsible for building the infrastructure they use; this duty would be turned over to the Corporation in your model, and the fares you pay to use them would be in part payed to the Corporation to make use of their services. The fares would also probably rise considerably since tax money wouldn't be made available to keep them low (since taxes are bad), and since they would be competing with the Corporation, the Corporation has no incentive to do anything to help anybody out there. Which is meaningless if the Corporation owns the mass transit system as well as the roads.
And it doesn't escape the Corporation, either; the man in question would be riding his bike on their road, and would concievably be required to pay for the use like a driver would.
And, to top it all off, the pay for things like public sanitation and the water system, which are useful for disposing of various forms of waste. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Your idea wouldn't even work here because you can't toll Arizona residents. They would just stop using the pay roads and all the traffic would funnel through city streets, making things even worse. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
and Brandy does her best to understand
Last edited by BlueMikey; Aug 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM.
|
Which reminds me; how much would it cost for the Corporation to buy these roads from their respective governments in the first place? I was speaking idiomatically. |
So all roads are tolled? Heh.
And all the poor people stop grocery shopping because their food stamps don't pay for toll roads. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
you learn this in seventh grade
Your libertarianism is an affected youth reading Mein Kampf in the only non-Starbucks coffee shop in town. Additional Spam:
that is so unfair FELIPE NO
Last edited by Sarag; Aug 10, 2007 at 01:25 PM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
Cycling is practical, but people don't like doing things that require effort. It's very practical in the sense that it costs nothing and it gets you from point A to point B in a substantially shorter amount of time than walking would. Of course, it's not practical if people absolutely must live 30 miles away from where they work. But the only reason people live that far away is for impractical reasons, like wanting to live in a big house that they don't really need. One impracticality begets another. In short, the suburbs are making people fat. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |
Guru: Places like Europe and China are much tighter together than the American suburban communities. The Chinese don't bike 20-60 miles to work.
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Which is why, obviously, that I think it's OK that if people want to live extravagant, impractical lives (by living in big houses 50 miles away from work), that they shouldn't gripe about being taxed on infrastructure. (To keep with the context of the thread, at least). There's nowhere I can't reach.
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |