6 ms·

I'm assuming you're from the US... The problem isn't a lack of taxes, it's where you guys spend it all.

DigitalJack 11y ago
fully agree with this (US native)
cylinder 11y ago
And when it is spent on infrastructure, the US leads most of the world in being the most expensive place to build public transportation, with projects often taking far longer. I blame corruption, poor governance and deep cultural disdain for organization and order. Don't even get me started on the California decision to build HSR between SF and LA. What a joke that one is.
- samsolomon 11y ago
  More amazing—a half century ago, the U.S. was undertaking some incredible public works projects.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    Edit: sorry, I was continuing from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11356350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11356350 We spent four billion dollars for a train station. And then we raised ticket prices on the path train for a beautiful station nobody wants. Why? > To win these concessions, Larry Silverstein took advantage of the Port Authority’s eagerness to show some progress on the site. He played hardball with the government from 2004 to 2006, a period of acrimonious negotiations between Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority over who would be responsible for what aspects of the site. > His lobbyists were the best of the best. He hired Global Strategy Group, whose clients have included Eliot Spitzer, David Paterson and Andrew Cuomo, to lobby for him, along with David Samson, who would go on to become the chairman of the Port Authority. > Given the choice between making Larry Silverstein pay his way and trying to get the site finished as quickly as possible, the Port chose the more expensive option. (Whether it worked is debatable—3 World Trade Center is a stump, and 2 World Trade Center is nonexistent; both are awaiting tenants to restart construction, with delivery now slated for 2015 and 2016.) The feds were throwing even more money at the Port Authority—nearly $2.9 billion—and it was the path of least resistance. http://observer.com/2013/05/pathfail/ http://observer.com/2013/05/pathfail/ It is mind boggling that a seat on a train to cross the hudson river costs as much as a ticket on the MTA. I don't have any inside information and I don't know who to blame for this (perhaps there is no point in blaming anyone other, everyone did what was in their personal best interest) but this does bring a point that we can't just throw money at infrastructure problems. We have to be judicious about it. The twitter feed of @pathtrain https://twitter.com/pathtrain https://twitter.com/pathtrain is littered with problems of signal failure on a bridge on the Newark World Trade Center line. I bet they could use some of that four billion dollars to fix that issue. But of course, the federal money is not for trivial things like that. They have a monument to build! I guess this is something we need to think about in many government projects, not just at the federal level. We say that we spend more than $12k? per child in our school system and raise pitchforks and say the teachers aren't performing well enough for all the money we pour into the school system. Well, perhaps we are not pouring money at the right places. And no, I'm not advocating we get rid of public funding and make school administrators or teachers start a go fund me for their salaries or costs. That would not solve anything. These are difficult questions for me. I don't think our politicians and bureaucrats are making the right call here but I don't think it is right to leave these questions up to a ballot measure either.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    A half century ago, the federal and state civil services weren't, I think, unionised, which means that politicians couldn't be bought by unions to give civil servants more benefits to increase union dues to buy more benefits to increase dues to buy more benefits.
    - sdenton4 11y ago
      The federal employee's union goes back to the thirties, and was officially recognized by the government in 1962. So, no.
      - panglott 11y ago
        Interestingly, Wikipedia says AFSCME was not really interested in collective bargaining until the late 1960s/1970s, when it had a period of rapid growth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Federation_of_State,_County_and_Municipal_Employees#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Federation_of_State,_...
trhway 11y ago
> it's where you guys spend it all. http://www.businessinsider.com/gross-fixed-investment-2013-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/gross-fixed-investment-2013-8 . Infrastructure-schmustructure, none of these guys can afford a program like F-35!
- nikanj 11y ago
  If only we had a transit-industrial complex instead
  - khuey 11y ago
    We do. Look at the cost of the WTC PATH Station.
  - douche 11y ago
    We need to invent some defense-related shibboleth that would build us some infrastructure. It worked for the interstate highway system...
imglorp 11y ago
And not just stupid spending (ie not on r&d or infrastructure), but also loads of government friction, costing yet more.
soyiuz 11y ago
Probably right, but we are talking about municipal taxes.
- petewailes 11y ago
  Sure, but isn't that part of the issue? Infrastructure is a national issue, not just a local one. It should draw from the tax pot as such.
maxxxxx 11y ago
It's more like how the money is being spent. The political landscape is totally binary so the only question allowed is whether something gets done or not. Once the decision has been made it gets done in the least efficient way and no further questions are asked. Or it gets stopped. Just look at Obamacare: There is no public discussion about the details that could use improvement. Either it's all in or people want to totally cancel it. Nothing in between.
jahewson 11y ago
You've got to separate federal taxes from state taxes to understand how the US spends its money. In general the federal government is well funded and squanders its money on wasteful and unnecessary defence projects, such as having more aircraft carriers than conventional military wisdom says that they need. Such things don't enhance the US's defensive situation. The F-35 is another great example. But states are generally underfunded, because lowering taxes is always popular and easy to do in state politics. State budgets are dominated by boring things such as education which an aging electorate often cares little about. And states are always in competition with their neighbours with regards to taxes, so raising sales tax might actually push more shopping across the state line to your neighbour. Couple that with the situation in California where any tax increase has to be voted on by the general public as a "proposition", and you get a scenario where adequate state funding becomes almost impossible.
- cbhl 11y ago
  We should put a proposition on the ballet to repeal that anti-tax-increase proposition, once and for all.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  Don't equate spending with good governance. New York figured out the tax collection thing, and our schools and other infrastructure cost more and work poorly. Also, the Feds fund a wide variety of state operations, especially in social services and transport.
  - douche 11y ago
    > Also, the Feds fund a wide variety of state operations, especially in social services and transport. And education too. Money supposedly ear-marked for special education and free-and-reduced lunch floats many rural school districts; maybe there's a similar story for urban districts, but I wouldn't know about those.
- rayiner 11y ago
  80% of the federal budget is stuff other than military and VA benefits.

fully agree with this (US native)

And when it is spent on infrastructure, the US leads most of the world in being the most expensive place to build public transportation, with projects often taking far longer. I blame corruption, poor governance and deep cultural disdain for organization and order. Don't even get me started on the California decision to build HSR between SF and LA. What a joke that one is.

samsolomon 11y ago
More amazing—a half century ago, the U.S. was undertaking some incredible public works projects.
- newjersey 11y ago
  Edit: sorry, I was continuing from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11356350 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11356350 We spent four billion dollars for a train station. And then we raised ticket prices on the path train for a beautiful station nobody wants. Why? > To win these concessions, Larry Silverstein took advantage of the Port Authority’s eagerness to show some progress on the site. He played hardball with the government from 2004 to 2006, a period of acrimonious negotiations between Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority over who would be responsible for what aspects of the site. > His lobbyists were the best of the best. He hired Global Strategy Group, whose clients have included Eliot Spitzer, David Paterson and Andrew Cuomo, to lobby for him, along with David Samson, who would go on to become the chairman of the Port Authority. > Given the choice between making Larry Silverstein pay his way and trying to get the site finished as quickly as possible, the Port chose the more expensive option. (Whether it worked is debatable—3 World Trade Center is a stump, and 2 World Trade Center is nonexistent; both are awaiting tenants to restart construction, with delivery now slated for 2015 and 2016.) The feds were throwing even more money at the Port Authority—nearly $2.9 billion—and it was the path of least resistance. http://observer.com/2013/05/pathfail/ http://observer.com/2013/05/pathfail/ It is mind boggling that a seat on a train to cross the hudson river costs as much as a ticket on the MTA. I don't have any inside information and I don't know who to blame for this (perhaps there is no point in blaming anyone other, everyone did what was in their personal best interest) but this does bring a point that we can't just throw money at infrastructure problems. We have to be judicious about it. The twitter feed of @pathtrain https://twitter.com/pathtrain https://twitter.com/pathtrain is littered with problems of signal failure on a bridge on the Newark World Trade Center line. I bet they could use some of that four billion dollars to fix that issue. But of course, the federal money is not for trivial things like that. They have a monument to build! I guess this is something we need to think about in many government projects, not just at the federal level. We say that we spend more than $12k? per child in our school system and raise pitchforks and say the teachers aren't performing well enough for all the money we pour into the school system. Well, perhaps we are not pouring money at the right places. And no, I'm not advocating we get rid of public funding and make school administrators or teachers start a go fund me for their salaries or costs. That would not solve anything. These are difficult questions for me. I don't think our politicians and bureaucrats are making the right call here but I don't think it is right to leave these questions up to a ballot measure either.
- zeveb 11y ago
  A half century ago, the federal and state civil services weren't, I think, unionised, which means that politicians couldn't be bought by unions to give civil servants more benefits to increase union dues to buy more benefits to increase dues to buy more benefits.
  - sdenton4 11y ago
    The federal employee's union goes back to the thirties, and was officially recognized by the government in 1962. So, no.
    - panglott 11y ago
      Interestingly, Wikipedia says AFSCME was not really interested in collective bargaining until the late 1960s/1970s, when it had a period of rapid growth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Federation_of_State,_County_and_Municipal_Employees#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Federation_of_State,_...

trhway 11y ago

> it's where you guys spend it all. http://www.businessinsider.com/gross-fixed-investment-2013-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/gross-fixed-investment-2013-8 . Infrastructure-schmustructure, none of these guys can afford a program like F-35!

nikanj 11y ago
If only we had a transit-industrial complex instead
- khuey 11y ago
  We do. Look at the cost of the WTC PATH Station.
- douche 11y ago
  We need to invent some defense-related shibboleth that would build us some infrastructure. It worked for the interstate highway system...

imglorp 11y ago

And not just stupid spending (ie not on r&d or infrastructure), but also loads of government friction, costing yet more.

soyiuz 11y ago

Probably right, but we are talking about municipal taxes.

petewailes 11y ago
Sure, but isn't that part of the issue? Infrastructure is a national issue, not just a local one. It should draw from the tax pot as such.

maxxxxx 11y ago

It's more like how the money is being spent. The political landscape is totally binary so the only question allowed is whether something gets done or not. Once the decision has been made it gets done in the least efficient way and no further questions are asked. Or it gets stopped. Just look at Obamacare: There is no public discussion about the details that could use improvement. Either it's all in or people want to totally cancel it. Nothing in between.

jahewson 11y ago

You've got to separate federal taxes from state taxes to understand how the US spends its money. In general the federal government is well funded and squanders its money on wasteful and unnecessary defence projects, such as having more aircraft carriers than conventional military wisdom says that they need. Such things don't enhance the US's defensive situation. The F-35 is another great example. But states are generally underfunded, because lowering taxes is always popular and easy to do in state politics. State budgets are dominated by boring things such as education which an aging electorate often cares little about. And states are always in competition with their neighbours with regards to taxes, so raising sales tax might actually push more shopping across the state line to your neighbour. Couple that with the situation in California where any tax increase has to be voted on by the general public as a "proposition", and you get a scenario where adequate state funding becomes almost impossible.

cbhl 11y ago
We should put a proposition on the ballet to repeal that anti-tax-increase proposition, once and for all.
Spooky23 11y ago
Don't equate spending with good governance. New York figured out the tax collection thing, and our schools and other infrastructure cost more and work poorly. Also, the Feds fund a wide variety of state operations, especially in social services and transport.
- douche 11y ago
  > Also, the Feds fund a wide variety of state operations, especially in social services and transport. And education too. Money supposedly ear-marked for special education and free-and-reduced lunch floats many rural school districts; maybe there's a similar story for urban districts, but I wouldn't know about those.
rayiner 11y ago
80% of the federal budget is stuff other than military and VA benefits.