3 ms·
The cost argument is always interesting to me, when you consider it in context. We (in America) recently passed a tax cut that will cost around $150B/year for t
by marcell 8y ago
The cost argument is always interesting to me, when you consider it in context. We (in America) recently passed a tax cut that will cost around $150B/year for the next 10 years, and likely more if the temporary parts are made permanent. Even with cost overruns, that's almost enough to pay for 2 California bullet trains PER YEAR for the next decade.
And yes, I know California is just 1 state out of 50, but even still, it just seems like people have really bad context on what is / is not an outrageous cost for government.
- dasil003 8y agoI bet you could get the number over 50% by offering to pay $20 to every voter who voted no and would be willing to change their vote. That would cost less than $70M (based on registered voters, not actual turnout).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 8y agoWaste shouldn’t be used to justify waste. The cost is outrageous for what you get. The tax cut doesn’t change that at all.
- rayiner 8y agoThe tax cut is at least money back in peoples’ pockets. This is a huge subsidy that’ll benefit a tiny fraction of people who need to routinely travel between LA and SF, and can afford to spend $86 doing so (probably over $100 when it finally opens, its gone up a lot already).
- vvanders 8y ago> The tax cut is at least money back in peoples’ pockets. s/people/corporation
- exclusiv 8y agoIt's quite nice for small business too.
- scarmig 8y agoEh, this spending puts money into people's pockets just as much as tax cuts would, economically. The government isn't taking a hundred billion dollars and setting it on fire: it uses that money to purchase labor and manufactured goods, the price of which itself comes heavily from labor costs. The question is whether a high speed train that doesn't offer any appreciable advantages over flying is more economically useful than the combination of investment and consumer spending that equivalent tax cuts would generate. Another factor is that, as a Californian, I'd rather the federal government take my money and give it to people relatively near to me in my economic network than take my money and give it to oil barons in Texas. Californians don't have a choice between high speed rail money subsidized by federal dollars or healthcare/tax cuts/education/actually intelligent infrastructure choices subsidized by the same federal dollars: it's this or nothing.
- aczyrek 8y ago> And yes, I know California is just 1 state out of 50, but even still... Let's keep in mind that the GDP of California is greater than the 25 lowest economic producing states combined. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...