5 ms·

Well > One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs’ conglomerate, is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires

Well > One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs’ conglomerate, is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads. Also: stuff requires upkeep, consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway. You can’t just build it and expect it to stay in perfect condition forever.

bmelton 8y ago
> consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway Everything I've read about the NYC Subway system indicates that it's funded more than adequately, but due to mismanagement, corruption, and cronyism, the funds walk out the door in the pockets of ghost workers. Assuming the system wasn't awash with grift, is there evidence to suggest that NYC doesn't actually fund it adequately? NYC residents pay well above the national rate in taxes, and presumably those taxes are intended to fund transit. If the money taxed isn't being used to actually maintain the infrastructure, I think it supports OP's argument that the taxes haven't abated but the services being offered for them have. Without getting into the ideological debate of whether publicly funded projects are good or bad, I think it's fair to assume that most people expect that when taxes are raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will be used for transit, not to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who raised the taxes.
- ejstronge 8y ago
  I don't think I've read the same things as you. Do you have sources for the cronyism and ghost workers? Also, the tax levels in NYC don't necessarily relate to the levels of subway support (e.g., NY state contributes to the NYC subway). > I think it's fair to assume that most people expect that when taxes are raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will be used for transit, not to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who raised the taxes. This is a straw man argument - the implication here is that the NYC subway's sole financial problem is corruption. Is that actually true?
  - bmelton 8y ago
    Sources: * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... * https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-most-damning-report-yet-on-why-the-new-york-c-1821651731 https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-most-damning-report-yet-on-wh... * https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/14/new-yorks-subway-scam/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/14/new-yorks-s... > the implication here is that the NYC subway's sole financial problem is corruption. Is that actually true? So, that isn't the assertion. The argument that taxes are raised for a project, then being diverted to general funds is a separate issue from the one of corruption, and speak more directly to OP's argument that "taxes don't go down", to which the rebuttal from GP was "Well, taxes shouldn't go down, because maintenance is a thing". If the taxes don't go down, and also aren't being used for the purpose they were raised, you have sort of a shell game. That said, on the matter of corruption, here are a few quotes from the first source I linked: > The estimated cost of the Long Island Rail Road project, known as > “East Side Access,” has ballooned to $12 billion, or nearly $3.5 > billion for each new mile of track — seven times the average elsewhere > in the world. The recently completed Second Avenue subway on > Manhattan’s Upper East Side and the 2015 extension of the No. 7 line > to Hudson Yards also cost far above average, at $2.5 billion and $1.5 > billion per mile, respectively. > The spending has taken place even as the M.T.A. has cut back on core > subway maintenance because, as The New York Times has documented, > generations of politicians have diverted money from the transit > authority and saddled it with debt.
    - ejstronge 8y ago
      I remember glancing at that NYT article. It's hard to prove these things, but they only peripherally imply the idea of 'ghost workers'. I agree that it sounds like social connections are leading to small numbers of contractors, but the takeaway I saw is the lack of political will to manage contracting - these so-called 'soft' costs were on the order of 1/3 of the overall costs. I didn't pick up on the duration of taxes argument - I see your point there.
      - 8y ago
- JohnTHaller 8y ago
  In addition, a large chunk of NYC's taxes (blue districts) wind up going to Albany and then redistributed upstate where tax revenue is lower (red districts) for things like highways and services.

bmelton 8y ago

> consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway Everything I've read about the NYC Subway system indicates that it's funded more than adequately, but due to mismanagement, corruption, and cronyism, the funds walk out the door in the pockets of ghost workers. Assuming the system wasn't awash with grift, is there evidence to suggest that NYC doesn't actually fund it adequately? NYC residents pay well above the national rate in taxes, and presumably those taxes are intended to fund transit. If the money taxed isn't being used to actually maintain the infrastructure, I think it supports OP's argument that the taxes haven't abated but the services being offered for them have. Without getting into the ideological debate of whether publicly funded projects are good or bad, I think it's fair to assume that most people expect that when taxes are raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will be used for transit, not to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who raised the taxes.

ejstronge 8y ago
I don't think I've read the same things as you. Do you have sources for the cronyism and ghost workers? Also, the tax levels in NYC don't necessarily relate to the levels of subway support (e.g., NY state contributes to the NYC subway). > I think it's fair to assume that most people expect that when taxes are raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will be used for transit, not to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who raised the taxes. This is a straw man argument - the implication here is that the NYC subway's sole financial problem is corruption. Is that actually true?
- bmelton 8y ago
  Sources: * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... * https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-most-damning-report-yet-on-why-the-new-york-c-1821651731 https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-most-damning-report-yet-on-wh... * https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/14/new-yorks-subway-scam/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/14/new-yorks-s... > the implication here is that the NYC subway's sole financial problem is corruption. Is that actually true? So, that isn't the assertion. The argument that taxes are raised for a project, then being diverted to general funds is a separate issue from the one of corruption, and speak more directly to OP's argument that "taxes don't go down", to which the rebuttal from GP was "Well, taxes shouldn't go down, because maintenance is a thing". If the taxes don't go down, and also aren't being used for the purpose they were raised, you have sort of a shell game. That said, on the matter of corruption, here are a few quotes from the first source I linked: > The estimated cost of the Long Island Rail Road project, known as > “East Side Access,” has ballooned to $12 billion, or nearly $3.5 > billion for each new mile of track — seven times the average elsewhere > in the world. The recently completed Second Avenue subway on > Manhattan’s Upper East Side and the 2015 extension of the No. 7 line > to Hudson Yards also cost far above average, at $2.5 billion and $1.5 > billion per mile, respectively. > The spending has taken place even as the M.T.A. has cut back on core > subway maintenance because, as The New York Times has documented, > generations of politicians have diverted money from the transit > authority and saddled it with debt.
  - ejstronge 8y ago
    I remember glancing at that NYT article. It's hard to prove these things, but they only peripherally imply the idea of 'ghost workers'. I agree that it sounds like social connections are leading to small numbers of contractors, but the takeaway I saw is the lack of political will to manage contracting - these so-called 'soft' costs were on the order of 1/3 of the overall costs. I didn't pick up on the duration of taxes argument - I see your point there.
    - 8y ago
JohnTHaller 8y ago
In addition, a large chunk of NYC's taxes (blue districts) wind up going to Albany and then redistributed upstate where tax revenue is lower (red districts) for things like highways and services.