4 ms·

You are missing the obvious point that infrastructure is a main use of taxes. Do you think roads are profitable? Rail (& other public transport) has many other

You are missing the obvious point that infrastructure is a main use of taxes. Do you think roads are profitable? Rail (& other public transport) has many other benefits, e.g. you'll need less policing and maintenance of roads if they are less used; air pollution from fossil fuels and tire wear are reduced, stress and accidents are reduced thereby decreasing healthcare costs, etc. It all is a matter of building up the proper network, rather than to give more subsidies to big oil and the car industries (see the eternally repeating bailouts).

xx511134bz 5y ago
Road costs are astonishing. I remember seeing a single traffic light arm cost $250k.
- NoblePublius 5y ago
  It took 400 days to construct the Golden Gate Bridge in 1933. It took six years to build a new offramp for it in 2000.
NoblePublius 5y ago
The Federal government in the United States does not require tax revenue to fund road construction. The only tax actually earmarked for this purpose is the gasoline tax, which is less than 2% of the Federal government’s appropriations for highway construction. Federal taxes are largely punitive and coercive (we want you to do this thing like have children, or live here, or not get too rich doing that thing because otherwise Lockheed lobbyists get upset).
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  All I had to do was google “Are roads fully funded by the gas tax” to find a contracticting source: > Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012. [pdf] https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for...
  - NoblePublius 5y ago
    Perhaps my use of the term “earmarked” was confusing. This refers to a congressional requirement that certain tax revenues be allocated for specific purposes. That’s the gasoline tax and very very very few taxes are written this way.

xx511134bz 5y ago

Road costs are astonishing. I remember seeing a single traffic light arm cost $250k.

NoblePublius 5y ago
It took 400 days to construct the Golden Gate Bridge in 1933. It took six years to build a new offramp for it in 2000.

NoblePublius 5y ago

The Federal government in the United States does not require tax revenue to fund road construction. The only tax actually earmarked for this purpose is the gasoline tax, which is less than 2% of the Federal government’s appropriations for highway construction. Federal taxes are largely punitive and coercive (we want you to do this thing like have children, or live here, or not get too rich doing that thing because otherwise Lockheed lobbyists get upset).

jazzyjackson 5y ago
All I had to do was google “Are roads fully funded by the gas tax” to find a contracticting source: > Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012. [pdf] https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for...
- NoblePublius 5y ago
  Perhaps my use of the term “earmarked” was confusing. This refers to a congressional requirement that certain tax revenues be allocated for specific purposes. That’s the gasoline tax and very very very few taxes are written this way.