3 ms·
Even if they are correct about the costs and taxes, that doesn't mean the infrastructure is unsustainable. It only implies that more taxes will be needed to pay
by leereeves 4y ago
Even if they are correct about the costs and taxes, that doesn't mean the infrastructure is unsustainable. It only implies that more taxes will be needed to pay for infrastructure (which is basically the debate we had recently).
I'm not even sure I should call it a debate - more funding for infrastructure seemed to be popular and bipartisan, even if some parts of the actual bill were controversial.
- matheweis 4y ago> It implies that more taxes will be needed to pay for infrastructure The dollars that need to be diverted to infrastructure could be invested in education, social programs, parks, and so on. As I understand it, the “unsustainable” argument makes the case that the real costs of maintaining the infrastructure are going to become large enough that there will be no room left without raising taxes (to unsustainably high levels) or (also unsustainably) cut from other also necessary programs. Judging from the ongoing debate about raising the debt ceiling, one might even argue that we’re already there..