2
2
0
An overview of America's "infrastructure problems".
You may well not agree with it, but you can't deny that there is (at least) a SLIGHT issue that needs to be dealt with in an organized, coherent, and long-term basis.
Is one of the problems what I like to call "The 40% People" (people who think that 40% of the budget should go to defense, 40% to education, 40% to health care, 40% to infrastructure, 40% to technology research, and 40% to everything else [with the order depending on which question you ask them at any given moment]?
You may well not agree with it, but you can't deny that there is (at least) a SLIGHT issue that needs to be dealt with in an organized, coherent, and long-term basis.
Is one of the problems what I like to call "The 40% People" (people who think that 40% of the budget should go to defense, 40% to education, 40% to health care, 40% to infrastructure, 40% to technology research, and 40% to everything else [with the order depending on which question you ask them at any given moment]?
A Country Breaking Down
Posted from nybooks.com
Politics
Election 2016
Economy
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
1
1
0
Correct me if I am wrong. But isn't that tax on gas suppose to be for infrastructure? I know the states tend to rob that fund for other things but that's not our fault. We pay the tax on gas to keep our roads and bridges in good working order and State Politicians steal it for there pet projects...Too Bad. Use it for what its there for and stop using it for other BS
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Yup, those politicians who are at fault for doing just that should be fired, as in voted out and someone else voted in. Until the threat of being fired resounds deep in the hearts of the politicians running for a position that they will feel the fear that the people will drag his/her name through the dirt til they couldn't run for cashier of the month at the supermarket.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The nation's infrastructure is such a comprehensive term but the heart of infrastructure is the connectivity of the nation itself. The roads, networks, ports, et al of the infrastructure mean the bonds that unite the country together. I believe it is emblematic of the state of the nation that the very binding materials that bring the nation together are disintegrating.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
A side note, how much of this should be a Federal Government or the State Government's responsibility? With the emphasis, of enforceability. Is it easier to hold the state's infrastructure accountable for its actions (or inactions) than it is the federal government.
I base my question on the theory that people/business vote with their feet. When states are competing for population and business and commerce then they will get more in taxes by incentivizing business and citizens to move to that state. Its more of a long term strategy then an immediate one. Loosely based on the economics that business will move their production or procurement to a different country because of lower cost of business, this is an example of voting with your feet.
When a state has to battle against another state for increase business or traffic, the state will invest in the infrastructure, and policies to bring them aboard. New York City has been advertising on TV that if you bring your business to them, and set it up in a certain area (an area that needs positive activity) they will cut you a tax break for 10 years, plus some other perks too. As surprised I am to find that New York City is what sticks in my memory of incentivizing business and commerce, in my opinion it is an example of good economics of commerce.
New York City is betting that if they spend some tax dollars on an area that needs improved and revitalized, make the streets, utilities, buildings, and policies better that enough business will move to, or start up at those locations that they will eventually make enough in increased commerce that it will pay off.
Maybe, just maybe if the cities and states took a hard look at trying to attract business to their cities, they would invest in the infrastructure themselves.
I base my question on the theory that people/business vote with their feet. When states are competing for population and business and commerce then they will get more in taxes by incentivizing business and citizens to move to that state. Its more of a long term strategy then an immediate one. Loosely based on the economics that business will move their production or procurement to a different country because of lower cost of business, this is an example of voting with your feet.
When a state has to battle against another state for increase business or traffic, the state will invest in the infrastructure, and policies to bring them aboard. New York City has been advertising on TV that if you bring your business to them, and set it up in a certain area (an area that needs positive activity) they will cut you a tax break for 10 years, plus some other perks too. As surprised I am to find that New York City is what sticks in my memory of incentivizing business and commerce, in my opinion it is an example of good economics of commerce.
New York City is betting that if they spend some tax dollars on an area that needs improved and revitalized, make the streets, utilities, buildings, and policies better that enough business will move to, or start up at those locations that they will eventually make enough in increased commerce that it will pay off.
Maybe, just maybe if the cities and states took a hard look at trying to attract business to their cities, they would invest in the infrastructure themselves.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC (Join to see) - Staff; Improving infrastructure costs actual dollars. "Tax breaks" simply means not collecting actual dollars (and can be recouped by spreading the breaks out over the general populace in any event).
Areas are more prone to "attract investment" by promising to charge less than they are to do it by actually spending the money that they have actually collected on the off chance that "investment" might possibly come to them.
In short, "attracting investment" by providing "tax breaks" means putting a heavier load on already overloaded infrastructure and getting future generations to pay for it while "attracting investment" by "improving infrastructure" means getting future generations to pay for it without any guarantee that there will actually be any investment.
Areas are more prone to "attract investment" by promising to charge less than they are to do it by actually spending the money that they have actually collected on the off chance that "investment" might possibly come to them.
In short, "attracting investment" by providing "tax breaks" means putting a heavier load on already overloaded infrastructure and getting future generations to pay for it while "attracting investment" by "improving infrastructure" means getting future generations to pay for it without any guarantee that there will actually be any investment.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Yes, well spoken, a risk, a gamble and pushing off costs of something onto others or to a later date. With governments at all levels running deficits it is a risk analysis (guess) whether or not the investment in infrastructure to lure business will be worth it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google