51% Don't Pay Taxes

[InternetTough 1,386]

Great Idea...the chineese built our first set of tracks here....so a repeat is in order...plus if we feed them and pay them 2 bucks aday,well the profits would be outstanding!

 

Yes, radical me, thinking that infrastructure spending is anything but waste.

[Headshot 28,013]

Great Idea...the chineese built our first set of tracks here....so a repeat is in order...plus if we feed them and pay them 2 bucks aday,well the profits would be outstanding!

Actually, the Chinese laborers only built the section from Promontory Point, Utah to the west coast. Irish laborers built the tracks from Promontory Point, Utah to the Missouri River. The railroads were able to make a profit because they were given twenty square miles of land in a checkerboard pattern (to sell) for each mile of track they laid. The railroaders brought in the settlers who bought the land and for the most part, their descendants live there to this day. The settling of places like Nebraska, Wyoming and Nevada likely would not have happened in the 1800's if the trans-continental railroad had not been built. The wages the railroads paid to laborers were actually high for the time.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Headshot

[fanboat 450]

Yes, radical me, thinking that infrastructure spending is anything but waste.

 

 

Sorry got confused what threat this was....pros & cons...import export

infrastructure spending would really help the union guys and all...but a shit load of taxes would have to pay for it.

 

So maybe we need to hold out awhile and develope permanent jobs?

[fanboat 450]

Actually, the Chinese laborers only built the section from Promontory Point, Utah to the west coast. Irish laborers built the tracks from Promontory Point, Utah to the Missouri River. The railroads were able to make a profit because they were given twenty square miles of land in a checkerboard pattern (to sell) for each mile of track they laid. The railroaders brought in the settlers who bought the land and for the most part, their descendants live there to this day. The settling of places like Nebraska, Wyoming and Nevada likely would not have happened in the 1800's if the trans-continental railroad had not been built.

 

 

I guess the chinese did ok when they got to san fransico...and settle what they could....I wonder if they sold the picks and shovels to the irishmen?

[Headshot 28,013]

There are huge differences between Europe and Japan and the United States. In Europe and Japan, the rail lines are nationalized. That is something that the US has never been willing to do in the past, but who knows about the future. The country becomes more socialized all the time, and someday the government may run everything. Let's hope not.

 

For right now though, railroads in the US have to pay for themselves (as in show a profit for stockholders), or else they go out of business. There are abandoned rail lines all over the country that attest to the fact that many railroads could not run profitably (and that was with them running mostly freight, which is much more profitable than passengers). There are those who think the US should have rail lines like those found in other parts of the world. I disagree. If passenger rail was the answer, then it would be profitable. Amtrak has NEVER run a profit in its history. What makes anybody think that new long-distance high-speed rail lines on new tracks would be any more successful? Think about the capital expenses involved before you would even collect your first fare.

 

If passenger rail lines can't compete on an open market with other forms of transportation (such as buses and airlines) then they should go away (as in Amtrak). The federal government should NOT throw taxpayer dollars down a rat hole where private railroads were not able to turn a profit. When was the last time you heard of any government agency that could operate as efficiently as a private company? Never. And...if private companies can't break even, you know that taxpayers will just be left with a mess if the government tries to operate a greatly expanded system of long-distance passenger rail lines.

 

It is bad enough that less than half of us are paying federal income taxes in the US. Until that changes, there is absolutely NO reason for the government to find new ways to lose the money we have contributed. Maybe if they figure out how to get the other half of the citizens in the US to pay their share, then there will be money for high-speed passenger rail someday. For now, though, the federal government needs to pay off the debt they have racked up by pretending that everyone in the country is already paying taxes. Wake up America!

Edited June 29, 2011 by Headshot

[InternetTough 1,386]

Sorry got confused what threat this was....pros & cons...import export

infrastructure spending would really help the union guys and all...but a shit load of taxes would have to pay for it.

 

So maybe we need to hold out awhile and develope permanent jobs?

 

If present trends continue, American companies will move abroad for the modern infrastructure that other countries (like China and India) are building for themselves. Don't laugh! Things change.The USA needs to spend trillions on its infrastructure. Waiting until things break to spend money on them is not exactly a bold plan of development.

 

Countries with serious plans for manufacturing and exporting are serious about their infrastructure.

 

The USA is presently like the manager of a McDonalds I worked at a while ago. He wanted to be promoted to district manager. Part of his brilliant strategy to get the promotion was to increase profits by NOT spending anything on maintaining the store. A leak developed in the roof. His solution? Calling the expensive plumber to get the job done right? NO! He put a bucket under the leak. Very cheap! The money saved was faithfully recorded as profit on the books. Yay! Another leak developed. No problem! He had a system now. One more bucket. And again. And again. And finally, the roof collapsed under the weight of water right above all the computerized cash registers, rendering them inoperative and setting off the fire alarm. The store was flooded and had to be closed. The fire alarm kept on going off at random times, which the fire department had to, by law, respond to. They got quite angry at the manager.

 

Eventually, the store was cleaned up and fixed up---at much greater expense than would have been necessary if the manager had only paid for routine maintenance.

 

What happened to the manager? Did he get fired? No---he got his promotion because he wanted the job so badly! (Here, the allegory limps.)

 

The next manager was a company veteran towards the end of his career. He spent all the catch-up money he had to on maintenance, blowing the profit (on paper).

 

 

 

 

PS : I guess this doesn't have a lot to do with taxes! Sorry! Let's see---healthy businesses pay more in taxes and a condition for their health is sufficient support infrastructure.

Edited July 2, 2011 by InternetTough

[Cipro 6,202]

If present trends continue, American companies will move abroad for the modern infrastructure that other countries (like China and India) are building ....

 

Countries with serious plans for manufacturing and exporting are serious about their infrastructure.

Have a look at their social programs and see if you really want to split the budget up the way they do.

 

Also, did you know the US still manufactures an assload of goods?

 

And there's more. China and India tax their citizens about 17% (of GDP) whereas places like USA .... about 27%. You wanna be a powerhouse like China, really? Where are you gonna cut?

Edited July 2, 2011 by locktite

[InternetTough 1,386]

Have a look at their social programs and see if you really want to split the budget up the way they do.

 

Also, did you know the US still manufactures an assload of goods?

 

And there's more. China and India tax their citizens about 17% (of GDP) whereas places like USA .... about 27%. You wanna be a powerhouse like China, really? Where are you gonna cut?

 

I mostly just want to push the point that infrastructure has been neglected in the USA and that it should get to maintaining and improving it if it wants to develop its economy. Infrastructure spending is government spending that is not so much pro-business as a necessary condition for business. Abraham Lincoln spent the beginning of his political career fighting for more canals.

 

I don't doubt that the USA still manufactures a lot.

 

How infrastructure maintenance/improvements could be paid for is another question from their necessity. There are probably several answers. I could give you a list of my wonderful ideas for economic reorganization of the USA to raise more revenue, except that I am not terribly sure of them! I am most sure that too much of the physical USA is falling apart. I wouldn't stake everything on the USA's trying to save its way out of its present problems. Some decision-making has to be done, and investing in the long term good of the country.

Edited July 2, 2011 by InternetTough