I really get tired of the meme to the effect that, "We did okay in the 1950s when our top marginal tax rate was 90%." That ignores a bunch of things.

One, the top marginal tax rate in most of Europe at that time was 95%, and they didn't allow nearly as many credits and deductions and exclusions as we did, so even at that rate we were basically a tax haven. Their rate isn't 95% any more. For most European countries the corporate rate stops around 20-30% (as low as 12.5% in Ireland), and the personal rate is maybe slightly higher, up to around 40% in some cases. Comparison with our rate in the 1950s is only meaningful for someone who is trying to decide whether to invest today or invest in 1950. I don't think there's anyone anywhere in that situation. Comparison with Germany, or Poland, or Ireland today is relevant to someone making that investment decision. And if we want that investment to come here, we can't go losing out in that comparison.

Two, as noted above, we had way more exclusions and deductions and tax credits back then than we do now. Effective tax rates back then were pretty much where they are now, because of the effects of those what some might call loopholes. If we went back to 90%, with the definitions of taxable income and tax that were in effect then, we would end up with about the same effective tax rate, but with many economic decisions being made in favor of doing things that are less useful for the economy but more efficient from a tax efficiency standpoint. I'm not of the opinion that is a good thing.

(07-30-2016 11:37 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 11:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Good Owl agrees with my analysis, but he comes from the right. I'd be interested in hearing from those who lean left, where do you see us?

Right now, I think things may look okay on the surface, but not far below are lurking any number of severe perils. And nobody on either side is talking about any of the real problems. I just don't know how long we can keep kidding ourselves. I guess one clock that is ticking is that social security runs out of money in about 20 years, and we are seriously deep doo doo then, if nothing else craters before. But again, nobody wants to address that issue, either.

I think we are living on smoke and mirrors and at some point that inevitably fails. And I don't see Trump or Hillary proposing anything that will turn things around. In fact, most of what I see from either of them will make it worse.

The people at the tops of the food chain have continued to see their income and wealth increase, because they have capitalized on the globalization (our widening gap between the top 1% and the rest of the country), but because middle class production has moved to developing countries, our middle class has stagnated (edit - and shrunk - - see Venezuela for an example of what happens to democracy without a large middle class - they had a majority middle class in 40 to 50 years ago, not now).

Frankly, I have begun to assume that the people at the top of our political institutions have recognized this for some time, and because, (while we can still capitalize on increases in efficiency and technological advancement where we still are a key player), there are only minor adjustments that government can make to slow the impacts, the last 25 years have been devoted (politically) to kicking the can down the road, and taking advantage of whatever distractions they can to divert attention from what may be an inexorable problem.

On that note - I see on Yahoo that the Powerball jackpot is approaching an all-time high. Should we pool our money?

Rick, I'll respond by quoting two other posters:

(07-18-2016 07:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 07:10 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The problem they all hide from is that that the welfare state and a multi-generational culture of public assistance ripped the family structure to shreds within the urban black community and Appalachian white communities. Single parent and grandparent households. Children viewed as sources of income. Lack of involved fathers in the household. Crime, drug dependency, suicide, teen pregnancy, incarceration, mental health disorders....all of the statistics are off the charts within the communities that are most affected and it can all be traced to the single parent culture that permeates and is now just accepted as fact. When the involved father figure is the federal government, Houston, we have a problem.

The war against poverty was really a war against the poor enslaving them to the federal check writers and the political masters who bought and paid for their votes generations ago.

Precisely.

It was more about securing votes from a dependent class than about doing anything to reduce or eliminate poverty.

There are really two groups of victims who have been duped: First, the poor themselves, and second, idealistic and well-meaning people who want to help the poor and have been convinced that our current system is the proper way to do so.

I agree with both of these. Family not government. Two parents, not one. That would be a very big start to making things vastly better and incomes more equal.

I hadn't realized that we are worse than Europe I have been fussing about us becoming less like America and more like Europe. Thanks for the insight and encouragement.

(07-30-2016 10:29 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trump 92
Johnson 87
Clinton 41
Stein 33

That's fascinating. Apparently, there's a way to answer those questions such that I'm an 80% match with Johnson and 4% match with Trump, while you're an 87% match with Johnson and 92% match with Trump.

(Well, it's fascinating assuming that we took the same quiz, and further assuming that quiz isn't horribly flawed or intentionally skewed.)

Presumably, in addition to having very different opinions on issues, we must also have very different rankings of which issues are important. Which I suppose is no surprise given prior discussion here on the Quad.

I was surprised at my results, too.

I took the quiz linked in post 430.

maybe another difference is how strongly we felt on a specific issue. I went to the max only once.

For example, I favor the idea of gay marriage, but don't think it is a major issue, so I gave it a middle emphasis. Same on my abortion rely, my drug legalization replies, and so forth.

A diversity of opinion is a good thing, isn't it, even if that diversity is contained within one person?

(07-30-2016 01:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A 20% consumption tax immediately makes us more competitive in both import and export markets--20% more competitive with imports, and close to 20% more competitive with exports. That shifts a lot of trade at the margins.

With the consumption tax in place, we can lower and flatten our income taxes--and broaden them by eliminating a lot of current deductions and exclusions and credits--and still balance our budget.

Agree with those measures. making the top 1% a bogeyman won't take of the problem.

Quote:We need to revise our health care. Right now we still have the same problem with health care that has hurt our competitiveness internationally for years--we tie health insurance to employment and add a large cost for employers that their foreign competitors typically do not have. Bismarck, funded by savings on Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare (see below) plus the consumption tax, would solve that problem.

sounds good to me.

Quote:Revamping our immigration policy to allow more highly skilled and talented foreign citizens to come here and work would improve our competitiveness. In that regard, all we need to do to solve the illegal immigration problem is a work permit program. That lets them stay here and work (what they really want) without all the problems that come with granting citizenship. A wall on the Mexican border, and excluding Muslims, are two incredibly stupid ideas that will only harm our economy.

yes. Once we have an outlet (guest worker program) in place for those who want to work, we need to have zero tolerance for those who circumvent the guest worker program or other legal avenues. I would require employers to withhold 20% minimum from the earnings of all aliens. yes, far more than most will owe, but they can get the excess back the same way we do - by filing a return. Thus we have made sure that taxes are paid and returns filed.

A separate provision would be made for illegals already here and their children. I would propose a 60 day amnesty to allow current residents to apply for whatever makes them legal - guest worker, green card, naturalization process, resident alien, whatever. if at the end of the amnesty they have not taken any action, then zero tolerance.

Trump 97%
Clinton 1%

While I'm thrilled with my Hillary number, I'm no Trump fan at all (at least I didn't think I was). Maybe I should vote for whoever this Castle dude is.

Anyone else watch the ABC interview with Trump? Saw what appeared to be a decent amount of it this morning.

The highlight to me had to be when, the self-described man who is "much more humble than you would understand," got caught in a bit of a conundrum when discussing how well he know Michae Bloomburg. He tried to say he wasn't familiar with him, but when Trump was reminded he had played golf with him, Trump said maybe he had, once, but he definitely hit the ball a lot longer and a lot better.

He is the gift that keeps on giving.

(07-30-2016 03:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 01:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A 20% consumption tax immediately makes us more competitive in both import and export markets--20% more competitive with imports, and close to 20% more competitive with exports. That shifts a lot of trade at the margins.
With the consumption tax in place, we can lower and flatten our income taxes--and broaden them by eliminating a lot of current deductions and exclusions and credits--and still balance our budget.

Agree with those measures. making the top 1% a bogeyman won't take of the problem.

Quote:We need to revise our health care. Right now we still have the same problem with health care that has hurt our competitiveness internationally for years--we tie health insurance to employment and add a large cost for employers that their foreign competitors typically do not have. Bismarck, funded by savings on Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare (see below) plus the consumption tax, would solve that problem.

sounds good to me.

Quote:Revamping our immigration policy to allow more highly skilled and talented foreign citizens to come here and work would improve our competitiveness. In that regard, all we need to do to solve the illegal immigration problem is a work permit program. That lets them stay here and work (what they really want) without all the problems that come with granting citizenship. A wall on the Mexican border, and excluding Muslims, are two incredibly stupid ideas that will only harm our economy.

yes. Once we have an outlet (guest worker program) in place for those who want to work, we need to have zero tolerance for those who circumvent the guest worker program or other legal avenues. I would require employers to withhold 20% minimum from the earnings of all aliens. yes, far more than most will owe, but they can get the excess back the same way we do - by filing a return. Thus we have made sure that taxes are paid and returns filed.
A separate provision would be made for illegals already here and their children. I would propose a 60 day amnesty to allow current residents to apply for whatever makes them legal - guest worker, green card, naturalization process, resident alien, whatever. if at the end of the amnesty they have not taken any action, then zero tolerance.

And I'd go along with those. We've got to quit agreeing so much.

(07-30-2016 11:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Good Owl agrees with my analysis, but he comes from the right. I'd be interested in hearing from those who lean left, where do you see us?

Right now, I think things may look okay on the surface, but not far below are lurking any number of severe perils. And nobody on either side is talking about any of the real problems. I just don't know how long we can keep kidding ourselves. I guess one clock that is ticking is that social security runs out of money in about 20 years, and we are seriously deep doo doo then, if nothing else craters before. But again, nobody wants to address that issue, either.

I think we are living on smoke and mirrors and at some point that inevitably fails. And I don't see Trump or Hillary proposing anything that will turn things around. In fact, most of what I see from either of them will make it worse.

From the center left - mostly agree with your analysis and proposals, tho' I'd probably want to spend more on infrastructure and education than you'd find comfortable.

Can only hope that the rolling Trump fiasco has created a sense of urgency/impending doom? in Congress (both parties), Wall Street, etc. which will inspire meaningful action.

Looking forward to Optimistic Owl and 69/70/75's announcement re founding of a new political party.

(07-30-2016 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A diversity of opinion is a good thing, isn't it, even if that diversity is contained within one person?

That's what the voices in my head tell me. Most of them, anyway.

(07-31-2016 08:54 PM)ausowl Wrote:  From the center left - mostly agree with your analysis and proposals, tho' I'd probably want to spend more on infrastructure and education than you'd find comfortable.

Rather than spend more on either one of them, I'd first want to rethink our approach in both areas. We're obviously approaching them the wrong way now, based on spending versus results.

In the infrastructure area, I'd favor privatizing and paying with user fees for a lot of stuff that government now funds with tax dollars. That would get us to focusing on things that produce a distinct benefit, rather than building a bridge in Congressman Jones's district, and naming it for him/her, in order to get his/her vote on my agriculture or immigration bill.

For education, we've spent through the roof over the last three decades or so, and results have basically flat lined. We need to cut the enormous and out of control administrative costs, and put the money back into the classroom. Our schools need to stop being laboratories for social experimentation and get back into the business of educating. I would favor a tracking system, but for it to work we need massive upgrades to our vocational education system. That's where the best systems really kick our butts--they do a much better job of vocational education. We need more work-study programs, more cooperative programs, more mentor opportunities. We don't need free university for everyone because not everyone needs to go to university. In those European countries that provide free tuition, it's only a small sliver of the population that attends university. We don't need to be producing large numbers of sociology or gender studies or women's studies majors.

(07-31-2016 09:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A diversity of opinion is a good thing, isn't it, even if that diversity is contained within one person?

That's what the voices in my head tell me. Most of them, anyway.

I hate it when they quarrel. Drowns out the music from the elves.

(08-01-2016 12:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:54 PM)ausowl Wrote:  From the center left - mostly agree with your analysis and proposals, tho' I'd probably want to spend more on infrastructure and education than you'd find comfortable.

Rather than spend more on either one of them, I'd first want to rethink our approach in both areas. We're obviously approaching them the wrong way now, based on spending versus results.

In the infrastructure area, I'd favor privatizing and paying with user fees for a lot of stuff that government now funds with tax dollars. That would get us to focusing on things that produce a distinct benefit, rather than building a bridge in Congressman Jones's district, and naming it for him/her, in order to get his/her vote on my agriculture or immigration bill.

For education, we've spent through the roof over the last three decades or so, and results have basically flat lined. We need to cut the enormous and out of control administrative costs, and put the money back into the classroom. Our schools need to stop being laboratories for social experimentation and get back into the business of educating. I would favor a tracking system, but for it to work we need massive upgrades to our vocational education system. That's where the best systems really kick our butts--they do a much better job of vocational education. We need more work-study programs, more cooperative programs, more mentor opportunities. We don't need free university for everyone because not everyone needs to go to university. In those European countries that provide free tuition, it's only a small sliver of the population that attends university. We don't need to be producing sociology or gender studies or women's studies majors.

I have noticed the best maintained roads in my area are the toll roads.

Agree on the vocational programs.

(08-01-2016 12:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 12:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:54 PM)ausowl Wrote:  From the center left - mostly agree with your analysis and proposals, tho' I'd probably want to spend more on infrastructure and education than you'd find comfortable.

Rather than spend more on either one of them, I'd first want to rethink our approach in both areas. We're obviously approaching them the wrong way now, based on spending versus results.

In the infrastructure area, I'd favor privatizing and paying with user fees for a lot of stuff that government now funds with tax dollars. That would get us to focusing on things that produce a distinct benefit, rather than building a bridge in Congressman Jones's district, and naming it for him/her, in order to get his/her vote on my agriculture or immigration bill.

For education, we've spent through the roof over the last three decades or so, and results have basically flat lined. We need to cut the enormous and out of control administrative costs, and put the money back into the classroom. Our schools need to stop being laboratories for social experimentation and get back into the business of educating. I would favor a tracking system, but for it to work we need massive upgrades to our vocational education system. That's where the best systems really kick our butts--they do a much better job of vocational education. We need more work-study programs, more cooperative programs, more mentor opportunities. We don't need free university for everyone because not everyone needs to go to university. In those European countries that provide free tuition, it's only a small sliver of the population that attends university. We don't need to be producing sociology or gender studies or women's studies majors.

I have noticed the best maintained roads in my area are the toll roads.

Agree on the vocational programs.

Tollways are good exceptions from the norm and should stay that way. By creating more toll roads you will do thee undesirable things: (i) force more people onto non-tollways thus increasing traffic and causing the wear and tear to increase, meaning that the government would be forced to do more repairs, more frequently; (ii) you inherently start to restrict the free movement of goods and services as those with less disposable income are forced to take the slower, more crowded routes to avoid tollways; and (iii) you'll likely increase the cost of shipping since privatized roads try to make a profit and thus charge fees to do so. I understand the benefits to privatizing a number of federal responsibilities, but transportation is one that I think is best kept public. After all, I'd argue that our interstate highway program started by Eisenhower is one of the reasons we are a thriving nation today.

Instead of privatizing roadways why not just look into what inefficiencies our current federal and state transportation agencies have and try and fix those? Any idea what isn't working? Hard to find solutions to problems that aren't well known.

(08-01-2016 07:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tollways are good exceptions from the norm and should stay that way. By creating more toll roads you will do thee undesirable things: (i) force more people onto non-tollways thus increasing traffic and causing the wear and tear to increase, meaning that the government would be forced to do more repairs, more frequently; (ii) you inherently start to restrict the free movement of goods and services as those with less disposable income are forced to take the slower, more crowded routes to avoid tollways; and (iii) you'll likely increase the cost of shipping since privatized roads try to make a profit and thus charge fees to do so. I understand the benefits to privatizing a number of federal responsibilities, but transportation is one that I think is best kept public. After all, I'd argue that our interstate highway program started by Eisenhower is one of the reasons we are a thriving nation today.

Your analysis ignores one thing. The "free" roads aren't free. They're paid for with tax dollars. The question is whether those facilities should be paid for by those who use them, or by those who don't. All of your arguments must be framed in that context. The truly poor aren't using toll roads or "free" roads because they don't have cars. Should they be subsidizing the people who do? The Interstate highway system is a great accomplishment. Europe has basically duplicated it with toll roads, also a great accomplishment.

Quote:Instead of privatizing roadways why not just look into what inefficiencies our current federal and state transportation agencies have and try and fix those? Any idea what isn't working? Hard to find solutions to problems that aren't well known.

Those inefficiencies primarily result from one factor--the source of funding (tax dollars) is divorced from use of the facilities. If the two are linked, then the incentive is to serve the greatest need, because that's where the dollars are.

(08-01-2016 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 07:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tollways are good exceptions from the norm and should stay that way. By creating more toll roads you will do thee undesirable things: (i) force more people onto non-tollways thus increasing traffic and causing the wear and tear to increase, meaning that the government would be forced to do more repairs, more frequently; (ii) you inherently start to restrict the free movement of goods and services as those with less disposable income are forced to take the slower, more crowded routes to avoid tollways; and (iii) you'll likely increase the cost of shipping since privatized roads try to make a profit and thus charge fees to do so. I understand the benefits to privatizing a number of federal responsibilities, but transportation is one that I think is best kept public. After all, I'd argue that our interstate highway program started by Eisenhower is one of the reasons we are a thriving nation today.

Your analysis ignores one thing. The "free" roads aren't free. They're paid for with tax dollars. The question is whether those facilities should be paid for by those who use them, or by those who don't. All of your arguments must be framed in that context. The truly poor aren't using toll roads or "free" roads because they don't have cars. Should they be subsidizing the people who do? The Interstate highway system is a great accomplishment. Europe has basically duplicated it with toll roads, also a great accomplishment.

Quote:Instead of privatizing roadways why not just look into what inefficiencies our current federal and state transportation agencies have and try and fix those? Any idea what isn't working? Hard to find solutions to problems that aren't well known.

Those inefficiencies primarily result from one factor--the source of funding (tax dollars) is divorced from use of the facilities. If the two are linked, then the incentive is to serve the greatest need, because that's where the dollars are.

It isn't ignoring that non-tollways are not truly free, it just didn't get into it. The thing is, while public roads aren't free, they are not pay-to-use, which makes a big difference. And while you're right that the truly poor do not have cars, they likely don't have jobs either (I know there are some exceptions). The thing is, there are plenty of working poor or just below the middle class people who have cars but who could likely not afford the increase in costs from tollways to get to and from their jobs. If we assume that there is some savings in privatizing infrastructure, it would have to offset the increased costs of privatization. I doubt that the reduction in taxes from privatizing infrastructure spending would offset, what $750 of someone's tax burden that is making $30k per year? That would be a total tax decrease of 2.5% of their annual income, yet transportation spending, on the whole, makes up less than 2.5% of our total federal spending in 2015 (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budge...pending/). That's also assuming that they would spend $3 in tolls each day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. Because more, and more, the working poor in urban areas are being priced out of the area they work (e.g. in Houston, the Inner Loop) they become more reliant on their own cars or public transportation. If they rely on public transportation, their commute increases to help decrease their costs, but, should we as a society avoid making that a a necessary decision?

Also, the thing you may be accidentally ignoring is that infrastructure is more than just highways. It is water treatment facilities, dams, bridges, and so much more. As a society, where do we want to fall in regards to providing these public goods and services? Do we want every person to pay "their fair share" as so many politicians put it, of do we need to ask those who are thriving to assist those who are not because a society functions best when their is less need for basic goods?

And with regard to inefficiencies, are you sure that is where it lies? That sounds good on paper and theory, but in reality, is that really the case?

(08-01-2016 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It isn't ignoring that non-tollways are not truly free, it just didn't get into it. The thing is, while public roads aren't free, they are not pay-to-use, which makes a big difference. And while you're right that the truly poor do not have cars, they likely don't have jobs either (I know there are some exceptions). The thing is, there are plenty of working poor or just below the middle class people who have cars but who could likely not afford the increase in costs from tollways to get to and from their jobs. If we assume that there is some savings in privatizing infrastructure, it would have to offset the increased costs of privatization. I doubt that the reduction in taxes from privatizing infrastructure spending would offset, what $750 of someone's tax burden that is making $30k per year? That would be a total tax decrease of 2.5% of their annual income, yet transportation spending, on the whole, makes up less than 2.5% of our total federal spending in 2015 (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budge...pending/). That's also assuming that they would spend $3 in tolls each day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. Because more, and more, the working poor in urban areas are being priced out of the area they work (e.g. in Houston, the Inner Loop) they become more reliant on their own cars or public transportation. If they rely on public transportation, their commute increases to help decrease their costs, but, should we as a society avoid making that a a necessary decision?
Also, the thing you may be accidentally ignoring is that infrastructure is more than just highways. It is water treatment facilities, dams, bridges, and so much more. As a society, where do we want to fall in regards to providing these public goods and services? Do we want every person to pay "their fair share" as so many politicians put it, of do we need to ask those who are thriving to assist those who are not because a society functions best when their is less need for basic goods?
And with regard to inefficiencies, are you sure that is where it lies? That sounds good on paper and theory, but in reality, is that really the case?

First, I'm not ignoring--accidentally, intentionally, or otherwise--anything, least of all that infrastructure consists of much more then highways. I made a large part of my living in that area for 30+ years, so I'm well aware. I'm also well aware that much of that other infrastructure is funded on a user fee basis, generally costing far more per person than the toll fees you reference.

I find it interesting that those who lean left, as you appear to do, love to toss around the "pay their fair share" line to insist that the "rich" should pay more for everything, particularly taxes, but want to drop it like a hot potato whenever not turns out that they may already be paying more than their fair share. If you compare us to Europe, the "rich" and corporations are paying far more here than there. Europe's tax structures are less "progressive." They all have "regressive" consumption taxes. They pay for a lot of things with user fees, in particular toll roads, that are paid by taxes here. And they end up with more equitable dispersions of income and wealth. By the way, as to the argument that the reason the "rich" pay more here is because they have more unequal incomes, when you adjust for that, the amount by which their percentage of the tax burden exceeds their percentage of income is still greater here than in Europe.

What Europe does have is a welfare after net based on putting a floor under everybody rather than such a heavy emphasis redistribution. That's where I would go. Put a floor under everybody and then make all people pay their "fair share" above that.

As for whether I'm certain that's where the inefficiencies lie, for a large portion, absolutely so. I've worked with just about every government bureaucracy, from military to Medicare to FDIC to EPA to PUC to Railroad Commission to FERC to OSHA to you name it, and that's exactly what I saw over and over. Whenever funding is dissociated from use, inefficiencies spring up all over the place. The profit motive is the greatest tool for driving efficiency ever known to mankind.

(08-01-2016 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 07:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tollways are good exceptions from the norm and should stay that way. By creating more toll roads you will do thee undesirable things: (i) force more people onto non-tollways thus increasing traffic and causing the wear and tear to increase, meaning that the government would be forced to do more repairs, more frequently; (ii) you inherently start to restrict the free movement of goods and services as those with less disposable income are forced to take the slower, more crowded routes to avoid tollways; and (iii) you'll likely increase the cost of shipping since privatized roads try to make a profit and thus charge fees to do so. I understand the benefits to privatizing a number of federal responsibilities, but transportation is one that I think is best kept public. After all, I'd argue that our interstate highway program started by Eisenhower is one of the reasons we are a thriving nation today.

Your analysis ignores one thing. The "free" roads aren't free. They're paid for with tax dollars. The question is whether those facilities should be paid for by those who use them, or by those who don't. All of your arguments must be framed in that context. The truly poor aren't using toll roads or "free" roads because they don't have cars. Should they be subsidizing the people who do? The Interstate highway system is a great accomplishment. Europe has basically duplicated it with toll roads, also a great accomplishment.

Quote:Instead of privatizing roadways why not just look into what inefficiencies our current federal and state transportation agencies have and try and fix those? Any idea what isn't working? Hard to find solutions to problems that aren't well known.

Those inefficiencies primarily result from one factor--the source of funding (tax dollars) is divorced from use of the facilities. If the two are linked, then the incentive is to serve the greatest need, because that's where the dollars are.

It isn't ignoring that non-tollways are not truly free, it just didn't get into it. The thing is, while public roads aren't free, they are not pay-to-use, which makes a big difference. And while you're right that the truly poor do not have cars, they likely don't have jobs either (I know there are some exceptions). The thing is, there are plenty of working poor or just below the middle class people who have cars but who could likely not afford the increase in costs from tollways to get to and from their jobs. If we assume that there is some savings in privatizing infrastructure, it would have to offset the increased costs of privatization. I doubt that the reduction in taxes from privatizing infrastructure spending would offset, what $750 of someone's tax burden that is making $30k per year? That would be a total tax decrease of 2.5% of their annual income, yet transportation spending, on the whole, makes up less than 2.5% of our total federal spending in 2015 (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budge...pending/). That's also assuming that they would spend $3 in tolls each day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. Because more, and more, the working poor in urban areas are being priced out of the area they work (e.g. in Houston, the Inner Loop) they become more reliant on their own cars or public transportation. If they rely on public transportation, their commute increases to help decrease their costs, but, should we as a society avoid making that a a necessary decision?

Also, the thing you may be accidentally ignoring is that infrastructure is more than just highways. It is water treatment facilities, dams, bridges, and so much more. As a society, where do we want to fall in regards to providing these public goods and services? Do we want every person to pay "their fair share" as so many politicians put it, of do we need to ask those who are thriving to assist those who are not because a society functions best when their is less need for basic goods?

And with regard to inefficiencies, are you sure that is where it lies? That sounds good on paper and theory, but in reality, is that really the case?

You are assuming, quite incorrectly I would say, that the poor and working poor's only job scenarios are traditional 9-5 jobs and that is where the argument falls apart. Poor and working poor are much more likely to heavily depend upon roads and highways with a 10 or 20 year old vehicle, and are much more likely to be doing things like: landscaping, junk removal, painting, handyman, tree removal, etc... Many of them easily drive several hundred miles every day just within their local areas. These segments of the workforce depend heavily upon the major road and highways not all being pay per use. Their margins would be unlikely to support having to pass the additional transportation costs onto their individual customers. They generally need equipment trucks and vehicles to perform their services, so public transit would not be an option for them. The cost of taking a large number of these people either out of the workforce or reducing their possible individual market opportunities with pay per use tolls and fees would be counter-productive and increase the strain on the unsustainable social welfare system, so I'd rather keep things possible for them to work independently rather than pay for many of them to be on the dole.

(08-01-2016 07:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 12:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 12:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:54 PM)ausowl Wrote:  From the center left - mostly agree with your analysis and proposals, tho' I'd probably want to spend more on infrastructure and education than you'd find comfortable.

Rather than spend more on either one of them, I'd first want to rethink our approach in both areas. We're obviously approaching them the wrong way now, based on spending versus results.

In the infrastructure area, I'd favor privatizing and paying with user fees for a lot of stuff that government now funds with tax dollars. That would get us to focusing on things that produce a distinct benefit, rather than building a bridge in Congressman Jones's district, and naming it for him/her, in order to get his/her vote on my agriculture or immigration bill.

For education, we've spent through the roof over the last three decades or so, and results have basically flat lined. We need to cut the enormous and out of control administrative costs, and put the money back into the classroom. Our schools need to stop being laboratories for social experimentation and get back into the business of educating. I would favor a tracking system, but for it to work we need massive upgrades to our vocational education system. That's where the best systems really kick our butts--they do a much better job of vocational education. We need more work-study programs, more cooperative programs, more mentor opportunities. We don't need free university for everyone because not everyone needs to go to university. In those European countries that provide free tuition, it's only a small sliver of the population that attends university. We don't need to be producing sociology or gender studies or women's studies majors.

I have noticed the best maintained roads in my area are the toll roads.

Agree on the vocational programs.

Tollways are good exceptions from the norm and should stay that way. By creating more toll roads you will do thee undesirable things: (i) force more people onto non-tollways thus increasing traffic and causing the wear and tear to increase, meaning that the government would be forced to do more repairs, more frequently; (ii) you inherently start to restrict the free movement of goods and services as those with less disposable income are forced to take the slower, more crowded routes to avoid tollways; and (iii) you'll likely increase the cost of shipping since privatized roads try to make a profit and thus charge fees to do so. I understand the benefits to privatizing a number of federal responsibilities, but transportation is one that I think is best kept public. After all, I'd argue that our interstate highway program started by Eisenhower is one of the reasons we are a thriving nation today.

Instead of privatizing roadways why not just look into what inefficiencies our current federal and state transportation agencies have and try and fix those? Any idea what isn't working? Hard to find solutions to problems that aren't well known.

I think eventually all freeways and other major road will be tollways. Seems to be the wave of the future. I doubt very many will be forced onto side streets, as we all seem to put a premium on time. I think the tollways will get more crowded, and the nontollways less crowded as people try to find a balance.

What isn't working is that the current federal and state transportation agencies have the inherent inefficiencies of government entities over private enterprise. They don't care what the customer wants and thinks - they don't have customers.

(08-01-2016 11:28 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 07:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tollways are good exceptions from the norm and should stay that way. By creating more toll roads you will do thee undesirable things: (i) force more people onto non-tollways thus increasing traffic and causing the wear and tear to increase, meaning that the government would be forced to do more repairs, more frequently; (ii) you inherently start to restrict the free movement of goods and services as those with less disposable income are forced to take the slower, more crowded routes to avoid tollways; and (iii) you'll likely increase the cost of shipping since privatized roads try to make a profit and thus charge fees to do so. I understand the benefits to privatizing a number of federal responsibilities, but transportation is one that I think is best kept public. After all, I'd argue that our interstate highway program started by Eisenhower is one of the reasons we are a thriving nation today.

Your analysis ignores one thing. The "free" roads aren't free. They're paid for with tax dollars. The question is whether those facilities should be paid for by those who use them, or by those who don't. All of your arguments must be framed in that context. The truly poor aren't using toll roads or "free" roads because they don't have cars. Should they be subsidizing the people who do? The Interstate highway system is a great accomplishment. Europe has basically duplicated it with toll roads, also a great accomplishment.

Quote:Instead of privatizing roadways why not just look into what inefficiencies our current federal and state transportation agencies have and try and fix those? Any idea what isn't working? Hard to find solutions to problems that aren't well known.

Those inefficiencies primarily result from one factor--the source of funding (tax dollars) is divorced from use of the facilities. If the two are linked, then the incentive is to serve the greatest need, because that's where the dollars are.

It isn't ignoring that non-tollways are not truly free, it just didn't get into it. The thing is, while public roads aren't free, they are not pay-to-use, which makes a big difference. And while you're right that the truly poor do not have cars, they likely don't have jobs either (I know there are some exceptions). The thing is, there are plenty of working poor or just below the middle class people who have cars but who could likely not afford the increase in costs from tollways to get to and from their jobs. If we assume that there is some savings in privatizing infrastructure, it would have to offset the increased costs of privatization. I doubt that the reduction in taxes from privatizing infrastructure spending would offset, what $750 of someone's tax burden that is making $30k per year? That would be a total tax decrease of 2.5% of their annual income, yet transportation spending, on the whole, makes up less than 2.5% of our total federal spending in 2015 (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budge...pending/). That's also assuming that they would spend $3 in tolls each day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. Because more, and more, the working poor in urban areas are being priced out of the area they work (e.g. in Houston, the Inner Loop) they become more reliant on their own cars or public transportation. If they rely on public transportation, their commute increases to help decrease their costs, but, should we as a society avoid making that a a necessary decision?

Also, the thing you may be accidentally ignoring is that infrastructure is more than just highways. It is water treatment facilities, dams, bridges, and so much more. As a society, where do we want to fall in regards to providing these public goods and services? Do we want every person to pay "their fair share" as so many politicians put it, of do we need to ask those who are thriving to assist those who are not because a society functions best when their is less need for basic goods?

And with regard to inefficiencies, are you sure that is where it lies? That sounds good on paper and theory, but in reality, is that really the case?

You are assuming, quite incorrectly I would say, that the poor and working poor's only job scenarios are traditional 9-5 jobs and that is where the argument falls apart. Poor and working poor are much more likely to heavily depend upon roads and highways with a 10 or 20 year old vehicle, and are much more likely to be doing things like: landscaping, junk removal, painting, handyman, tree removal, etc... These segments of the workforce depend heavily upon the roads not all being pay per use. Their margins would be unlikely to support having to pass the additional transportation costs onto their individual customers. They generally need equipment trucks and vehicles to perform their services, so public transit would not be an option for them. The cost of taking a large number of these people either out of the workforce or reducing their possible individual market opportunities with pay per use tolls and fees would be counter-productive and increase the strain on the unsustainable social welfare system, so I'd rather keep things possible for them to work independently rather than pay for many of them to be on the dole.

Time is money. Let's take the guy who mows my yard, since I am waiting for him as I type. If he has to take an extra 15 minutes between jobs to avoid a toll, then over the course of a day he may waste 120 minutes. if he has a full schedule of customers, that may mean three jobs he can't get to today, and he will lose the income from those three jobs and maybe the repeat business. Over what, $20 of tolls? He is businessman, I think he can do the math, and the tolls are just another cost of doing business.


In any case, the toll roads in my area are better maintained than the nontoll roads, which was my original statement.