Higher gas tax to support infastructure: pollage (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

After the military, "infrastructure" is probably the government's second most important responsibility to its citizens. We shouldn't have to raise more taxes to pay for it. It should be paid for before almost anything else.

My numbers are probably outdated, but there is a reason why conservative think tank use military spending as a proxy for all spending to argue against the existence of an economic multiplier. That is because every dollar spent on the military (except when unemployment is in double digits) adds about 60¢ to the economy. On the other hand adding a dollar adds a $1.60 at least $2 to the economy.

I'm not using military spending as a proxy for anything. I'm saying that the primary function of a government for its citizens is national security through the military, and the secondary function is providing domestic infrastructure. It's a philosophical viewpoint. If you want to say a government should prioritize in other ways, feel free to argue that. What do you feel is a government's responsibility toward the governed ahead of national security and infrastructure? Some may argue education, or economic processes, or providing health care, or or some other government function. I would disagree with them, but if they can argue it well I wouldn't discount the opinion.

Wasn't suggesting that you were. I'm simply stating that military spending is sucking money out of the economy while spending on infrastructure is really an investment that returns dividends. Well, assuming that it isn't just painting a trillion dollars worth of bike lanes like a decade ago,

 

[Koya]

FWIW, there are a number of ways for the private sector to pay for infrastructure, with two significant (but, imo, surmountable) caveats:

1. Even for infrastructure that provides a significant ROI (means you can directly calculate that it created significantly more in municipal revenues / economic growth than it cost to build), it is very difficult to monetize that cost. Not many banks sitting around for 30 or 50 year infrastructure returns... or even 15-20 years. If you could find a way to monetize these future "profits" (private sector and tax ratables) to finance the deal, it's doable. But as I noted above, the tools don't / no longer match the market need.

2. Some infrastructure is SO far out (at least 30, or 50, or 100) in terms of its benefits or, more likely, on such a large geographic scale that it becomes difficult or impossible to accurately monetize it - but without some of those systems that serve everyone and everything there are no earnings to begin with.

I'll leave you all with one example. Something that was invested in over 100 years ago. Loses money every year. Even with cost to use the service. Huge public monies to help support the system.

Yet, I'd suggest it might have the greatest ROI of any infrastructure in the County. Because without the Subway, NYC wouldn't be... well.. it wouldn't be. Going to be hard to convince me that is not worth every penny - 100 years ago, 50 years ago, today... and we need to invest for the next 50.

 

[The Big Guy]

FWIW, there are a number of ways for the private sector to pay for infrastructure, with two significant (but, imo, surmountable) caveats:

1. Even for infrastructure that provides a significant ROI (means you can directly calculate that it created significantly more in municipal revenues / economic growth than it cost to build), it is very difficult to monetize that cost. Not many banks sitting around for 30 or 50 year infrastructure returns... or even 15-20 years. If you could find a way to monetize these future "profits" (private sector and tax ratables) to finance the deal, it's doable. But as I noted above, the tools don't / no longer match the market need.

2. Some infrastructure is SO far out (at least 30, or 50, or 100) in terms of its benefits or, more likely, on such a large geographic scale that it becomes difficult or impossible to accurately monetize it - but without some of those systems that serve everyone and everything there are no earnings to begin with.

I'll leave you all with one example. Something that was invested in over 100 years ago. Loses money every year. Even with cost to use the service. Huge public monies to help support the system.

Yet, I'd suggest it might have the greatest ROI of any infrastructure in the County. Because without the Subway, NYC wouldn't be... well.. it wouldn't be. Going to be hard to convince me that is not worth every penny - 100 years ago, 50 years ago, today... and we need to invest for the next 50.

I understand that our infrastructure is not going to be a profit generating endeavor, but how can you justify the costs involved with doing any of this with the way things are today in this country? The cost of building the 2nd avenue subway is a great example and where is that money going? The project cost and just total nonsense layered into these contracts discourage supporting these improvements, no matter how needed.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

We need more missiles and stuff, not bridges.

 

[NutterButter]

We need more missiles and stuff, not bridges.

We should build a bridge. And then blow it up with a bunch of missiles. That would rule.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

We need more missiles and stuff, not bridges.

We should build a bridge. And then blow it up with a bunch of missiles. That would rule.

I would be all for that. You can't look weak and nothing looks stronger than crazy.

 

[NutterButter]

We need more missiles and stuff, not bridges.

We should build a bridge. And then blow it up with a bunch of missiles. That would rule.

I would be all for that. You can't look weak and nothing looks stronger than crazy.

That's motivational poster material right there.

 

[Koya]

FWIW, there are a number of ways for the private sector to pay for infrastructure, with two significant (but, imo, surmountable) caveats:

1. Even for infrastructure that provides a significant ROI (means you can directly calculate that it created significantly more in municipal revenues / economic growth than it cost to build), it is very difficult to monetize that cost. Not many banks sitting around for 30 or 50 year infrastructure returns... or even 15-20 years. If you could find a way to monetize these future "profits" (private sector and tax ratables) to finance the deal, it's doable. But as I noted above, the tools don't / no longer match the market need.

2. Some infrastructure is SO far out (at least 30, or 50, or 100) in terms of its benefits or, more likely, on such a large geographic scale that it becomes difficult or impossible to accurately monetize it - but without some of those systems that serve everyone and everything there are no earnings to begin with.

I'll leave you all with one example. Something that was invested in over 100 years ago. Loses money every year. Even with cost to use the service. Huge public monies to help support the system.

Yet, I'd suggest it might have the greatest ROI of any infrastructure in the County. Because without the Subway, NYC wouldn't be... well.. it wouldn't be. Going to be hard to convince me that is not worth every penny - 100 years ago, 50 years ago, today... and we need to invest for the next 50.

I understand that our infrastructure is not going to be a profit generating endeavor, but how can you justify the costs involved with doing any of this with the way things are today in this country? The cost of building the 2nd avenue subway is a great example and where is that money going? The project cost and just total nonsense layered into these contracts discourage supporting these improvements, no matter how needed.

Appreciate the response, and I think it's an important point you make. I think most agree that if it were properly managed, investment in infrastructure is a positive, on a number of levels. It appears that your issue (and many others) is not with the notion of investing but rather how poor a job the gov't usually does in managing the money, the process and the projects.

You pointed out just one example. Another is East Side Access - over budge, taking forever. So was the Big Dig in Boston.

Now, EVEN with all the waste, corruption, cronyism and interests in the above, they have / will end up being huge economic boons for those cities and the surrounding region. And that's under the current terrible system.

That said, I agree that we must reform the way dollars are spent, and as I've said before, the best way imo to do that is get the private sector involved and doing the work. Gov't should facilitate and provide a framework for the private sector to create and deliver products and services. They should not (because they generally suck at it) be doing the execution where a private business could do it better, with profit incentive.

 

[The Big Guy]

FWIW, there are a number of ways for the private sector to pay for infrastructure, with two significant (but, imo, surmountable) caveats:

1. Even for infrastructure that provides a significant ROI (means you can directly calculate that it created significantly more in municipal revenues / economic growth than it cost to build), it is very difficult to monetize that cost. Not many banks sitting around for 30 or 50 year infrastructure returns... or even 15-20 years. If you could find a way to monetize these future "profits" (private sector and tax ratables) to finance the deal, it's doable. But as I noted above, the tools don't / no longer match the market need.

2. Some infrastructure is SO far out (at least 30, or 50, or 100) in terms of its benefits or, more likely, on such a large geographic scale that it becomes difficult or impossible to accurately monetize it - but without some of those systems that serve everyone and everything there are no earnings to begin with.

I'll leave you all with one example. Something that was invested in over 100 years ago. Loses money every year. Even with cost to use the service. Huge public monies to help support the system.

Yet, I'd suggest it might have the greatest ROI of any infrastructure in the County. Because without the Subway, NYC wouldn't be... well.. it wouldn't be. Going to be hard to convince me that is not worth every penny - 100 years ago, 50 years ago, today... and we need to invest for the next 50.

I understand that our infrastructure is not going to be a profit generating endeavor, but how can you justify the costs involved with doing any of this with the way things are today in this country? The cost of building the 2nd avenue subway is a great example and where is that money going? The project cost and just total nonsense layered into these contracts discourage supporting these improvements, no matter how needed.

Appreciate the response, and I think it's an important point you make. I think most agree that if it were properly managed, investment in infrastructure is a positive, on a number of levels. It appears that your issue (and many others) is not with the notion of investing but rather how poor a job the gov't usually does in managing the money, the process and the projects.

You pointed out just one example. Another is East Side Access - over budge, taking forever. So was the Big Dig in Boston.

Now, EVEN with all the waste, corruption, cronyism and interests in the above, they have / will end up being huge economic boons for those cities and the surrounding region. And that's under the current terrible system.

That said, I agree that we must reform the way dollars are spent, and as I've said before, the best way imo to do that is get the private sector involved and doing the work. Gov't should facilitate and provide a framework for the private sector to create and deliver products and services. They should not (because they generally suck at it) be doing the execution where a private business could do it better, with profit incentive.

The worry is the profit incentive leading to cutting corners and putting public safety at risk. Now I know that we have inspectors to ensure that this doesn't happen, but that assumes that they are not bought off or doing their job correctly and catching the things being done incorrectly.

It is funny how much faster things seem to move in some states vs others. NJ has the massive GSP widening project underway and while it is taking years to happen, you actually can see the progress being done and use huge chunks of it already as opposed to the Gowanus travesty of construction that seemingly never ends and never moves or changes anything.

 

[Brony]

I don't put much faith in anything from an organization called Freedom Partners, but here are the results from a recent survey in which nearly 70 percent of U.S. residents are opposed to the idea of raising the federal gas tax to pay for new transportation projects.

 

[StrikeS2k]

1) The price of gas went from like 1.50 to almost 4:00 in what, ten years? Yet the gov't couldn't use all that extra money effectively for some of these projects?

2) Gas prices have only been depressed for a short period of time. Isn't this a bit premature anyways?

2) Eventually gas is going to go back up. If the rational is that we should increase the tax since prices are down, are they going to vow to lower them when gas prices inevitably spike again? Obviously not, nor would I believe them if they did make that promise.

For the above reasons, plus a million others, I'll pass.

 

[Koya]

We are really asking the wrong question here. Asking if a gas tax should be employed for anything is going to get you a lot of knows. Hell, ask me what tax I WOULD like.

The real question is not if a gas tax is the tool, but rather: What would YOU propose as a funding source for the much needed infrastructure investments we need?

Because we need it. And we need to get the money to do it - so, what's your proposal?

 

[StrikeS2k]

We are really asking the wrong question here. Asking if a gas tax should be employed for anything is going to get you a lot of knows. Hell, ask me what tax I WOULD like.

The real question is not if a gas tax is the tool, but rather: What would YOU propose as a funding source for the much needed infrastructure investments we need?

Because we need it. And we need to get the money to do it - so, what's your proposal?

Cuts from other programs. I believe the Feds have enough money. We just need to prioritize better and cut waste.

 

[lod01]

1) The price of gas went from like 1.50 to almost 4:00 in what, ten years? Yet the gov't couldn't use all that extra money effectively for some of these projects?

2) Gas prices have only been depressed for a short period of time. Isn't this a bit premature anyways?

2) Eventually gas is going to go back up. If the rational is that we should increase the tax since prices are down, are they going to vow to lower them when gas prices inevitably spike again? Obviously not, nor would I believe them if they did make that promise.

For the above reasons, plus a million others, I'll pass.

That's why they want to do this. You can't raise the tax when gas is $4/gal. You are so used to $4, adding a few cents when gas is only $2.00 won't hurt you at all. Oh.....darn it all, gas is back at $4. Well the tax is already approved, you will just have to with the new higher prices.

 

[Slapdash]

I say yes but agree with others that say only if it doesn't have a bunch of pet projects attached to it. The infrastructure issue will reach dangerous proportions to the point that it will be hazardous for the citizens of this country. Those completely opposed will be the same people flying in here to condemn the folks who run government for not fixing our bridges and roads when a tragedy occurs, even though they refuse to support a tax to pay for the projects.

Same as it ever was I suppose.

Yep

 

[DocHolliday]

We are really asking the wrong question here. Asking if a gas tax should be employed for anything is going to get you a lot of knows. Hell, ask me what tax I WOULD like.

The real question is not if a gas tax is the tool, but rather: What would YOU propose as a funding source for the much needed infrastructure investments we need?

Because we need it. And we need to get the money to do it - so, what's your proposal?

Cuts from other programs. I believe the Feds have enough money. We just need to prioritize better and cut waste.

This is the correct answer.

 

[The Commish]

We are really asking the wrong question here. Asking if a gas tax should be employed for anything is going to get you a lot of knows. Hell, ask me what tax I WOULD like.

The real question is not if a gas tax is the tool, but rather: What would YOU propose as a funding source for the much needed infrastructure investments we need?

Because we need it. And we need to get the money to do it - so, what's your proposal?

I'd start with paychecks to our politicians.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

1) The price of gas went from like 1.50 to almost 4:00 in what, ten years? Yet the gov't couldn't use all that extra money effectively for some of these projects?

.

The gas tax is flat, not a percentage of the price.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Recently moved back to NJ. For all of the money people have to pay in property taxes and tolls/bridges, the roads there are in #### condition.

 

[Amused to Death]

Recently moved back to NJ. For all of the money people have to pay in property taxes and tolls/bridges, the roads there are in #### condition.

The NJ TTF is about to go bankrupt. Not only are the roads in bad shape, but they are outdated. Many are very old and weren't designed for today's traffic volumes. Not to mention flooding problems and the poor condition of the utilities.

NJ also ranks near the bottom in job creation and unemployment. Investing in the infrastructure is a great job-creator. This can has been kicked down the road for many years by many governors. And Christie seems to be unwilling to address it during his time. No governor wants to make the hard budget decisions to fix it long-term.

 

[StrikeS2k]

1) The price of gas went from like 1.50 to almost 4:00 in what, ten years? Yet the gov't couldn't use all that extra money effectively for some of these projects?

.

The gas tax is flat, not a percentage of the price.

Good point. Remove that reason from my list.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I say yes but agree with others that say only if it doesn't have a bunch of pet projects attached to it. The infrastructure issue will reach dangerous proportions to the point that it will be hazardous for the citizens of this country. Those completely opposed will be the same people flying in here to condemn the folks who run government for not fixing our bridges and roads when a tragedy occurs, even though they refuse to support a tax to pay for the projects.

Same as it ever was I suppose.

Yep

How about we stop fixing problems that don't exist so we can fix problems that do exist?

Construction is an ongoing issue where I live. Every single year they fix or replace tons of things that aren't even broken. Don't even get me started on the PR campaigns involved and how many public meetings they go through. It takes them three weeks to do a minor repair that would take an asphalt company two days. The issue isn't that they need more money. The issue is that they need to actually get stuff done in a timely fashion.

 

[RUSF18]

Recently moved back to NJ. For all of the money people have to pay in property taxes and tolls/bridges, the roads there are in #### condition.

The NJ TTF is about to go bankrupt. Not only are the roads in bad shape, but they are outdated. Many are very old and weren't designed for today's traffic volumes. Not to mention flooding problems and the poor condition of the utilities.

NJ also ranks near the bottom in job creation and unemployment. Investing in the infrastructure is a great job-creator. This can has been kicked down the road for many years by many governors. And Christie seems to be unwilling to address it during his time. No governor wants to make the hard budget decisions to fix it long-term.

It's why I liked Christie at the beginning...he took the teachers' union on which no one was willing to do and actually got some results. But it pretty much ended there unfortunately.

 

[Tchula]

I support lowering social spending, congressional salaries, congressional pensions, and pork barrel spending to pay for the infrastructure.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I support lowering social spending, congressional salaries, congressional pensions, and pork barrel spending to pay for the infrastructure.

I support taxing the paychecks of congresspersons at levels at least 50% if not even higher for the 10 years after they leave office. 50% for a normal job. 90% for a lobbyist position.

Leave office.

 

[Amused to Death]

Recently moved back to NJ. For all of the money people have to pay in property taxes and tolls/bridges, the roads there are in #### condition.

The NJ TTF is about to go bankrupt. Not only are the roads in bad shape, but they are outdated. Many are very old and weren't designed for today's traffic volumes. Not to mention flooding problems and the poor condition of the utilities.NJ also ranks near the bottom in job creation and unemployment. Investing in the infrastructure is a great job-creator. This can has been kicked down the road for many years by many governors. And Christie seems to be unwilling to address it during his time. No governor wants to make the hard budget decisions to fix it long-term.

Uh, Gov...about that transportation trust fund:

New Jersey Faces a Transportation Funding Crisis, With No Clear Solution

Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, has said little in recent months about roads and transit even as his own transportation commissioner, Jamie Fox, has forcefully called for revenue for the state’s depleted transportation trust fund.

Meanwhile.....

Two lanes of I-295 south closed in Hamilton for repairs

HAMILTON — The left and center lanes on I-295 southbound at mile post 64 in Hamilton were closed for emergency bridge repairs Thursday afternoon, the state Department of Transportation (DOT) said.

The DOT said road crews are repairing a hole with exposed rebar and loose concrete in the center lane of the bridge over Hamilton Avenue, just past Exit 63.

Motorists should expect heavy congestion and delays on I-295 south of Route 1 during the Thursday evening commute, the DOT said.

The work will not affect I-295 northbound traffic, the DOT said.

The DOT was also alerting motorists with message signs on the highway.

The length of time needed for the repairs is subject to change due to weather or other factors, the dot said.

Motorists are encouraged to check NJDOT's traffic information website www.511nj.org for real-time travel information.