Report: U.S. infrastructure grade goes up for first time in 15 years

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,968
40,841
136
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/03/19/Report-US-infrastructure-grade-goes-up-for-first-time-in-15-years/8081363688031/

Up from a D to a D+

It seems pretty clear that this kind of investment is so unsexy that until a major incident happens (I-35 bridge in Minneapolis) nobody wants to fork over the kind of money required to make needed improvements. The country is essentially coasting on the last major infrastructure works of the middle of the last century or even the turn of the century.

The big question is how to fund all the work that needs to be done. Bonds? Infrastructure Banks? Bigger user fees? Federal grants?
 

RearAdmiral

Platinum Member
Jun 24, 2004
2,279
134
106
As a system administrator I find infrastructure very sexy...

As a federal employee there does not seem to be much understanding of the importance of infrastructure outside of the military(weapons systems and such).
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,968
40,841
136
How about taxing some of the massive wealth transfer to the top to pay for it.

Obviously some sort of taxation should be up for consideration (fuel and use taxes most likely) but just trying to take money from the rich is a little one sided and would inevitably lead down the path of political oblivion.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Obviously some sort of taxation should be up for consideration (fuel and use taxes most likely) but just trying to take money from the rich is a little one sided and would inevitably lead down the path of political oblivion.

No, it's not one-sided, when you recognize that trillions have been redistributed to them.

And US businesses are currently sitting on $5 trillion, most of it untaxed off-shore.

productivityvscompensation.gif


average_income_and_change_in_share_of_income.jpg
 
Last edited:

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,968
40,841
136
No, it's not one-sided, when you recognize that trillions have been redistributed to them.

And US businesses are currently sitting on $5 trillion, most of it untaxed off-shore.

*snip*

In the current political world this would never get through Congress. It's the policy equivalent of saying a unicorn will deliver us bricks of unobtanium.

How about something more basic like linking fuel taxes to a set of economic indicators/inflation instead of the dumb flat cents per gallon rate we have now that hasn't moved since the early 90s?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
In the current political world this would never get through Congress. It's the policy equivalent of saying a unicorn will deliver us bricks of unobtanium.

How about something more basic like linking fuel taxes to a set of economic indicators/inflation instead of the dumb flat cents per gallon rate we have now that hasn't moved since the early 90s?

I think it's important to point out the right solution regardless of 'political atmosphere'.

That's part of educating and reminding voters how bad it is for them to elect the people who make the right solution so politically impossible.

If you don't, they think nothing is wrong. After that, I'm open to discussing alternatives.

We've already progressed from your initial answer of 'that's one-sided' to show that no, it's not, and your objection is just the radicals who are in office won't support it.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,968
40,841
136
I think it's important to point out the right solution regardless of 'political atmosphere'.

That's part of educating and reminding voters how bad it is for them to elect the people who make the right solution so politically impossible.

If you don't, they think nothing is wrong. After that, I'm open to discussing alternatives.

We've already progressed from your initial answer of 'that's one-sided' to show that no, it's not, and your objection is just the radicals who are in office won't support it.

Republicans will oppose any repatriation that isn't heavily advantageous to the holders, thus it's essentially a dead end. There are a multitude of areas where it could be possible to find common political ground to alleviate the lack of revenue for these things which greatly increases the chance of something actually happening. My comment stemmed from the political reality that what you propose is highly improbable for the foreseeable future (generously speaking).

Touting options totally divorced from reality isn't the most helpful approach.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I think it's important to point out the right solution regardless of 'political atmosphere'.

That's part of educating and reminding voters how bad it is for them to elect the people who make the right solution so politically impossible.

If you don't, they think nothing is wrong. After that, I'm open to discussing alternatives.

We've already progressed from your initial answer of 'that's one-sided' to show that no, it's not, and your objection is just the radicals who are in office won't support it.

Republicans will oppose any repatriation that isn't heavily advantageous to the holders, thus it's essentially a dead end. There are a multitude of areas where it could be possible to find common political ground to alleviate the lack of revenue for these things which greatly increases the chance of something actually happening. My comment stemmed from the political reality that what you propose is highly improbable for the foreseeable future (generously speaking).

Touting options totally divorced from reality isn't the most helpful approach.

Craig, I'm not sure your solution is the "right" one. I'll explain later.

K1052, I agree with you that "options totally divorced from reality" aren't helpful.

As regards the taxing of offshore profits, care must be taken or we encourage our US multinational corporations to restructure. Currently, many operate in various countries through wholly owned subsidiaries but the parent corporation is based in the USA. That structure means the US gets to tax profits earned elsewhere, contrary to most other countries tax laws. You wanna get piggish and it's a rather simple to restructure. That would lose us tax revenue.

All corporations need to do to is invert their corporate structure. You can do that by establishing a new corporation in a tax haven like the Caymans. You then transfer the stock of the Cayman corp to the existing shareholders of the US parent corp in exchange for their shares in the US corporation. You transfer the shares of the foreign subsidiaries held by the US corp to the Cayman corp. This is all pretty much tax free. The result is the Cayman corp, not subject to US taxation, is now the parent company. The only operations now subject to US taxation are those of the US corp, now merely a subsidiary. I.e., the US has now lost the ability to tax foreign earned profits.

Craig, you push it and that's what will happen. Short of changing the Constitution not much can be done. There's an old saying: "Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered". If we get piggish with tax laws, we lose.

Fern
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,228
4,469
136
At least in the Dallas Fort Worth Metro area the answer has been to make every road a toll road give it to a corporation and have them charge each vehicle per mile driven.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,968
40,841
136
At least in the Dallas Fort Worth Metro area the answer has been to make every road a toll road give it to a corporation and have them charge each vehicle per mile driven.

This is an option for some roads and the only real source of major highway construction anymore (be it by a private company or a state entity). The downside is that this can effectively become congestion pricing which shifts excess load onto other routes/modes of transportation that aren't typically supported by the toll franchise owner (unlike if a government itself were to institute congestion pricing).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Republicans will oppose any repatriation that isn't heavily advantageous to the holders, thus it's essentially a dead end. There are a multitude of areas where it could be possible to find common political ground to alleviate the lack of revenue for these things which greatly increases the chance of something actually happening. My comment stemmed from the political reality that what you propose is highly improbable for the foreseeable future (generously speaking).

Touting options totally divorced from reality isn't the most helpful approach.

I disagree. You know, no one should have spoken up about ending slavery in 1850, because the politicians would not support it. No one should have spoken up about women voting in 1900, because the politicians would not support it. No one should have spoken up about voting downsegregation in 1950, because the politicians would not support it. No one should have spoken up for ending bans on gay marriage in 2000 because politicians would not support it.

You should just lie down and let the US continue down this road of destroying the middle class because today's poiiticans will not support any change to it. Way to go.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Fern, measures can and should be taken to incent corporations who pay their fair share, to disencent, punish, companies who evade taxes.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,968
40,841
136
I disagree. You know, no one should have spoken up about ending slavery in 1850, because the politicians would not support it. No one should have spoken up about women voting in 1900, because the politicians would not support it. No one should have spoken up about voting downsegregation in 1950, because the politicians would not support it. No one should have spoken up for ending bans on gay marriage in 2000 because politicians would not support it.

You should just lie down and let the US continue down this road of destroying the middle class because today's poiiticans will not support any change to it. Way to go.

Ironically if infrastructure received a fraction of the attention those causes ever did I wouldn't even be posting about it. Thank you for the valuable apples to oranges comparison and healthy dose of overreaching liberal rhetoric, I shall treasure it always.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Ironically if infrastructure received a fraction of the attention those causes ever did I wouldn't even be posting about it. Thank you for the valuable apples to oranges comparison and healthy dose of overreaching liberal rhetoric, I shall treasure it always.

Nothing apples and oranges or overreaching about it. The irony is that it's exactly your attitude that PREVENTS more attention from going where it's needed.

How much attention did gay rights get the first century and a half in this country? No reason to talk about it, the politicians wojn't change it.

Ever hear that old saying 'all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing'?

You're the presumably good man not only doing nothing but whining if anyone bothers to point out that evil.

That's not how things get fixed.

If you want to buy into the whole 'ignore trillions shifted to the top because current politicians won't fix it because oh by the way that concentration of wealth has also corrupted our elections, so let'sonly allow discussion of solutions that fit within the rules of the corrupt current politics', you are helping to prevent any solution.

You've also heard the 'boiling frog' metaphor - well, the water is very, very hot and you're demanding we only shift deck chairs on the Titanic. Wow, a month of cliches in a post.

Look, to start a second month's worth, you have heard of 'starving the beast' - the intentional use of large debt to 'force' a democracy (specifically, ours) to make all kinds of government shrinkage that's bad for the people that can't get passed under the normal democratic processes - only as 'emergency cuts to address the massive debt'.

You are playing right into the hands of the people who want to transform the US from a country with a strong middle class and some reasonable amount of egalitarianism into a plutocracy, when you buy into that and pretend that the massive shifts being done can't be discussed and just have to be worked around, rather than citizens being informed and fighting the policies.

They would love for you to be that sort of powerless citizens who meekly says 'yes, sir' to becoming poorer and poorer as your democracy is taken away. You seem ok with it here.

Democracy has always said that citizens can surrender and lose it if they decide not to be vigilant over those who would take it; you are doing just that.

Since when is noticing the information in the charts I posted, which you ignored, 'overreaching'? That's bizarro world and embarrassing for a free citizen.
 
Last edited:

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,968
40,841
136
You just can't resist any possible opening to pull out your soapbox and proselytize can you?

Mods...feel free to lock this thread up and save the world from further off topic walls of rambling text.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The simple answer is that infrastructure spending isn't even on the table right now. We can't borrow trillions more to update infrastructure given the mountain of debt we have compiled. Since liabilities due to social programs will continue to increase over time, we are effectively screwed until such programs are curtailed.