Speaking of Infrastructure

[sidis 9832]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

So I'm driving from Austin to Memphis area next Wed, and back on Sun, and we have a forecast for rain for my entire drive on Wed, gas prices to the moon, and now this cramming all cross-river traffic onto the 55 bridge causing delays. 

Wheeee!

[Brisketexan 105509]

17 minutes ago, 'stache said:

My overall problem is with the cult of "low taxes" and then the same people bitching about deficiencies in roads and cops, etc. I'm happy to argue what we should tax and at what rate, but we are at a point where everything has to be a soundbite. One side only wants to lower taxes but does nothing to change spending. The other side wants more taxes but also rarely speaks about needed efficiencies to make better use of those funds. It's a cycle that drives me off the fucking wall.

We have spent the last 40 years or so worshipping at the altar of "low taxes" and the following ritual of "don't spend money on infrastructure."

Bridges.  Dams.  Sewer systems.  Water systems.  Big items/webs of infrastructure, the approach has been "fix anything you can with duct tape and baling wire, so we can keep your annual budget at $100."  As anyone who has ever fixed ANYTHING knows, that approach works....until it doesn't, and you then face a BIG bill for decades of deferred maintenance.

The bills are coming due.  Lots of them.  All at once.

['stache 21899]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

We have spent the last 40 years or so worshipping at the altar of "low taxes" and the following ritual of "don't spend money on infrastructure."

Bridges.  Dams.  Sewer systems.  Water systems.  Big items/webs of infrastructure, the approach has been "fix anything you can with duct tape and baling wire, so we can keep your annual budget at $100."  As anyone who has ever fixed ANYTHING knows, that approach works....until it doesn't, and you then face a BIG bill for decades of deferred maintenance.

The bills are coming due.  Lots of them.  All at once.

I could bitch for hours about this stuff. We built a bunch of highways cutting through neighborhoods (any guess which were overwhelmingly targeted?) so that people could move to the suburbs to buy cheap oversized houses made of toothpicks then drive an hour each way to work, causing pollution, maintenance costs that nobody seemed to be thinking about, and then ugly big box shopping centers with oceans of parking and nothing interesting to walk by or use transit. And here we are, bitching about infrastructure and ignoring that our development patterns over the last 100 years was destined for this "everything needs fixing at once" problem. And of course the response is to play the blame game between political parties without actually fixing anything. 

[Captainant 27919]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

And of course the response is to play the blame game between political parties without actually fixing anything. 

There's several pending infrastructure bills in Congress right now. I could've sworn we had like a dozen infrastructure weeks over the last few years though

[fattyflattie 4639]

Just now, Captainant said:

There's several pending infrastructure bills in Congress right now. I could've sworn we had like a dozen infrastructure weeks over the last few years though

And they are contentious because as quoted above, 7% goes to actually fixing shit.    I’m not against spending money in a forward looking manner, but probably need to focus a bit more on the fixing since our shit is literally falling apart.  

[Brisketexan 105509]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I could bitch for hours about this stuff. We built a bunch of highways cutting through neighborhoods (any guess which were overwhelmingly targeted?) so that people could move to the suburbs to buy cheap oversized houses made of toothpicks then drive an hour each way to work, causing pollution, maintenance costs that nobody seemed to be thinking about, and then ugly big box shopping centers with oceans of parking and nothing interesting to walk by or use transit. And here we are, bitching about infrastructure and ignoring that our development patterns over the last 100 years was destined for this "everything needs fixing at once" problem. And of course the response is to play the blame game between political parties without actually fixing anything. 

No argument from me.

It IS vexing to me that people love to harp about when America was "Great"....universally referring to the post-war quarter century or so.....not realizing that one of the key things that made us great was MASSIVE investment in infrastructure (the interstate highway system, it's when many dams were built, when huge installations of water and sewer systems were done, etc.).  If we want to be like we were when we were "great"...maybe we should do one of the key things that made us great?  Seems like a sound idea to me.

 

[GopherRock 1772]

The definition of infrastructure is "that which only a select few care about until it stops working."

[crash_davis 23122]

2 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

Steel is a wonderful construction material, both in tension and compression, but there are only so many load  cycles you  can put on a ductile material before it fails.  Ironically steel usually does show some pretty obvious signs of failure before something like this happens.  It looks like corrosion weakened that spot before tension separated it but I am no structural engineer. 

[crash_davis 23122]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We have spent the last 40 years or so worshipping at the altar of "low taxes" and the following ritual of "don't spend money on infrastructure."

Bridges.  Dams.  Sewer systems.  Water systems.  Big items/webs of infrastructure, the approach has been "fix anything you can with duct tape and baling wire, so we can keep your annual budget at $100."  As anyone who has ever fixed ANYTHING knows, that approach works....until it doesn't, and you then face a BIG bill for decades of deferred maintenance.

The bills are coming due.  Lots of them.  All at once.

 

18 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I could bitch for hours about this stuff. We built a bunch of highways cutting through neighborhoods (any guess which were overwhelmingly targeted?) so that people could move to the suburbs to buy cheap oversized houses made of toothpicks then drive an hour each way to work, causing pollution, maintenance costs that nobody seemed to be thinking about, and then ugly big box shopping centers with oceans of parking and nothing interesting to walk by or use transit. And here we are, bitching about infrastructure and ignoring that our development patterns over the last 100 years was destined for this "everything needs fixing at once" problem. And of course the response is to play the blame game between political parties without actually fixing anything. 

 

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

There's several pending infrastructure bills in Congress right now. I could've sworn we had like a dozen infrastructure weeks over the last few years though

 

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And they are contentious because as quoted above, 7% goes to actually fixing shit.    I’m not against spending money in a forward looking manner, but probably need to focus a bit more on the fixing since our shit is literally falling apart.  

Everyone is ok with passing huge tax cuts to millionaires and companies but will scrutinize the shit out of infrastructure spending bills. Our leaders and our generation LOVES to kick the can down the road.

We are leaving our kids and their kids one hell of a headache to deal with.

[Brisketexan 105509]

Just now, crash_davis said:

 

 

 

Everyone is ok with passing huge tax cuts to millionaires and companies but will scrutinize the shit out of infrastructure spending bills. Our leaders and our generation LOVES to kick the can down the road.

We are leaving our kids and their kids one hell of a headache to deal with.

Yeah....you're optimistic on the timing of that headache.  The headache started 10-20 years ago....it's getting to the piercing level as we speak.

That doesn't mean that we won't continue to ignore it and kick the can down the road, of course.  Because, you know, stupidest timeline and all that.

[Poe It Up 126]

32 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And they are contentious because as quoted above, 7% goes to actually fixing shit.    I’m not against spending money in a forward looking manner, but probably need to focus a bit more on the fixing since our shit is literally falling apart.  

This is the infuriating part for me. We’re pleading for them to fix our broken shit and they say “you’re exactly right, we’ll get that broadband network to you as soon as possible.” Well, um, ok, thanks I guess. 

[Armybrat 40945]

Well, I think the gas tax can be raised whenever oil prices plummet, as long as ALL the revenue would be directed to road projects & maintenance. That way the sting for the consumer won’t be felt as much.

Mass transit & bicycle infrastructure should be a separate tax. As EVs supplant the gasoline/diesel vehicles, tax the power charging process to continue the flow of revenues for road infrastructure.

The Texas legislature has missed that opportunity a couple of times in recent years. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Yes, when "low taxes" became the mantra, limited funds had to be used elsewhere, which is a problem. However, I would not consider "transit, pedestrian, and bicycle projects" as improper diversion. Those programs are designed to lead to less use of vehicles on the roads and hence less wear and tear. My overall problem is with the cult of "low taxes" and then the same people bitching about deficiencies in roads and cops, etc. I'm happy to argue what we should tax and at what rate, but we are at a point where everything has to be a soundbite. One side only wants to lower taxes but does nothing to change spending. The other side wants more taxes but also rarely speaks about needed efficiencies to make better use of those funds. It's a cycle that drives me off the fucking wall.

The cult of low taxes as you call it isn't no taxes. It's tax revenue ACTUALLY going to the places it's claimed to be for (and nothing else). What tax legislation, and project funding have become is some money ostensibly for the actual proposed project then rider after rider of pork barrel shit that most tax payers would not want funded (SEE: Latest relief funding for the covid crisis).

I'm all for infrastructure funding, as it's an actual nuts, and bolts investment in the nation, its economy, safety, and long term, economic stability.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[RPM 26403]

47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No argument from me.

It IS vexing to me that people love to harp about when America was "Great"....universally referring to the post-war quarter century or so.....not realizing that one of the key things that made us great was MASSIVE investment in infrastructure (the interstate highway system, it's when many dams were built, when huge installations of water and sewer systems were done, etc.).  If we want to be like we were when we were "great"...maybe we should do one of the key things that made us great?  Seems like a sound idea to me.

 

They ignore the tax rates of the era, too.

[crash_davis 23122]

45 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The cult of low taxes as you call it isn't no taxes. It's tax revenue ACTUALLY going to the places it's claimed to be for (and nothing else). What tax leglsation, and project funding have become is some money ostensibly for the actual proposed project then rider after rider of pork barrel shit that most tax payers would not want funded. SEE : Latest relief funding for the covid crisis).

I'm all for infrastructure funding, as it's an actual nuts, and bolts investment in the nation, its economy, safety, and long term, economic strength .

this funding or are you also including the previous stimulus bills, because there was just as much bullshit in those.

both parties are guilty as fuck adding all kinds of pork barrel shit in all the spending legislation. we only seem to notice when the other party is doing it. when politics is a team sport, nothing good for the people is going to get done and accountability only applies to the other team.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

49 minutes ago, RPM said:

They ignore the tax rates of the era, too.

And you ignore the effective tax rates.  The average effective tax rate is about the same as it was 45 years ago.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

this funding or are you also including the previous stimulus bills, because there was just as much bullshit in those.

both parties are guilty as fuck adding all kinds of pork barrel shit in all the spending legislation. we only seem to notice when the other party is doing it. when politics is a team sport, nothing good for the people is going to get done and accountability only applies to the other team.

Just using the covid legislation as an example.  I don't think we still know where some of the money went from the second stimulus bill signed by Mr. Obama.  The bill signed by W had BS in it as well. You don't get legislation out the door without it being a both sides pork issue today.

[crash_davis 23122]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Just using the covid legislation as an example.  I don't think we still know where some of the money went from the second stimulus bill signed by Mr. Obama.  The bill signed by W had BS in it as well. You don't get legislation out the door without it being a both sides pork issue today.

this can get political real quick but transparency was not a hallmark of Trump's administration. in fact, it was quite the opposite of transparency. not sure why you conveniently left him off.

but yes, we get the government we deserve. when one team can do no wrong and the other team can do no right, well, you have aging infrastructure that will never get repaired because the other party will prob shit on the plan.

[SHOOTER12 8841]

Crack my ass, that's a complete break.

[jimmyjazz 46400]

4 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

Steel is a wonderful construction material, both in tension and compression, but there are only so many load  cycles you  can put on a ductile material before it fails. 

Most steel alloys can be designed for infinite life, depending on environmental conditions.  Hey to the S-N diagram.

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11822]

16 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And you ignore the effective tax rates.  The average effective tax rate is about the same as it was 45 years ago.

You might want to show your work.  Because all the data I've seen doesn't show that.  Here's one example.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

You might want to show your work.  Because all the data I've seen doesn't show that.  Here's one example.

You see that bottom line?  That is the average effective tax rate.  It has not changed.

[elfenix 34367]

4 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

but there are only so many load  cycles you  can put on a ductile material before it fails.

so what you're saying is they should make bridges from south austin's mom

[ButtFumble 5186]

6 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

Well if they wait just a little longer they can put it out as a new project and not have to worry about those pesky annual inspections.  I wonder if other states do like Texas which actually mandates inspections of every bridge in the state.  It always has seemed like a basic requirement, sort of like dam inspections, but getting to this point requires serious neglect.

Arkansas inspects it every two years and Tennessee gets the results and does the repairs and they split the cost is what I read

[Bat Guano 359]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You see that bottom line?  That is the average effective tax rate.  It has not changed.

So the effective rate fell for the top 1 percent and above, according to that graph. Which means it had to have gone up for everybody else. Correct?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

So the effective rate fell for the top 1 percent and above, according to that graph. Which means it had to have gone up for everybody else. Correct?

Yes.  So your issue is not that we tax the same or more than we did in 1950, but how the burden is now distributed?  That's not really what was being said here.  What was being said is that Americans don't pay as much taxes as they did in the good old days, so that's why we cannot afford our infrastructure.  That is not true at all (and especially when you factor in state and local).  We are as a group paying as much as we ever had, even in the good old days when we built all this shit that now needs fixing.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

11 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

So the effective rate fell for the top 1 percent and above, according to that graph. Which means it had to have gone up for everybody else. Correct?

And the overall tax burden on the top 1 percent has increased in the last 35 years, even as marginal rates have dropped.  It has gone from 25% to 35%.  What has happened is that half of taxpayers pay no federal income tax these days (and many get credits).  So the federal income tax burden falls entirely on the top 50%.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

39 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

this can get political real quick but transparency was not a hallmark of Trump's administration. in fact, it was quite the opposite of transparency. not sure why you conveniently left him off.

but yes, we get the government we deserve. when one team can do no wrong and the other team can do no right, well, you have aging infrastructure that will never get repaired because the other party will prob shit on the plan.

 I don't have to list every president who had pork passed during his admin. I mentioned Mr, Biden, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Bush. I used the Covid bill because it was the latest legislation passed and it had major curly tailed, pig snout spending that had zero to do with any pandemic relief.

 

[deadshank 24653]

44 minutes ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Crack my ass, that's a complete break.

Don't  talk about crack around here.

 

Unless you got some.

[Bat Guano 359]

31 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes.  So your issue is not that we tax the same or more than we did in 1950, but how the burden is now distributed?  That's not really what was being said here.  What was being said is that Americans don't pay as much taxes as they did in the good old days, so that's why we cannot afford our infrastructure.  That is not true at all (and especially when you factor in state and local).  We are as a group paying as much as we ever had, even in the good old days when we built all this shit that now needs fixing.

 

24 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And the overall tax burden on the top 1 percent has increased in the last 35 years, even as marginal rates have dropped.  It has gone from 25% to 35%.  What has happened is that half of taxpayers pay no federal income tax these days (and many get credits).  So the federal income tax burden falls entirely on the top 50%.

Don't you get a bit of cognitive dissonance from the two graphs - the one you responded to and the one you presented? How can the effective rate of the 1 percent and above have fallen, and yet their share of the tax burden goes up? It's because of the old dodge by the right-wingers of conflating all taxes into Federal income taxes. Not the same thing, as you note - state and local, property and sales tax, all that adds up. Sales taxes in particular have risen over the time periods shown, and they are very regressive. Add to that that the delta between the 1 and even more so the .1 percent, and everybody else, has grown exponentially, which means that while their share of the federal income tax may have gone up, it's still way down from where it would have been if the top rates had stayed where they were in the 1950s. And federal dollars are where, by and large, infrastructure spending comes from. Sure, spending on SS and medicare has gone up, and that is paid for mostly by the middle class and below because of the income caps, and is a separate issue because they have their own dedicated revenue streams. So conflating all taxes with Federal income taxes is misleading, and, to get back to the discussion, federal dollars available for infrastructure spending have been declining. And yes, it's because of tax policy, though it's not quite as simple as "rich people pay most of the taxes." 

[Captainant 27919]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

And they are contentious because as quoted above, 7% goes to actually fixing shit.

What's your sourcing for this? A cursory google disagrees with this assessment

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-in-bidens-infrastructure-bill-package-american-jobs-plan-2021-3

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11822]

48 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes.  So your issue is not that we tax the same or more than we did in 1950, but how the burden is now distributed?  That's not really what was being said here.  What was being said is that Americans don't pay as much taxes as they did in the good old days, so that's why we cannot afford our infrastructure.  That is not true at all (and especially when you factor in state and local).  We are as a group paying as much as we ever had, even in the good old days when we built all this shit that now needs fixing.

Now do capital gains taxes.  From about 1922 on to today.  

[Huckleberry 33210]

50 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And the overall tax burden on the top 1 percent has increased in the last 35 years, even as marginal rates have dropped.  It has gone from 25% to 35%.  What has happened is that half of taxpayers pay no federal income tax these days (and many get credits).  So the federal income tax burden falls entirely on the top 50%.

"Burden" is an interesting word choice for a graph that is essentially showing only that the Top 1 Percent's share of income has been going up.

Because that's how tax burden goes up while rate goes down. If 10 families made all the income in the country you realize that they'd have 100% of the income tax burden, right?

Edited May 13, 2021 by Huckleberry

[gmr548 16617]

And the overall tax burden on the top 1 percent has increased in the last 35 years, even as marginal rates have dropped.  It has gone from 25% to 35%.  What has happened is that half of taxpayers pay no federal income tax these days (and many get credits).  So the federal income tax burden falls entirely on the top 50%.

You are smarter than this.

[SHOOTER12 8841]

35 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Don't  talk about crack around here.

 

Unless you got some.

Just da crack-o-my-ass and nobody's getting any of that, NTTAWWT

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Here is federal taxes as percentage of GDP since 1950.  It is higher or about the same as it was in the 50s and 60s.

[Captainant 27919]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Here is federal taxes as percentage of GDP since 1950.  It is higher or about the same as it was in the 50s and 60s.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sources-revenue-federal-government

Q.

What are the sources of revenue for the federal government?

A.

About 50 percent of federal revenue comes from individual income taxes, 7 percent from corporate income taxes, and another 36 percent from payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs (figure 1). The rest comes from a mix of sources.

 

Federal income is not a measure of tax rates. You're smarter than this, sack. Try harder. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sources-revenue-federal-government

Q.

What are the sources of revenue for the federal government?

A.

About 50 percent of federal revenue comes from individual income taxes, 7 percent from corporate income taxes, and another 36 percent from payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs (figure 1). The rest comes from a mix of sources.

 

Federal income is not a measure of tax rates. You're smarter than this, sack. Try harder. 

That is federal revenue.  Of all sources.  What the government takes in as a percentage of our GDP.

[bolverk 29782]

5 hours ago, Reagan1k said:

Might want to consider heading down to 10 and then up 55 with a stop in Scott, LA for some Best Stop.

Will not add that much time and a much easier drive than dealing with all that bullshit in AR

Yeah, but then he'd have to drive over that rusted out, scary ass bridge in Lake Charles.

5 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

It would add 3 hours, but that's not the problem, the problem is that the gravitational pull of NOLA would keep me from ever making it to Memphis to begin with.

There is this issue too.

 

I went to check out the wiki entry for this bridge and came across this passage and am wondering if the break was caused by the settling of other piers.

Quote

On August 23, 2007, an inspector discovered that a bridge pier on the approach bridge west of the river had settled overnight, and the bridge was subsequently closed to perform a precautionary inspection. The bridge was reopened later that day.

 

[Reagan1k 3024]

I drive to TX and back on 10 so much that I'm somewhat numb to that Calcasieu River Bridge's condition, but I agree and I may start betting on it in annual death pools going forward.  I'll bingo on it before too long.

I'd bet that the delta between going 10/55 vs. dealing with the bridge detour and subsequent backup will be closer to 2 hours than 3 hours.  Once you hit 55, the traffic is always light and the average cruising speed seems to be around 83.  If you're going not driving at least 80, keep an eye out in the rear because you'll get run over in short order.   It's like 10 out in West Texas.  YMMV - literally.

[BabaYaga 15359]

4 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The cult of low taxes as you call it isn't no taxes. It's tax revenue ACTUALLY going to the places it's claimed to be for (and nothing else). What tax legislation, and project funding have become is some money ostensibly for the actual proposed project then rider after rider of pork barrel shit that most tax payers would not want funded (SEE: Latest relief funding for the covid crisis).

I'm all for infrastructure funding, as it's an actual nuts, and bolts investment in the nation, its economy, safety, and long term, economic stability.

No shit.  And these bills need to be individual bills.  Not thousand+ page omnibus bullshit legislation so large and complex nobody reads them and are loaded with pork.  

You want highway funding.  Pass a highway bill.  By itself.  You want bridges?  Dams?  Same.  

[Hefeweizen 5350]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Most steel alloys can be designed for infinite life, depending on environmental conditions.  Hey to the S-N diagram.

 

Maybe so (what do you consider infinite) but cost is part of design, as are considerations for useful life.  In theory you could also get rid of the bridge by driving to the headwaters and around it but that would be impractical.  Engineering is full of trade offs related to costs, materials, and life cycles. 
 

Regardless of that I like how this went straight to fuck your face don’t charge me money for taxes to fix Arkansas and Tensetucky’s shit!  

[BabaYaga 15359]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

That is federal revenue.  Of all sources.  What the government takes in as a percentage of our GDP.

Revenue as a % of GDP doesn't fluctuate (as a %) all that much.  We all should know this.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

20 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Revenue as a % of GDP doesn't fluctuate (as a %) all that much.  We all should know this.  

Yep.  That is my point arguing against any argument that our infrastructure is deteriorating because we don't tax as much as we used to.  It just is not true.  The government is getting the same or more of what it took from the economy in taxes and fees as it did in 1950.

[jimmyjazz 46400]

20 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Maybe so (what do you consider infinite) but cost is part of design, as are considerations for useful life.  In theory you could also get rid of the bridge by driving to the headwaters and around it but that would be impractical.  Engineering is full of trade offs related to costs, materials, and life cycles. 

I consider "infinite" to be . . . infinite.  But yes, it is true that achieving an "infinite" fatigue life typically leads to higher up-front costs.

This is about as uninteresting a discussion as could be had on this thread, so we should be proud.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11822]

32 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Revenue as a % of GDP doesn't fluctuate (as a %) all that much.  We all should know this.  

Yes but that is independent of who pays taxes on that revenue, the sources of revenue and the total income and types of income per component.  Wealthy people and high income people are certainly not getting hosed in the US.  

[Gil Bang 26081]

3 hours ago, Bat Guano said:

 

Don't you get a bit of cognitive dissonance from the two graphs - the one you responded to and the one you presented? How can the effective rate of the 1 percent and above have fallen, and yet their share of the tax burden goes up? It's because of the old dodge by the right-wingers of conflating all taxes into Federal income taxes. Not the same thing, as you note - state and local, property and sales tax, all that adds up. Sales taxes in particular have risen over the time periods shown, and they are very regressive. Add to that that the delta between the 1 and even more so the .1 percent, and everybody else, has grown exponentially, which means that while their share of the federal income tax may have gone up, it's still way down from where it would have been if the top rates had stayed where they were in the 1950s. And federal dollars are where, by and large, infrastructure spending comes from. Sure, spending on SS and medicare has gone up, and that is paid for mostly by the middle class and below because of the income caps, and is a separate issue because they have their own dedicated revenue streams. So conflating all taxes with Federal income taxes is misleading, and, to get back to the discussion, federal dollars available for infrastructure spending have been declining. And yes, it's because of tax policy, though it's not quite as simple as "rich people pay most of the taxes." 

Any discussion vis-a-vis this bridge, between Arkansas and TN, is incomplete without a rundown of the effective meth tax rate. 

[atomheartbevo 89942]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Bridges.  Dams.  Sewer systems.  Water systems.  Big items/webs of infrastructure, the approach has been "fix anything you can with duct tape and baling wire, so we can keep your annual budget at $100."  As anyone who has ever fixed ANYTHING knows, that approach works....until it doesn't, and you then face a BIG bill for decades of deferred maintenance.

The bills are coming due.  Lots of them.  All at once.

Some of them started coming due just a few months ago during our little winter storm.  That really should have been a wakeup call.

[Brisketexan 105509]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Some of them started coming due just a few months ago during our little winter storm.  That really should have been a wakeup call.

Oh, it was....a wakeup call to blame renewable energy for not winterizing gas lines, or something like that.

We are incapable of governing ourselves.  Just completely and entirely incapable.  Shit will only get worse.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yes but that is independent of who pays taxes on that revenue, the sources of revenue and the total income and types of income per component.  Wealthy people and high income people are certainly not getting hosed in the US.  

Nor are the bottom 50 percent.  
 

The point is the government is getting as much or more of their share in taxes than they did in 1950.  So no, the cult of low taxes isn’t why we don’t take care of our infrastructure like we did back then.  We have a lot more federal employees per citizen then we did 70 years ago.  Instead of bureaucrats we should spend money on roads and other infrastructure.