Speaking of Infrastructure

[Brisketexan 105490]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

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.  

Actually, it's materially lower.  From around 52-80, gov't receipts as a share of GDP averaged around 17.5%.  Since 1980, it's closer to 16.5%.  That's a material drop.

Of course, the share of those receipts on defense spending has gone up, I think (don't have my hands on the data at this point).

[Updawg 2295]

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.  

Ha, what country do you live in? All politicians thrive off of pork.

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

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

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2021/04/06/biden-infrastructure-plan-what-is-in-it-policy-proposal/amp/

eta: I have no clue on the politics of that magazine. Just what came up when I googled. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by fattyflattie

[High Plains Drifter 11054]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

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.  

 

I agree with you on all this. I really do. But the fact is that is not how the federal government passes spending bills. If your opposition to this bill is due to that reason, then you should be against pretty much every spending bill ever passed by the feds.

 

 

[Captainant 27889]

27 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2021/04/06/biden-infrastructure-plan-what-is-in-it-policy-proposal/amp/

eta: I have no clue on the politics of that magazine. Just what came up when I googled. 

That article is arguing that anything that isn't specifically roads and bridges isn't "infrastructure". It's not a great argument and it's ignoring the investments into energy efficiency and communications infrastructure. I'm not saying it's a lean and mean bill, but it's not 93% pork either. 

[bolverk 29780]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

We have a lot more federal employees per citizen then we did 70 years ago.  

FALSE

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has a great dataset for FTE employment by industry going back quite a ways. It's not often cited because there's typically a lag time of a couple of years. 2019 is the most recent year for which these data are available.

• In 1949, the federal government employed 1,397,000 civilian FTEs which was 3.0 percent of all workers in the US. Total population of the US in 1949 was 149 million, so it comes out to one federal civilian worker for every 107 Americans.
• In 2019, the federal government employed 2,173,000 civilian FTEs which was 1.6 percent of all workers in the U.S. Total population of the US in 2019 was 330 million, so it comes out to one federal civilian worker for every 152 Americans.

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by bolverk
correcting link

[Guest Lobo]

Do we have any spare parts leftover from all those hundreds of miles of new wall we built on the southern border, with which we could fix this bridge? 

Typical government project  would have all kinds of overages and surplus.  Surely in 1000 miles of new wall, there's something we can repurpose?   

Edited May 14, 2021 by Lobo

[fattyflattie 4639]

22 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That article is arguing that anything that isn't specifically roads and bridges isn't "infrastructure". It's not a great argument and it's ignoring the investments into energy efficiency and communications infrastructure. I'm not saying it's a lean and mean bill, but it's not 93% pork either. 

That’s fine. I specifically said I wasn’t against spending on forwards thinking items.  But some people are, or at least calling it “infrastructure” to try and shoehorn pork. And while we could gain some benefit from spending shitloads on public housing and daycare, neither of those fix failing bridges and roads, or shitty ports.   Call it what it is, humanitarian spending and push a bill for that. 

[Captainant 27889]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Call it what it is, humanitarian spending and push a bill for that. 

Damn communists /johnnysack

[phdhorn 6224]

Doesn't really matter.  It's not going anywhere in its present form.  It'll eventually have pork, but less.  Why?

Joe Gandalf.


Say what you want about DINO Joe, but he knows how to seize his moment, and he is doing it - and very well.

Edited May 14, 2021 by phdhorn

[bolverk 29780]

Taken from the CBO:

Since the mid-1980s, federal spending on highways has remained mostly flat as a share of GDP (slight decline over the past decade), but state and local spending appears to be slowly declining. Of course, federal spending went way up in the late 50s and remained elevated through the early 70s as the interstate system was built. I'm not sure what was going on with state and local spending to make it decline so much, but my guess is that post-war population shift to the suburbs accounted for a lot of that.

Here's one thing about flat spending: we have a whole lot more just to maintain than we used to, and all that shit we built after the war is getting old as fuck. Spending 0.2 percent of GDP annually on a bunch of highways is spreading those dollars mighty thin.

[elfenix 34366]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s fine. I specifically said I wasn’t against spending on forwards thinking items.  But some people are, or at least calling it “infrastructure” to try and shoehorn pork. And while we could gain some benefit from spending shitloads on public housing and daycare, neither of those fix failing bridges and roads, or shitty ports.   Call it what it is, humanitarian spending and push a bill for that. 

it's actually called "The American Jobs Plan" if titles matter so much. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by elfenix

[clapclapclap 9000]

I wonder if Feb's big cold snap caused it to snap?

Edited May 14, 2021 by clapclapclap

[Steel Shank 9435]

Give me the bridge!!!

 

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Steel Shank

[brakeman 28502]

[Incredulity 11684]

2 hours ago, brakeman said:

 

 

https://taxfoundation.org/friendly-reminder-pass-through-businesses-exist/

 

The United States has two different systems for taxing businesses. Some businesses, known as C corporations, file their taxes through the corporate tax code. Other businesses file their taxes through the individual tax code, on the returns of the owner. Over time, the C corporation structure has become less prominent, and the pass through structure, filed on the individual code, has become more prominent. (More on the pass through structure here.)

Measurement of taxes on C corporations alone doesn't give a complete picture of how businesses are paying tax. A majority of business income now comes from businesses filing through the individual tax code. We even made charts to show how this works.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Incredulity

[BabaYaga 15332]

16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

 

https://taxfoundation.org/friendly-reminder-pass-through-businesses-exist/

 

The United States has two different systems for taxing businesses. Some businesses, known as C corporations, file their taxes through the corporate tax code. Other businesses file their taxes through the individual tax code, on the returns of the owner. Over time, the C corporation structure has become less prominent, and the pass through structure, filed on the individual code, has become more prominent. (More on the pass through structure here.)

Measurement of taxes on C corporations alone doesn't give a complete picture of how businesses are paying tax. A majority of business income now comes from businesses filing through the individual tax code. We even made charts to show how this works.

Or the other "not so fun fact" that in the 40's, post WWII, the US was arguably the ONLY developed country with any means for mass production and manufacturing.  You could trip and fall your way into production success as there was no competition.  As the landscape changed, international competition and opportunities sprung up and the need for a more competitive domestic landscape arose....including the tax rates/structure.  

 

[babysdaddy 2730]

7 hours ago, brakeman said:

quit spamming the entire site with dumbfuck takes from facebook, please.

[brakeman 28502]

thanks coach.

1 hour ago, babysdaddy said:

quit spamming the entire site with dumbfuck takes from facebook, please.

 

[brakeman 28502]

thanks coach.

2 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

quit spamming the entire site with dumbfuck takes from facebook, please.

[Trey3216 15380]

On 5/13/2021 at 11:32 AM, 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.

Wouldn't you scrutinize a spending bill that's $2tn and includes shit that doesn't even remotely pertain to infrastructure??  

[Trey3216 15380]

On 5/13/2021 at 1:45 PM, 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%.

It helps when the share of income portion of that fraction increases almost exponentially.  

[crash_davis 23122]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

Wouldn't you scrutinize a spending bill that's $2tn and includes shit that doesn't even remotely pertain to infrastructure??  

Have you ever see the odd shit in every spending bill passed for the last 20 years. Pork is not new to this bill. Both parties are guilty as fuck. What I find ironically funny is that Rs all of the sudden become fiscal conservatives when only D presidents are in office.

 

Did you see all the bullshit in Trump's spending and relief bills. Trump blew up the budget and deficit years before COVID hit. There was no reason for it and don't remember one R bitching about that. 

I would love for a balanced budget but I know it'll never happen because hypocrites only rattle the cages when it's not their party doing the spending.

[Trey3216 15380]

6 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Have you ever see the odd shit in every spending bill passed for the last 20 years. Pork is not new to this bill. Both parties are guilty as fuck. What I find ironically funny is that Rs all of the sudden become fiscal conservatives when only D presidents are in office.

 

Did you see all the bullshit in Trump's spending and relief bills. Trump blew up the budget and deficit years before COVID hit. There was no reason for it and don't remember one R bitching about that. 

I would love for a balanced budget but I know it'll never happen because hypocrites only rattle the cages when it's not their party doing the spending.

Of course I have, that was my point   

[elfenix 34366]

 

2 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

Wouldn't you scrutinize a spending bill that's $2tn and includes shit that doesn't even remotely pertain to infrastructure??  

hate to repeat myself, but:

On 5/13/2021 at 9:44 PM, elfenix said:

it's actually called "The American Jobs Plan" if titles matter so much. 

[atomheartbevo 89909]

That's a helluva bridge problem.

"Concerns from some area residents?"

SOME?  

That's not how bridges are supposed to look.

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/txdot-evaluating-damages-to-sh-45-u-s-183-frontage-bridge/

Quote

The Texas Department of Transportation is evaluating damages to a bridge near the State Highway 45, U.S. 183 frontage road intersection amid concerns from some area residents.

A TxDOT spokesperson said crews recently went out to the site to assess damages and are developing a plan for repairs. Officials said they are in discussions with bridge experts to determine the specific repairs needed and don’t have an estimated timeline at this time.

[Blotto 23620]

Apparently it's so sketchy that even the homeless refuse to set up an encampment under there. 

[Your Mom 4866]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

Apparently it's so sketchy that even the homeless refuse to set up an encampment under there. 

I hereby nominate it as a designated camping area. 

[Trey3216 15380]

13 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

That's a helluva bridge problem.

"Concerns from some area residents?"

SOME?  

That's not how bridges are supposed to look.

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/txdot-evaluating-damages-to-sh-45-u-s-183-frontage-bridge/

That’ll buff, I mean wash, right out.  

[UT_OB1 2227]

Any bridge designers / civil engineers around?  Is that section only for looks, or is it part of the support and no one should be driving on it?

[davidg 4040]

That's a concrete surface cap to prevent erosion and has little to do with the strength of the bridge abutment.  The end of the bridge is supported by the piers, which should extend down to bedrock.  If left unchecked it could eventually lead to subsidence of the roadway at the bridge abutment but highly unlikely that there would be an issue with the bridge.

[RPM 26382]

[fattyflattie 4639]

When I was doing super heavy haul (think hundreds and sometime thousand of tons) you wouldn’t believe the bridge conditions we had to cross. Had a great engineer who pretty much does all of the bridge work in Texas.  But man some of the reports he’d send back on quality were eye opening. We got some shitty bridges for sure. 

[MrBig 5477]

On 9/22/2021 at 6:21 PM, atomheartbevo said:

That's a helluva bridge problem.

"Concerns from some area residents?"

SOME?  

That's not how bridges are supposed to look.

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/txdot-evaluating-damages-to-sh-45-u-s-183-frontage-bridge/

[BabaYaga 15332]

On 9/22/2021 at 1:19 PM, crash_davis said:

Have you ever see the odd shit in every spending bill passed for the last 20 years. Pork is not new to this bill. Both parties are guilty as fuck. What I find ironically funny is that Rs all of the sudden become fiscal conservatives when only D presidents are in office.

 

Did you see all the bullshit in Trump's spending and relief bills. Trump blew up the budget and deficit years before COVID hit. There was no reason for it and don't remember one R bitching about that. 

I would love for a balanced budget but I know it'll never happen because hypocrites only rattle the cages when it's not their party doing the spending.

Of course he did.  It was one of the main gripes from the right that he was spending like crazy.

Everyone should have their eyes open.  We are headed for another mother fucker of a crash - akin to '07-'08.  Evergrande is Lehman's on steroids.  There are hundreds more in China and evidence of significant domestic contagion (like Blackrock, UBS, HSBC, etc).  We are so fucking overleveraged that each crash is exponentially worse than the one prior.

Everyone is betting on a Chinese bailout, but the "three red lines" have been crossed and the leadership is mad pissed.  

[TwiceHorn 31653]

On 9/21/2021 at 12:30 PM, Incredulity said:

 

 

https://taxfoundation.org/friendly-reminder-pass-through-businesses-exist/

 

The United States has two different systems for taxing businesses. Some businesses, known as C corporations, file their taxes through the corporate tax code. Other businesses file their taxes through the individual tax code, on the returns of the owner. Over time, the C corporation structure has become less prominent, and the pass through structure, filed on the individual code, has become more prominent. (More on the pass through structure here.)

Measurement of taxes on C corporations alone doesn't give a complete picture of how businesses are paying tax. A majority of business income now comes from businesses filing through the individual tax code. We even made charts to show how this works.

No large corporations are pass-through entities.

[Guest Lobo]

Serious, non-political question.  What kind of corporation is the Trump Organization?  I know it has many subsidiaries, but it in and of itself does exist as a separate corporation.  I'm assuming it's an S.  But does anybody know?  

[TwiceHorn 31653]

10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Serious, non-political question.  What kind of corporation is the Trump Organization?  I know it has many subsidiaries, but it in and of itself does exist as a separate corporation.  I'm assuming it's an S.  But does anybody know?  

I don't think it's a legally cognizable entity at all.

There are many more than 50 Trump corporations and LLCs registered in Delaware.  The list of the first 50 ends with "Trump Chicago Retail LLC."

There are 81 Trump entities in Nevada, which is another popular corporation state.

And another 49 in New York.

Edited September 24, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Guest Lobo]

It's been named in a number of lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant.  It's often listed alongside DJT or some other principal, but it's there on the filing.  It has to exist in some corporate manner.  I've seen it listed as a GP on real estate pitch decks as well.  Obviously could just be incepted for as an SPV for that one GP/LP PPM, but it's been named in legal matters many times as a general holding company.  

[TwiceHorn 31653]

15 minutes ago, Lobo said:

It's been named in a number of lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant.  It's often listed alongside DJT or some other principal, but it's there on the filing.  It has to exist in some corporate manner.  I've seen it listed as a GP on real estate pitch decks as well.  Obviously could just be incepted for as an SPV for that one GP/LP PPM, but it's been named in legal matters many times as a general holding company.  

Fair enough.  The NY AG suit, which probably attempts more than any other to encompass the entire organization, has sued "THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC." and several others. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/James_20210129_James-subpoena-motion.pdf

Further deets:  https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/first_affirmation.pdf

Approximately 500 separate entities collectively do business as The Trump Organization. Respondent The Trump Organization, Inc. is a New York corporation. According to required disclosures, from May 1, 1981 to January 19, 2017, Mr. Trump was Director, President, and Chairman of the Trump Organization, Inc. From at least July 15, 2015 until May 16, 2016, Mr. Trump was the sole owner of The Trump Organization, Inc. Ex. 10 at A19; Ex.11 at A19. As of 2017, the Trump Organization, Inc. was wholly owned by DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC. Ex. 12 at 10, A18

Edited September 24, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn Fever 267]

FALSE
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has a great dataset for FTE employment by industry going back quite a ways. It's not often cited because there's typically a lag time of a couple of years. 2019 is the most recent year for which these data are available.

• In 1949, the federal government employed 1,397,000 civilian FTEs which was 3.0 percent of all workers in the US. Total population of the US in 1949 was 149 million, so it comes out to one federal civilian worker for every 107 Americans.
• In 2019, the federal government employed 2,173,000 civilian FTEs which was 1.6 percent of all workers in the U.S. Total population of the US in 2019 was 330 million, so it comes out to one federal civilian worker for every 152 Americans.

 

FALSE
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has a great dataset for FTE employment by industry going back quite a ways. It's not often cited because there's typically a lag time of a couple of years. 2019 is the most recent year for which these data are available.

• In 1949, the federal government employed 1,397,000 civilian FTEs which was 3.0 percent of all workers in the US. Total population of the US in 1949 was 149 million, so it comes out to one federal civilian worker for every 107 Americans.
• In 2019, the federal government employed 2,173,000 civilian FTEs which was 1.6 percent of all workers in the U.S. Total population of the US in 2019 was 330 million, so it comes out to one federal civilian worker for every 152 Americans.

 

I wonder how much the government contractor population has boomed over this period?

[Incredulity 11684]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No large corporations are pass-through entities.

So what.

The basis of the meme I responded to is disingenuous at best.

[TwiceHorn 31653]

On 9/24/2021 at 5:12 PM, Longhorn Fever said:

 

I wonder how much the government contractor population has boomed over this period?

 

Privatization has probably kept the federal employee number to a dull roar, but there are more federal agencies now, by quite a few.

[TwiceHorn 31653]

23 hours ago, Incredulity said:

So what.

The basis of the meme I responded to is disingenuous at best.

Corporate tax rates were higher then, and there was I believe less of a culture of tax avoidance.

I might also suspect that there were a lot fewer small businesses incorporated then, too.  Sub S was enacted in 1958, incidentally, and, AFAIK was the first pass through entity.

So, I might suspect that that meme reflects taxes paid by larger C corps because there weren't (m)any S corps or LLCs back then.

Edited September 25, 2021 by TwiceHorn