Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-16-2014, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,345 posts, read 6,480,685 times
Reputation: 5144

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
No. You prove otherwise. I have given multiple examples where user-fees / private transit works better than in the past. You prove why those are a fluke. Also, ridership is higher on private transit services because they have an incentive to attract more customers and increase their profit. Compare private transit services and see.
I'm not the one proposing a new and wild idea. If you really care that much about this radical new plan, then you should be able to show its positives. The fact that only a few fringe elements seriously propose what you do speaks volumes.
Quote:
So you prefer housing projects and feel they were a success?
Again, show some specifics.
Quote:
Yes, as it is already effective other places and was in America's past.
Keyword: PAST. Horse-drawn carts are already effective other places and were in America's past, are you advocating we go back to them too?
Quote:
This requires roads being 100% user fee funded.
Name a place where all roads are 100% user fee funded so we can see it being effective in other places.
Quote:
A Basic income would be the best solution.
Drawn from where? Taxes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2014, 07:53 PM
 
10,974 posts, read 10,813,219 times
Reputation: 3435
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
I'm not the one proposing a new and wild idea. If you really care that much about this radical new plan, then you should be able to show its positives. The fact that only a few fringe elements seriously propose what you do speaks volumes.

Again, show some specifics.

Keyword: PAST. Horse-drawn carts are already effective other places and were in America's past, are you advocating we go back to them too?

Name a place where all roads are 100% user fee funded so we can see it being effective in other places.
Not a radical idea at all. America is the extreme one that has dumped so much general tax money into highways that transit cannot compete. This list of the many examples has been given to you before: China's highways, India's highways, Japan's highways, France and Italy's often private tolled highways, The Autobahn, UK's turnpikes, Hong Kong's transit, and basically every transit system before 1940.

The US is the exception, not the rule. Most countries charge drivers directly via tolls or fuel taxes to fund highways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
Drawn from where? Taxes?
Yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2014, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,345 posts, read 6,480,685 times
Reputation: 5144
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Not a radical idea at all. America is the extreme one that has dumped so much general tax money into highways that transit cannot compete. This list of the many examples has been given to you before: China's highways, India's highways, Japan's highways, France and Italy's often private tolled highways, The Autobahn, UK's turnpikes, Hong Kong's transit, and basically every transit system before 1940.
Guess what? Most of those were at least initially funded by public funds! Even so, most of those places also have extensive public transit systems which includes extensive intercity transportation systems many of which are owned, or heavily subsidized in some way by the government.
Quote:
The US is the exception, not the rule. Most countries charge drivers directly via tolls or fuel taxes to fund highways.
Actually, the US has spent pitiful amounts on its infrastructure compared to other countries. Oh, and we actually do collect a fuel tax.
Quote:
Yes.
So you don't want to take taxes from everyone in order to benefit everyone, but you DO want to take taxes from everyone in order to benefit a few people??? WOW! I have never seen such oppositely charged views expressed so closely together by a single person!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2014, 08:30 PM
 
10,974 posts, read 10,813,219 times
Reputation: 3435
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
Guess what? Most of those were at least initially funded by public funds! Even so, most of those places also have extensive public transit systems which includes extensive intercity transportation systems many of which are owned, or heavily subsidized in some way by the government.
Actually, the US has spent pitiful amounts on its infrastructure compared to other countries.
False. In fact most of our transit infrastructure (like NYC's subways) was built by private companies and is now used by the govenment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
Oh, and we actually do collect a fuel tax.
Yes, I know we have been over this many a time. This makes me feel like we are going no where. The user fees (tolls + fuel tax) only pays 25% of the roads in GA and 33% nationally. We need to get that to 100% like most of the rest of the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
So you don't want to take taxes from everyone in order to benefit everyone, but you DO want to take taxes from everyone in order to benefit a few people??? WOW! I have never seen such oppositely charged views expressed so closely together by a single person!
You have it reversed. Look up a basic income. The whole idea is everyone gets it, but it benefits the poor most. So I want to take away tax money that benefits oil companies and people that drive the most and give it to everybody. A basic income is a lot better way to help the poor than building a road to the suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2014, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,345 posts, read 6,480,685 times
Reputation: 5144
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
False. In fact most of our transit infrastructure (like NYC's subways) was built by private companies and is now used by the govenment.
And why is that? Oh yes, because the private sector won't run it. I can't find out much about NYC's private company financials, but it is well documented that the other well-known transit lines were essentially real estate companies or power companies, who simply used the lines as either loopholes to sell power, or as the sole transportation among their real estate.
Quote:
Yes, I know we have been over this many a time. This makes me feel like we are going no where. The user fees (tolls + fuel tax) only pays 25% of the roads in GA and 33% nationally. We need to get that to 100% like most of the rest of the world.
Is it really 100%? Let's see some sources, some financial pages that say that the user fees cover 100%+ of the operations of those systems. Earlier you (or someone) claimed that the British rail network model was free of subsidies, when actually it has similar subsidies to our own transit lines. Good luck getting the true story out of China BTW.
Quote:
You have it reversed. Look up a basic income. The whole idea is everyone gets it, but it benefits the poor most. So I want to take away tax money that benefits oil companies and people that drive the most and give it to everybody. A basic income is a lot better way to help the poor than building a road to the suburbs.
As much as I hate when the tea party says everything the Democrats do is "communism" I have to say that this is pretty close, and keeps people tied to the government. Why should ANYONE work then? Public assistance should be designed to assist people when they're down so that they can recover. Food stamps are already abused to buy cigarettes, lottery tickets, alcohol, do you really want to spend tax money on people's drug habits? porn habits? gambling habits? At least I can make use of the public infrastructure, or benefit from it through the prosperity of the county/state/country, and I don't mind helping the poor get on their feet since a more productive society will benefit me as well, but to spend tax money on something only the poor will benefit is obscene. If I can make a decent middle-class salary, what good is that basic income to me?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 08:29 AM
 
10,974 posts, read 10,813,219 times
Reputation: 3435
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
And why is that? Oh yes, because the private sector won't run it. I can't find out much about NYC's private company financials, but it is well documented that the other well-known transit lines were essentially real estate companies or power companies, who simply used the lines as either loopholes to sell power, or as the sole transportation among their real estate.

Is it really 100%? Let's see some sources, some financial pages that say that the user fees cover 100%+ of the operations of those systems. Earlier you (or someone) claimed that the British rail network model was free of subsidies, when actually it has similar subsidies to our own transit lines. Good luck getting the true story out of China BTW.

As much as I hate when the tea party says everything the Democrats do is "communism" I have to say that this is pretty close, and keeps people tied to the government. Why should ANYONE work then? Public assistance should be designed to assist people when they're down so that they can recover. Food stamps are already abused to buy cigarettes, lottery tickets, alcohol, do you really want to spend tax money on people's drug habits? porn habits? gambling habits? At least I can make use of the public infrastructure, or benefit from it through the prosperity of the county/state/country, and I don't mind helping the poor get on their feet since a more productive society will benefit me as well, but to spend tax money on something only the poor will benefit is obscene. If I can make a decent middle-class salary, what good is that basic income to me?
You seem quite set on pigeon holing people into your into your political stereotypes. I am not a tea-partier, I happily voted for Obama the past 2 elections because the GOP candidates have been terrible. My politics usually align strongly libertarian but I am an independent and think every one should be. You have to think for yourself.

Society is going to have to move beyond these defined political stereotypes if we want to stay effective as a country. "Communism" does not mean providing for the poor. The economic component of communism is government ownership and control of markets. Basic Income is not that at all. It empowers the poor to participate in the Free Market. They are no longer bound to live in only government sanctioned projects or approved section 8 housing or bound to only afford subsidized transportation or only eat what food stamps allow or be bound to a minimum wage job not for the money but so you can qualify for government assistance. No, basic income actually grant the poor freedom to make their own choices.

Ask yourself this question: "Does someone that makes the choice not to work in the US deserve to live?" Do we let them die? What if they say they want to work but cannot find a job? Under what conditions does a does a non-working person a non-working person deserve to have the minimum needs to survive in our society? If they say they want a job? If they have sent in a resume once a month for the last 2 years but found nothing? If they are obese? If they are over 60?

Society is heading towards the future we envisioned where technology will take care of all of the things we don't want to do. Technology to clear your floor, drive your car, flip your burgers, ring up your order, make your coffee. We are seeing the start in a shift in the job market. Many people have given up on finding jobs all together.

A basic income is only designed to provide enough to bring someone up to the top of the poverty line. It will not provide a "decent middle-class salary" it is enough to survive on. But if you want to afford any sort of luxury beyond the bare essentials you will have to find a source of money. Maybe you like cooking and choose to flip burgers from they same price as a robot. Maybe you decide to invest in your future and go to school with your time and get a middle class job. But you know that you always have the knowledge that you can survive if things don't work out. Companies will be forced to offer good salaries for jobs that no one wants to do.

Who is the government to judge what a person does with their time and money? If it is legal than leave them alone. Let people be free to live their life. You don't think unemployment or social security money already gets spent on all of those bad things?

Stop trying to "help" people by giving roads to people who may not own a car, or a house where they do not want to live, or take their time away from following their true calling because you think they need to flip burgers to be allowed to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,345 posts, read 6,480,685 times
Reputation: 5144
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
You seem quite set on pigeon holing people into your into your political stereotypes. I am not a tea-partier, I happily voted for Obama the past 2 elections because the GOP candidates have been terrible. My politics usually align strongly libertarian but I am an independent and think every one should be. You have to think for yourself.
I didn't call you a tea partier. If you read what I wrote, I said I'm tired of the tea partiers saying that everything on the left is "Communism." I too hate when people brashly title things instead of thinking for themselves.
Quote:
Society is going to have to move beyond these defined political stereotypes if we want to stay effective as a country. "Communism" does not mean providing for the poor. The economic component of communism is government ownership and control of markets. Basic Income is not that at all. It empowers the poor to participate in the Free Market. They are no longer bound to live in only government sanctioned projects or approved section 8 housing or bound to only afford subsidized transportation or only eat what food stamps allow or be bound to a minimum wage job not for the money but so you can qualify for government assistance. No, basic income actually grant the poor freedom to make their own choices.
It might not be communism by design, but that path would easily lead to a communistic system. If everyone is guaranteed a paycheck, then why should anyone work at all? The survival of the people will be completely dependent on the government, and we would end up with the classless society that is a hallmark of idealistic communism. And that's the best case.
Quote:
Ask yourself this question: "Does someone that makes the choice not to work in the US deserve to live?" Do we let them die? What if they say they want to work but cannot find a job? Under what conditions does a does a non-working person a non-working person deserve to have the minimum needs to survive in our society? If they say they want a job? If they have sent in a resume once a month for the last 2 years but found nothing? If they are obese? If they are over 60?
No we don't let them die, but we don't throw money at them for doing nothing. Sure, some people can't work, and maybe those deserve better than basic survival since it isn't their fault. But the vast majority of people that the basic income would allow into the "free market" as you put it, are fully capable of being productive in some fashion and earning more than survival if they want more.
Quote:
Society is heading towards the future we envisioned where technology will take care of all of the things we don't want to do. Technology to clear your floor, drive your car, flip your burgers, ring up your order, make your coffee. We are seeing the start in a shift in the job market.
And yet, jobs overall continue to increase long-term. There still has to be people to maintain the technology and to think for the technology. Maybe the day will come when we invent AI and it can think for itself, but I fear that day as the human race would become obsolete.
Quote:
Many people have given up on finding jobs all together.
If they're still capable and they've given up, then that's their problem, and instead of just throwing money at them to sit around doing nothing, we should encourage them and enable them to find a job, or gain the skills necessary to find a job.
Quote:
A basic income is only designed to provide enough to bring someone up to the top of the poverty line. It will not provide a "decent middle-class salary" it is enough to survive on. But if you want to afford any sort of luxury beyond the bare essentials you will have to find a source of money. Maybe you like cooking and choose to flip burgers from they same price as a robot. Maybe you decide to invest in your future and go to school with your time and get a middle class job. But you know that you always have the knowledge that you can survive if things don't work out. Companies will be forced to offer good salaries for jobs that no one wants to do.
We can leave people secure in the knowledge they can survive without giving them what amounts to a blank check. Why should the people who choose to expand their horizons be forced to pay for people who will use their basic income to buy booze, tobacco, possibly drugs and do nothing in return? People shouldn't mind making sure others survive, but people should mind those same people having a party at their expense.
Quote:
Who is the government to judge what a person does with their time and money? If it is legal than leave them alone. Let people be free to live their life. You don't think unemployment or social security money already gets spent on all of those bad things?
I'm sure it does, but social security is something most people have paid into by working. Especially now with the move to nationalized healthcare, why should the rest of the people subsidize directly unhealthy habits such as alochol and tobacco? I realize the same could be said of sugary or high-fat foods, but unlike tobacco at least, they aren't inherently unhealthy. These foods in moderation are fine, no amount of tobacco even in moderation is fine. Alcohol isn't required for survival either, sure there might be some benefits to drinking it in moderation, and I could support some kind of "optional ration" for alcohol on food stamps where the amount able to be bought with tax-provided money is limited in some fashion, maybe even the same for some types of "junk food" but the line between unhealthy and healthy gets blurred there.
Quote:
Stop trying to "help" people by giving roads to people who may not own a car, or a house where they do not want to live, or take their time away from following their true calling because you think they need to flip burgers to be allowed to live.
So if their true calling is to not work and sit around and drink and smoke all day, I should spend my money on them? I don't think so. At least by investing in roads and transit, I'm spending money on myself as well as others and not directly subsidizing their bad habits. Providing a basic income would mean many people are spending money only on others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 10:48 AM
 
10,974 posts, read 10,813,219 times
Reputation: 3435
So you think we, as a society, should support even the people that do not want to work. But you don't want to spend any money on them? What did you have in mind?

Build them roads, but forbid the roads to transport things that you find objectionable like alcohol?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,242 posts, read 6,206,628 times
Reputation: 2778
So yeah, TSPLOST?

I bet there have been a lot of good points over the past 5 pages of this thread, but I for one, cannot read through the multiquote bonanza. Is it really necessary to pick apart ever single sentence of someone's post?

Sorry if I come across as a jerk, but these posts are like thread pollution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Orange Blossom Trail
6,420 posts, read 6,483,077 times
Reputation: 2673
Quote:
Originally Posted by tikigod311 View Post
So yeah, TSPLOST?

I bet there have been a lot of good points over the past 5 pages of this thread, but I for one, cannot read through the multiquote bonanza. Is it really necessary to pick apart ever single sentence of someone's post?

Sorry if I come across as a jerk, but these posts are like thread pollution.
Naw Tikigod I think you are right & that it is stupid as chit to do that. It makes the forum less enjoyable to read. Some people need to work on their posting style or learn the culture of the forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top