Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

HenryAlan said:
The things you listed aren't necessarily that. I mean direct investment, not trust funds.
Click to expand...
A trust fund is just a package for investments.

No trust fund is set up over a mattress full of cash. They’re invested in stocks. They’re invested in bonds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
It's amazing what a 2% wealth tax is going to give us in the US, were we to get it - and that would be a world in which Elon's or Bezos' or any Tony Stark-like dude's wealth would continue to grow at a good clip. Honestly with a 3-4% wealth tax would actually give us enough money to start planning the NSRL and then building it.
 
as02143 said:
It's amazing what a 2% wealth tax is going to give us in the US, were we to get it - and that would be a world in which Elon's or Bezos' or any Tony Stark-like dude's wealth would continue to grow at a good clip. Honestly with a 3-4% wealth tax would actually give us enough money to start planning the NSRL and then building it.
Click to expand...
Again: the wealthy would structure their wealth in such a way as to avoid the tax. It would get you almost nothing. Especially because the ultra-rich are the ones that have the most resources to legally avoid the taxes.
 
DominusNovus said:
A trust fund is just a package for investments.

No trust fund is set up over a mattress full of cash. They’re invested in stocks. They’re invested in bonds.
Click to expand...
Not interested in much more back and forth, but what I meant by direct investment was specifically not buying and holding securities or crypto coins and such. That just moves money around. I'm talking about building factories, starting new companies, etc. Those are useful investments that stimulate the economy. So much of the investment types that simply increase wealth do not have the same sort of broad multiplier effect.
 
We could learn from best practices elsewhere, and even best practices for other modes here in the States and implement a dedicated, multi-year federal account for passenger rail investment. Notice how the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) or Aviation Trust Fund aren’t patchworks of funding that operate in fits and starts? They automatically collect revenue and distribute it by formula and performance. That’s what we should be doing federally. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel or be drawn to extremes.
 
HenryAlan said:
Not interested in much more back and forth, but what I meant by direct investment was specifically not buying and holding securities or crypto coins and such. That just moves money around. I'm talking about building factories, starting new companies, etc. Those are useful investments that stimulate the economy. So much of the investment types that simply increase wealth do not have the same sort of broad multiplier effect.
Click to expand...
Securities are how factories get built, how companies get started. We live in a financialized economy, and thats how things are done. When the vast majority of companies build something new, like a factory, or a store, or whatever, they do so with debt (bonds). Most healthy companies have 1x-2x as much debt as they have equity. In other words, almost all companies have at least as much debt as the actual value of their company. That debt is what enables their growth. It is packaged and sold, as bonds, to people who want something nice and secure and liquid to invest in. Same for governments, too.

I'll grant you that you can't be sure of the productive utility of something like a crypto-currency, but those are created specifically to make them hard to tax. So, good luck in trying to go after them - all that would happen, if the government is successful in its efforts, is that the value of those given crypto-currencies would collapse, since their use case has evaporated, and as the holders would sell them off, at a loss, they'd be able to use that as a tax write-off.

I think the NSRL is a fantastic idea. I don't think its worth upending our entire economy to get it built. Why not leverage all the major employers in the Boston metro who would benefit from being able to effectively double their recruiting pool if the NSRL was built?
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
DominusNovus said:
Why not leverage all the major employers in the Boston metro who would benefit from being able to effectively double their recruiting pool if the NSRL was built?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this create the same dilemma you are arguing exists with a wealth tax? The core problem with conversations like this is that there is no way to do big infrastructure without getting access to revenue streams that can't be produced by tiny incremental adjustments to the tax code. Whether it's a wealth tax, a transportation zone employment tax, debt, what have you, these are all big, and potentially economically disruptive. But I don't see us as having any choice, because the infrastructure is imperative.

I've read the same arguments you are making, regarding the so-called millionaires' tax, but it did not lead to a mass exodus of high earners. There are lots of people who are okay with paying more, to get indirect benefits. Probably most of us are in that category, regardless of income level. I don't see any direct benefit from SNAP, for example, but I definitely want the taxes I paid that were meant to fund it to actually fund it. That's not an uncommon point of view, and it can also apply to projects like North-South Rail.
 
HenryAlan said:
Wouldn't this create the same dilemma you are arguing exists with a wealth tax? The core problem with conversations like this is that there is no way to do big infrastructure without getting access to revenue streams that can't be produced by tiny incremental adjustments to the tax code. Whether it's a wealth tax, a transportation zone employment tax, debt, what have you, these are all big, and potentially economically disruptive. But I don't see us as having any choice, because the infrastructure is imperative.

I've read the same arguments you are making, regarding the so-called millionaires' tax, but it did not lead to a mass exodus of high earners. There are lots of people who are okay with paying more, to get indirect benefits. Probably most of us are in that category, regardless of income level. I don't see any direct benefit from SNAP, for example, but I definitely want the taxes I paid that were meant to fund it to actually fund it. That's not an uncommon point of view, and it can also apply to projects like North-South Rail.
Click to expand...

Wealth taxes are different from income taxes, for a variety of reasons. Conflating the two and switching back and forth is not an effective way to get to the truth.

My proposal is to partner with local employers, not tax them more.
 
DominusNovus said:
My proposal is to partner with local employers, not tax them more.
Click to expand...
How are you going to extract enough money from local employers to make this a reality if you're not doing some sort of tax? Donations? Appealing to their better nature? Yes, for-profit corporations with shareholders whose sole reason for living is the next quarterly-earnings report just looooovvvvve deep long-term over short-term thinking and spending money altruistically with no selfish payoff until years or decades later. Our national economy is totes driven by the greater public welfare. It's why times are so awesome for the working class right now. :rolleyes:
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
How are you going to extract enough money from local employers to make this a reality if you're not doing some sort of tax? Donations? Appealing to their better nature? Yes, for-profit corporations with shareholders whose sole reason for living is the next quarterly-earnings report just looooovvvvve deep long-term over short-term thinking and spending money altruistically with no selfish payoff until years or decades later. Our national economy is totes driven by the greater public welfare. It's why times are so awesome for the working class right now. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Have we considered a tip jar at North and South stations for riders who want to help save up the $20 Billion?
 
I'm new here, but if we are talking about new taxes explicitly to fund transportation infrastructure, surely a land value tax is the obvious answer? Income and wealth taxes could make sense in other applications, but for a situation where some of the greatest beneficiaries of the investment are local landowners, that feels to me like the most direct way to tax the additional value they have otherwise unfairly received.
 
We have good reason to believe that the inflation of the past several years is almost entirely due to increased spending by the wealthy...and yet the economy is continuing to grow incredibly slowly, to the point that we've been in an iddy biddy recession for the past few quarters if you exclude the Big 7 tech companies into which capital is piling because our fundamentals are otherwise not good. Of course, this is all aside the fact that no one's actually making money on the generative AI bullpoop that all that capital is piling into. The 10% of the population with substantial financial assets are just as prone to more or less magical thinking about what makes an economy work and what will make them personally wealthier as the rest of us; the trouble is that they have the resources to drag the us along in their fantasizing.

The simple truth is that you cannot rely entirely on a tiny minority's spending to drive an economy, because they cannot possibly spend all the wealth they accumulate. The period in history in which the West experienced its fastest economic growth (the post-war economic boom) was immediately after a period of immense capital destruction (read Piketty's Capital). The best way to stimulate an economy is to give the most people possible more money; marginal propensity to spend is a thing. This is all aside the politics of immense wealth disparities. These are all certainly a global problems, but few places have them at the same scale and magnitude as the U.S. does.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
How are you going to extract enough money from local employers to make this a reality if you're not doing some sort of tax? Donations? Appealing to their better nature? Yes, for-profit corporations with shareholders whose sole reason for living is the next quarterly-earnings report just looooovvvvve deep long-term over short-term thinking and spending money altruistically with no selfish payoff until years or decades later. Our national economy is totes driven by the greater public welfare. It's why times are so awesome for the working class right now. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm not saying its an easy problem. I'm saying the solution of a wealth tax is not going to solve it, at all. Especially when there is a state that prides itself on being a tax haven is within commuting distance. Solutions that won't work in reality are not solutions - a wealth tax is to a state's finances what crayon maps are to transit lines. Just pure fantasy.

And I wasn't thinking of appealing to their better nature. I was thinking of finding some benefits specifically from the improvements to the transit system that would directly accrue to these companies. Every investment has an infinite number of ways it can be paid for, and the benefits distributed. It isn't as though public-private partnerships are an unheard of novelty.

aquaticko said:
We have good reason to believe that the inflation of the past several years is almost entirely due to increased spending by the wealthy...and yet the economy is continuing to grow incredibly slowly, to the point that we've been in an iddy biddy recession for the past few quarters if you exclude the Big 7 tech companies into which capital is piling because our fundamentals are otherwise not good. Of course, this is all aside the fact that no one's actually making money on the generative AI bullpoop that all that capital is piling into. The 10% of the population with substantial financial assets are just as prone to more or less magical thinking about what makes an economy work and what will make them personally wealthier as the rest of us; the trouble is that they have the resources to drag the us along in their fantasizing.

The simple truth is that you cannot rely entirely on a tiny minority's spending to drive an economy, because they cannot possibly spend all the wealth they accumulate. The period in history in which the West experienced its fastest economic growth (the post-war economic boom) was immediately after a period of immense capital destruction (read Piketty's Capital). The best way to stimulate an economy is to give the most people possible more money; marginal propensity to spend is a thing. This is all aside the politics of immense wealth disparities. These are all certainly a global problems, but few places have them at the same scale and magnitude as the U.S. does.
Click to expand...

Its much more difficult to make blanket statements like that that hold true as a constant over different time periods. The post-war period was specifically coming off the Depression and World War 2, meaning there was plenty of opportunity to rebuild. Meanwhile, economic growth was just as strong, if not stronger, during the Gilded Age. I would argue that it is more accurate to say that any given attempt to 'right size' economic policy works until conditions change.
 
3decker said:
I'm new here, but if we are talking about new taxes explicitly to fund transportation infrastructure, surely a land value tax is the obvious answer? Income and wealth taxes could make sense in other applications, but for a situation where some of the greatest beneficiaries of the investment are local landowners, that feels to me like the most direct way to tax the additional value they have otherwise unfairly received.
Click to expand...
The theory that I've heard is that transit isn't necessarily a direct driver to increases in land values - evidenced by way too much low-value land near transit in this country. Where land values bump it is very much related to the centrality of jobs on the transit network - all the traditional transit networks connect very centrally placed employment district. Then, every neighborhood connected to the employment district/s increases in land value as the speed, reliability, and quality of travel on transit to work is better than other options. Thus, in other parts of the world, they (at least partially) fund transit service + expansion on employment taxes (NYC, Paris, London). They have other funds too - like NYC and London with "decongestion" fees or central government grants like in Paris. Continuing on with the general theory is that land value taxes or at least taxes on the increment of land value, are good at maximizing potential new development to deliver publicly-determined/directed (rather than private, developer-determined) benefits at locations that are newly connected to transit. The new development potential coming with a growth in potential labor market caused by transit expansion.
 

MBTA Completes Replacement of Over 28 Miles of Rail on the Fairmount Line in Preparation for Battery Electric Trains | News | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com
The MBTA and Keolis Commuter Services (Keolis), the operations and maintenance partner for the MBTA’s Commuter Rail, has completed a project to replace over 28 miles of rail on the Fairmount Line. They thank the public for their patience throughout the project and flexibility while regular schedules were impacted. The work prepares the line for the introduction of battery-electric trains in the coming years, while ensuring a reliable and safe ride for passengers today. This project alone replaced more rail than is typical across the entire Commuter Rail network in a year.
On December 1, 2025, the Fairmount Line will return to its normal schedule, with 30-minute service throughout most of the day. The schedule will be available soon at mbta.com/cr.
[...]
Crews replaced nearly 158,000 feet of rail after the $12 million project began in June. The record pace ensured that the work could be finished on time while still operating trains on the line during peak travel periods.
While the construction schedule was in place, crews also completed other important projects, including power washing and deep cleaning all stations and platforms, removing graffiti, cleaning trash from the right of way, brush clearing, and improving drainage.
Click to expand...
 
themissinglink said:

MBTA Completes Replacement of Over 28 Miles of Rail on the Fairmount Line in Preparation for Battery Electric Trains | News | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com
Click to expand...
Maybe they could send that crew out to the Franking line to finally wrap up the delayed Phase 2 double tracking and 6 mi phase three project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top