- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
It is very simple, the flooding issues in the US, blackouts, bad infrastructure costs lives and costs society and the taxpayer loads of money.
Building better bridges over rivers, deepening waterways, raising the dykes and levees along the waterways and the sea and it will save lives and money. Tax payers will foot the bill now, but when these huge floods will no longer be destroying houses and businesses, government property and people's lives, it will in the end cost a whole lot less than this infrastructure and other infrastructure bills will cost. And it may cost business money if they get to pay more taxes. But if the flooding no longer happens, the roads are way better, no blackouts, better bridges, less traffic congestion, etc. etc. etc.
Do you think the huge costs we paid for the delta works did not cost money and caused taxation hikes? The project would last at least 25 years and would cost more than our entire GDP for 1 year, so every year at the projected costs it would have cost 4% of our GDP and the real costs were more than 4 times higher.
But it will save lives, it will save costs from businesses, homeowners, shops, local governments. That money businesses can save will be paid out as profit to shareholders, bolstering the value of the business. That money homeowners save will flow into the economy because most of that will get spent in products that local and national businesses will profit from.
The US is one of the most ingenious countries in the world, if a gnat of a country with a lot less abilities in 1954 could decide to leap across it's own fiscal shadow, the US certainly can do it.
People will get more and better employment if there is loads of money being spent on the infrastructure, even creating fast internet everywhere will enable (with tax incentives) business dependent on fast and reliable internet to move to towns where there now is no proper internet connection. More employment in less well off areas of the US, lower unemployment payments, less SNAP payments and more prosperity.
Doing this project by just borrowing money isn't the way forward, a bit borrowing and a the biggest part coming from taxation will pay for this project. I know it will be money well spent, just like it was in the Netherlands and other countries who did the same.
Building better bridges over rivers, deepening waterways, raising the dykes and levees along the waterways and the sea and it will save lives and money. Tax payers will foot the bill now, but when these huge floods will no longer be destroying houses and businesses, government property and people's lives, it will in the end cost a whole lot less than this infrastructure and other infrastructure bills will cost. And it may cost business money if they get to pay more taxes. But if the flooding no longer happens, the roads are way better, no blackouts, better bridges, less traffic congestion, etc. etc. etc.
Do you think the huge costs we paid for the delta works did not cost money and caused taxation hikes? The project would last at least 25 years and would cost more than our entire GDP for 1 year, so every year at the projected costs it would have cost 4% of our GDP and the real costs were more than 4 times higher.
But it will save lives, it will save costs from businesses, homeowners, shops, local governments. That money businesses can save will be paid out as profit to shareholders, bolstering the value of the business. That money homeowners save will flow into the economy because most of that will get spent in products that local and national businesses will profit from.
The US is one of the most ingenious countries in the world, if a gnat of a country with a lot less abilities in 1954 could decide to leap across it's own fiscal shadow, the US certainly can do it.
People will get more and better employment if there is loads of money being spent on the infrastructure, even creating fast internet everywhere will enable (with tax incentives) business dependent on fast and reliable internet to move to towns where there now is no proper internet connection. More employment in less well off areas of the US, lower unemployment payments, less SNAP payments and more prosperity.
Doing this project by just borrowing money isn't the way forward, a bit borrowing and a the biggest part coming from taxation will pay for this project. I know it will be money well spent, just like it was in the Netherlands and other countries who did the same.
