Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KrissaKray t1_j7udc21 wrote

Reply to comment by maxhinator123 in Want passenger rail in Manchester? Make your voice heard by PurpleSubtlePlan

Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize failing business models.

−17

maxhinator123 t1_j7ufndb wrote

  • shoots self in foot not understanding where taxes go. Rail would lower your taxes
16

KrissaKray t1_j7ujolw wrote

Lol! No it wouldn’t.

−2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7uyan5 wrote

You can easily lower your taxes. Stop working and stop buying stuff. Patriots and true Americans love to pay taxes because it means they are successful. I wish I had so much income that my tax bill paid for an entire school. And all those kid made the community bright and lively.

6

vexingsilence t1_j7v45p1 wrote

>Patriots and true Americans love to pay taxes

Well there's some 100% grade A bullshit.

0

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7v6vcy wrote

If you have no use for any services that taxes fund, then you really have no need to participate in society at all. On the other hand, if you are using the services but not paying for them, that would be a sense of unfounded entitlement.

Paying taxes gives me security and services. And liked-mind folks who like those things choose to enact and pay for them. The system we use for that is called a government, which we made, specifically for awesome stuff. So we also made up money to facilitate all this. You get to use money. You don't "make" it because it is symbolic.

5

vexingsilence t1_j7v8081 wrote

No sane person "loves" paying taxes. It goes to a finding a corrupt system that gets more corrupt the further you get from where you live. By the time it reaches DC, there's very little chance that any of the money you paid goes to anything that benefits you or your community.

MA is much more liberal than NH, and they have the option to pay a higher tax rate if they want to. Hardly anyone ever does. That's how much they love paying taxes.

−3

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7v9k3i wrote

I gave you a good reason to pay taxes. You're just blindly giving money to government without participating in the process. If no one worked at all no one would pay taxes and there would be no government at all. You can already go live like that if you want to. Go

3

vexingsilence t1_j7vaq77 wrote

>You're just blindly giving money to government without participating in the process.

Make assumptions much?

−2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vcfyh wrote

I was one the fence about that sentence because I assumed you'd make a stink about how voters shape policy just by voting. Blah blah blah. Anyways, you just want to pick apart what I am sayibg without making a point. I DO love to pay taxes so you are the one with inaccurate assumptions

1

vexingsilence t1_j7vhz2d wrote

You made a sweeping statement that patriots and "true Americans" love paying taxes. That's like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You might love it, plenty of people don't. There are whole businesses devoted to helping people pay the least amount of taxes possible. Does that make them less patriotic or less of an American? That's a slippery slope. If you're not making six figures, you're practically a terrorist?

1

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vj8rw wrote

Tons of people pay no taxes, Its simple. The baffling thing is that people who don't want to pay taxes, yet want money. Those people are selfish and short-sighted. So those are the people thinking wrong, like you are.

3

vexingsilence t1_j7vko81 wrote

No. Not every project is worthy of funding. What kind of argument is that? If someone doesn't see a need for commuter rail, that doesn't make them any less of a "patriot" than someone that does see a need. That's such a disgusting way of debating a topic. Some people want commuter rail, they need to make a compelling argument to convince enough of the voters and their representatives to push the project through. That hasn't happened so far. Expensive projects like this should never get an automatic green light.

1

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vp1fw wrote

But you're in favor of an automatic red light on everything, not much different.

2

vexingsilence t1_j7vq7c2 wrote

I've watched it play out and added my $0.02 in some of the public feedback over the decades that this has been under discussion. That's pretty far from an automatic red light.

That's why there's a proposal to kill the thing. It's dragged on long enough. We need to either build it, or end it. We're wasting time and money letting this proposal drag on forever.

2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vrbc3 wrote

Talk is cheap, the only reason to force people to stop is if you think they'll reach a conclusion that you decided you won't like.

Edit: It is actually an insidious tactic to shut down debate just because you've arbitrarily decided "its gone on too long".

3

vexingsilence t1_j7vvyte wrote

It's not a tactic to kill debate, it's a tactic to stop the state and the cities of Nashua and Manchester from dumping money into something that has failed to get off the ground in the ~50+ years that it's been under discussion. How much longer would you like to drag this out for? There's no use in keeping a project in the discussion phase for that long. It's either viable or it's not.

Would you be happier if this bill proposed shelving the project for a decade and then calling for it to be returned to the table for discussion then to see if conditions have changed enough to warrant further discussion?

2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7w42jk wrote

I am in favor of making the best decisions. There is no limit to the amount of discussion to reach that conclusion. But we can't even debate the rail thing because we waste so much time debating if we should debate it. And THIS conversation is like debating if we should debate about debating. A person who is just looking to stifle progress can keep going like this forever. It is another insidious strategy to keep the focus away from the actual question at hand.

2

vexingsilence t1_j7w6yak wrote

The government shouldn't discuss topics endlessly. There are other topics that are not getting the attention they deserve by doing so. If a consensus can't be reached, it should be shelved for a while and everyone should move on. Revisit it at a later date after the interested parties have had time to come up with a more compelling pitch. I don't see an issue with that. A lot of people are in favor, a lot of against. There's no consensus.

2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7wagdq wrote

You obviously don't want the rail and are doing mental gymnastics to justify shutting down debate BEFORE there is a decision. Let the debate die of its own merit or it will never be settled.

2

vexingsilence t1_j7wfa5q wrote

There's been 50+ years of debate. How much more do you want?

Like I said, there's no consensus. There's been countless studies and pitches over the years. None of them were compelling enough to rally enough support to get it approved.

2

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7zij3p wrote

Endless debate is actually fine as long as both sides are debating in good faith. There's no reason to stifle it unless you have an ulterior motive (like keeping status quo because it benefits you personally.)

0

vexingsilence t1_j7zqrmb wrote

It costs time and money to keep it going. If you can't make your case, it gets set aside. Much like this discussion here is about to.

0

ZacPetkanas t1_j7um1g6 wrote

> Rail would lower your taxes

How so? The roads aren't going to be decommissioned so taxes would be spent on roads and rail. Where does the savings come from?

−3

SkiingAway t1_j7ufoze wrote

Roads get massive subsidies. How do you think all of the road work is paid for? The gas tax(es) don't come anywhere close to paying for it.

15

KrissaKray t1_j7ug0nj wrote

Are you forgetting the massive registration fees each year? Tolls? Property taxes?

edit: I'm all for preventing people who dont pay those things from using the roads lmao

0

SkiingAway t1_j7uh4f5 wrote

> Are you forgetting the massive registration fees each year? Tolls?

No. Still doesn't cover the cost. Roughly half of road spending in the country comes from general funds, not user fees (gas tax, registration, license, other costs you only pay for driving).

> Property taxes?

Are not a tax paid by drivers specifically - the use of that money to subsidize rail is no different from using it to subsidize roads.

Either they're both "failing business models", or looking at basic transportation infrastructure through the lens of profit/loss is a dumb idea....in both cases.

14

KrissaKray t1_j7ui1h0 wrote

Where do the funds come from? I’m asking because you seem like the expert in this.

1

SkiingAway t1_j7upwn9 wrote

NH actually does better than the average state, to be clear - it's around #13 - about 60% of road costs were covered by those kinds of user fees in FY 2016 Source.

> Where do the funds come from? I’m asking because you seem like the expert in this.

Other "general" tax revenues.

Especially at the federal level. The infrastructure bill that's sending billions in $ to NH, is not coming from the gas tax.

The normal federal share of road infrastructure projects is increasingly not coming from gas taxes. The federal highway trust fund that pays for those is theoretically funded by the gas tax....but the tax hasn't been increased since 1993, things clearly cost more today than 30 years ago, and so Congress transfers billions per year of general revenue (income taxes and the like) to plug the gap.

13

TarantinoFan23 t1_j7uyq0t wrote

Soild facts and logic are often completely ignored by the person you are trying to inform. They cannot change their view. Some sort of primitive brain malfunction.

9

megagem t1_j7ue125 wrote

There is no mode of transportation that this applies more to than the personal automobile. The rail link will be profitable once we cut the dead weight by banning cars.

7

vexingsilence t1_j7v4nf5 wrote

> The rail link will be profitable once we cut the dead weight by banning cars.

Not happening in our lifetimes. The rail service serves a very narrow corridor. It's not going to replace private vehicle use in any significant way. You can add in bus lines to service the stations, but that's making a train trip that's already too long even longer. And it's still a fairly narrow service corridor.

−4

Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7uln2w wrote

I’m sure you support a VMT tax then?

6

KrissaKray t1_j7upvkh wrote

Going to be real I don’t support any taxes… but the others are already there and I understand that some taxation may be required. I don’t in ANY WAY support “new” taxes without removing taxation from elsewhere though.

0

Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7uqqy5 wrote

So you’re a child. Got it

10

KrissaKray t1_j7uqvv2 wrote

Thanks for attacking me over thinking taxes are stupid.

0

Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7uwiv6 wrote

No one likes paying taxes, but we live in a society. A VMT almost feels un-American, doesn’t it? It exposes use fees in general for what they really are: a crock of shit. If we subsidize roads, we should subsidize railroads too.

I hear the taxes are non-existent in Somalia if you ever decide you don’t like the benefits of society.

6

KrissaKray t1_j7ux2sz wrote

I literally said I understand that some taxation is required. New taxes encourage more unchecked spending. They’ll never go down. They just grab more and more.

2

Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7uyxlu wrote

Trump cut taxes. Dubya Bush cut taxes. Sununu just eliminated the tax on unearned income in NH. Massachusetts cut taxes over the last 30 years, and fell to the mid-20s in the ranking of states by tax burden. Taxes get cut all the time. What are you talking about?

4

603ify t1_j7v2neo wrote

Wow, so someone asks you to not take their money by force, for a service they likely won’t use, and you’re resorting to attacking them? Jeez that’s a sick attitude.

−4

Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7v4008 wrote

How’s your crypto beanie baby portfolio holding up without the backing of the evil State’s monopoly on violence? Your money only has value because the government accepts it as payment for taxes.

3