Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Whoa ! I have no idea how much of a benefit the taxpayer will recieve from double tracking the Sunset. I was not trying to imply it will be 20% of the cost of this project. What I am thinking is that a project which benefits the public should go ahead if a company wants to pay for it. There should be some kind of revenue-neutral status for projects like this where the company is reimbursed for the tax dollars collected by governments. I think this would allow more projects to go ahead. The public would still gain even without collecting the taxes, and railroads could do more of the projects they need to do. Don't both sides win ? [/quote] Well governments depend upon tax revenues collected, and when you suggested that the railroads perhaps should be "tax-credited" for the portion of the expansion that would be taxes paid (that's what I thought you were saying anyway)..and that you estimated those taxes would be 20% of the job costing billions and billions......It just forced me to ponder that 20% of a billion was 200 million.. and that by the govt crediting the RR that amount, they would have to make it up at someone elses expense. As far as "both sides winning"....as you say,....well yes that is certainly possible. The Alameda corridor being one good example. The reservation I have is that in most instances it is the politicians who decide what "slice if the pie" is adequate payback to the taxpayer. And the potential for pork barrel politics, or even vested economic interests, seems like an especial peril to me. heh, I only say that because my trust of politicians is only about half the level i have for greedy railroad CEO's...
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag