Jump to content

Selling Off America Piece by Piece


Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON - Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.

quote:

The Bush administration's plan to let a foreign company manage U.S. ports met a storm of protest in February. But plans to sell or lease highways to companies outside the United States have not met such resistance.

Well of course not since the article already stated:

quote:

Few people know that the tolls from the U.S. side of the tunnel between Detroit and Windsor, Canada, go to a subsidiary of an Australian company ÔÇö which also owns a bridge in Alabama.

Someone is sleeping on the job to inform the public.

quote:

Washington is not likely to produce more money to build roads. The federal highway fund ÔÇö which will have a balance of about $16 billion by the end of 2006 ÔÇö will run out in 2009 or 2010, according to White House and congressional estimates.

......

"In five, maybe 10 years, all that money is gone, and the tolls keep rising and the money keeps flowing into the foreign coffers," Bauer said.

......

Orange County, Calif., got burned by a toll-road lease for a different reason.

The road, part of state Route 91, was built and run for $130 million by California Private Transportation Company, partly owned by France-based Compagnie Financiere et Industrielle des Autoroutes. The toll road opened in 1995.

Seven years later, Orange County was looking at gridlock. But it could not build more roads because of a provision in the lease. So it bought back the lease ÔÇö for $207.5 million.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

I have no problem with this since US corporations also have interests and assets in foreign nations.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with foreign companies either more the politicians and their motives. "sure we'll lease the roads to you for a couple of billon for 99 years this way we can pay off our debt for a year". Idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations having assets and bussineses, that they have build or bought with their money is one thing.

Leasing roads to foreign companies, the roads that have been build with my money, is another. Not only will there be tolls instituted on those roads, but the money collected from those tolls will leave the country, which means inflation. So to break it down, the beurocrats take my money, build a road for me to travel on, and then sell that road to a foreign entity that will put up a toll, and charge me twice as much as it would really cost to maintain that road (bussines operates for profits, not to break even or lose money).

You think they are going to completly abolish DMV registration? Isn't that money plus other taxes are supposed to go towards road maintenance?

Lets say people around your neighborhood got together, and everyone, including you had to put in $1,000 bucks to repair and repave the local road. Then, once it was all done, you are coming home one day and are stoped because there's a toll booth there. So not only did you shell out $1,000 bucks, now you are being asked to pay more each time you take the road that was build with your money, AND to top it off, you find out that the people who put up that toll booth are from a whole other town hundreds of miles away, just reaping the profits off of what was build and financed by you in the first place.

Still got no problem with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Soback on this one. The money collected from toll roads is *supposed* to be placed in funds to help maintain that road.. that's the whole point of having tolls in the first place.

Now I don't know if those funds are required to be reinvested in the upkeep of the roads, but it almost sounds as if it's just profit. Which means our tax dollars go to replace the funds collected from tolls and passed to foreign interests.

So not only did we pay taxes to build the roads, we pay tolls which aren't applied to the upkeep and consequently pay more taxes when the road needs repair... it all sounds a little odd to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't mind. Sure the roads were built with YOUR tax dollars. But YOUR tax dollars were replaced when the company purchased the road.

As for the company profiting, so what? At least they would fall under the state and federal laws to prevent them from gouging, which, by the way, the government itself doesn't have to worry about.

The government can fleece us, but it is okay, because it is the government. A private company cannot charge us fair amounts, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Again, I don't mind. Sure the roads were built with YOUR tax dollars. But YOUR tax dollars were replaced when the company purchased the road.

As for the company profiting, so what? At least they would fall under the state and federal laws to prevent them from gouging, which, by the way, the government itself doesn't have to worry about.

The government can fleece us, but it is okay, because it is the government. A private company cannot charge us fair amounts, though?

No, it's the fleecing I object to. No matter who is doing it. I don't care if the company that owns these lands and roads is US or foreign, I do care that my tolls go directly into the pockets of the investors without a return (or so it seems) instead of being invested back into maintaining the infrastructure. As it stands it doesn't seem all that different from modern day 'highway robbery.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really Aramike? Explain to me how exactly my tax dollars are replaced when a foreign company leases the road, pays the government, and puts up a toll to charge me.

1. My money was taken by the government to build the road.

2. The government leases the road to a foreign entity. Collecting more money from them.

3. The foreign entity charges me a toll to recoup the leasing costs.

How are my taxes replaced? Do I get a refund from the government? Is the DMV registration fee dropped? Do my taxes decrease? Or does a foreign bussiness operates for profit and charges me for 1. Operations costs, 2. Maintenance costs, 3. Add profit margin to top it off.

Posted by Aramike:

"As for the company profiting, so what? At least they would fall under the state and federal laws to prevent them from gouging, which, by the way, the government itself doesn't have to worry about.

The government can fleece us, but it is okay, because it is the government. A private company cannot charge us fair amounts, though?"

--- What are you trying to say? Government run maintenace crews wouldn't operate under federal and state law? As far as a private company charging us a fair ammount, it's a load of bs. You are missing the point of "For Profit".

Explain to me why a private company collects profits off of what was build with my taxes. If the road was build by a private company, and they use their infrastructure for profits, that's one thing, making profits off of what was paid for by me in the first place is another. Since I and other tax payers paid for it, shouldn't I and other tax payers be getting a check for the portion of the tolls collected off that road? You catching on?

The answer is, a road build with taxes shouldn't be run for profits. It should be run with taxes that are collected for that very specific purpose. If the beurocrats and politicians wouldn't be syphoning off money from DMV registration fees and the dedicated taxes that you are already paying, that are allocated for that very purpose, we wouldn't have this double taxation situation. A situation where you paid for building this road (currently paying, because the finances for roads come from sale of bonds which are repaid by YOU, over time), then government sale of the road, while still taxing you to repay the bonds AND for maintenance of that road (while allocating that money for other things), and then the leasing company charging you fees. Awesome deal for the politician, beurocrats and the leasing company, tripple bad deal for you.

Still don't mind?

[ 07-17-2006, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Settle down, Soback. In the scenario you described, the GOVERNMENT was at fault for fleecing you, NOT the private company. I far more trust a private company to charge fairly than the government.

And, you are clearly wondering why you're not getting your tax dollars back? The government is getting that money so WHY THEN IS IT THE COMPANY'S FAULT THAT YOU'RE NOT SEEING IT?

Elect a government better than tax-and-spend and you may see equity. The bottom line is that either you're free market or you aren't. I am constantly amused by people wanting it both ways, such as yourself...

Let me explain this very simply: your tax dollars paid for road. Company buys road with other dollars. Those dollars replace tax dollars you paid. DO NOT BLAME THEM FOR NOT RETURNING THE DOLLARS TO YOU. It is your GOVERNMENT not returning the dollars, and they will use those additional monies to pay for other things ... THAT YOU WOULD BE TAXED FOR.

So maybe you won't see it on your DMV fees or property taxes ... or, more like it, you just won't recognize it.

Again, keep your government in check - not capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do their dollars replace the tax dollars that I paid?

The money that I have paid are in that road. It's all there, from materials to labor. The only other money I should be charged is what I am already charged, the DMV fees and other taxes allocated to road maintenance. Not a fee charged by a third party, a fee that was calculated for collecting profits off of my investment.

Like I said, if you are going to try and make a public road "for profit", then the profit should go to those who paid for that road, meaning the tax payers. Not that a public road that was build for public, should ever be for profit. That's a crime in itself.

As far as holding the company responsible, I do. They are a party to this, not an innocent bystander. They know what kind of deal they are making.

In South America, one way for their decrepid government and corrupt politicians to "collect income" is to lease public property to private entity, and then reposes it. Who suffers? First and foremost the citizens who paid for that public property, second the private entity that entered into a questionable contract, with full knowledge that they are robbing the citizens of that country with a wink and a nod of that countrys government. The private entity deserves what they get, the citizens do not.

The way it looks like, is US becoming a third world country, taking it a step a day.

The citizens said "No" when the port deal was going down. This is no different. It's our PUBLIC ASSETS that should NEVER be run by foreign entities. As a matter of fact, private company shouldn't be administering anything that is paid for by the tax payers. It opens the road to double taxation (like Air traffic controll system in Canada and Australia, being sold off and run by a private company, charging the users of Air traffic controll system, and still taxing the citizens on top of it), and other abuses.

You know, kinda like having a portion of your federal taxes go towards federal park maintenance, and then collecting a fee for park maintenance when you actually go to that park. Kinda like taxing you to build and maintain a road, and then collecting a fee when you use that road.

But when you think about it, the government is not responsible, and neither is the company that makes that deal with full knowledge of it. Capitalism? Far from it. Do not confuse criminal and unethical conduct with Capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They" (the local govt) have now leased/sold one of our county landfills. Citizens used to be charged $3 for garbage. Now it's $3+ for over 100 lbs. My father replaced his roof and was charged hella for the weight. Wait a cotton pickin minute; my taxes paid for that landfill, the upkeep, the buildings, and the equipment. They used to let a citizen bring one roof or carpet in every so often for the same $3.

Yup, Soback is right.

We don't have toll roads (yet) down here but I've seen it with the landfill.

I remember when Japan was an economic powerhouse though and bought New York. Back then we were scared that they were going to buy the whole US out from under us in retaliation for WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


How do their dollars replace the tax dollars that I paid?

I already spelled this out. I'll do it again. *sigh*

Private company gives government money for road. Okay, let me say it again: GIVES GOVERNMENT MONEY. That money that the government recieves is NOW MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT'S SPENDING. Ergo, monies you do not have to pay are TAXES YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY. Taxes you don't have to pay are TAX SAVINGS because you are SAVING MONEY that you would otherwise have to PAY.

*Sheesh*

Sure, your money was used to build the road. Those dollars are then replaced from a private company in the forms of taxes that you don't have to pay, because that money goes back into the government and is spent on other things that YOU WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO BE TAXED FOR.

Dude, this isn't hard.

If you want to discuss the merits of the particular program however, I'm fine with that. Let's just make sure we're on the same page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private company leases the road from the government. Pays them the fees, and then CHARGES me to use that road.

However, unlike government. The private company wouldn't charge only for supposed maintenance costs. A private company would charge me maintenance costs + costs to recoup the lease + costs of running their bussiness operation + profits.

How are my taxes repaid? Anything that is charged beyond maintenance costs is costing me more than it should. I paid for that road, and the government and that private company are brokering a criminal deal, double charge me in taxes + toll fees that will include private bussiness costs and profit margins, while the beurocrats and politicians get greased from both sides by my taxes and this "bussiness" deal, while the private company gets the whole set up infrastructure to make money on, build and paid for with my money, just sign the line and put in a toll booth.

So, back to the original question. How are my money repaid? Remember this little sentence from the second paragraph "maintenance costs + costs to recoup the lease + costs of running their bussiness operation + profits."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


However, unlike government. The private company wouldn't charge only for supposed maintenance costs. A private company would charge me maintenance costs + costs to recoup the lease + costs of running their bussiness operation + profits.

Dude, private industry is almost ALWAYS more efficient. I don't know why people are always so against companies making money.

quote:


How are my taxes repaid? Anything that is charged beyond maintenance costs is costing me more than it should.

You're kidding, right?

It is naive to think that the government would be any more cost-effecient. Money you would pay the government goes to payroll, pensions, bureaucracy, etc. Government waste is always high in ANY part of their operations. Whereas a private company is invested in efficiency. It's a commonly held belief that most businesses would fail if they had the efficiency of the government.

That being said, please understand that I don't believe that all things run by the government should be privatized - there are some things which simply require too much oversight. Roads, however, are not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Efficiency doesn't mean squat in this case. Doesn't matter how eficient or inefficient they are, you have no choice but to take a particular road, and pay whatever tolls they charge.

The facts remain.

1. Citizens paid for the road.

2. From then on, they were only supposed to pay for road upkeep.

3. Government leases the road. (You think they leased it at cost? I think they leased it at a premium.)

4. Leasing company now charges citizens to recoup the lease costs, maintenance costs, administrative costs, and profits.

5. Citizens are therefore paying TWICE for that same road.

It's not capitalism. That leasing entity can't fail. If there's a road from point A to point B, and the detour will take you 20 miles out of the way, your option is pretty obvious. Subtract the costs of the toll from the costs of taking the detour + your time.

There's a reason why roads are PUBLIC. Build with public money, and are supposed to be maintained with public money.

The money that the company pays the government are not recouped in any way, shape or form. It's just a gimmick for the government to get a fresh cash infusion. If they don't lease it, all they are stuck with is money allocated for maintenance from DMV fees and other little sources. If they lease it out, they get a big chunk at one time, and then constant tax stream from tolls, while STILL getting their allocations from DMV and other sources.

The citizen ends up paying twice.

If you try to say one more time that it's just plain old Capitalism, then you don't know what Capitalism is, and can't tell the difference between what is criminal conduct and what is a bussiness deal.

One of the things that go with a class in bussiness is ethics and economics. Just because there's a dollar sign with a profit attached, doesn't mean all is legitimate and well. Would your argument for the Mob be the same? That they are just making a profit, conducting bussiness deals by offering establishments extra security that they charge for. Those establishment are given the same choice that the drivers would be on the leased roads. Either pay double for the police and the mob or get out, and Either pay double for DMV and the toll or get out. The difference is, the government used to fight the mob, now they are dealing like one. With people like you defending those dealings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Efficiency doesn't mean squat in this case.

Umm yes it does.

quote:


Doesn't matter how eficient or inefficient they are, you have no choice but to take a particular road, and pay whatever tolls they charge.

Right. But if the government is less efficient do you think you'll still pay lower tolls/taxes? Someone is GOING to pay for that inefficiency.

Furthermore, government can impose restrictions on a private company under fair business practice/fleecing laws, therefore restricting the amounts that said company can charge you. That government, however, has NO similar restrictions set upon itself.

quote:


The facts remain.

1. Citizens paid for the road.

2. From then on, they were only supposed to pay for road upkeep.

3. Government leases the road. (You think they leased it at cost? I think they leased it at a premium.)

4. Leasing company now charges citizens to recoup the lease costs, maintenance costs, administrative costs, and profits.

5. Citizens are therefore paying TWICE for that same road.


1: Citizens pay for EVERYTHING if you think about it.

2: Wrong. They not only pay for upkeep, they also pay for the administration thereof including government inefficiency. Furthermore, it isn't quite that simple. Citizens would also be accountable for: pensions, TIFT Districts, property value variance, etc.

3: EXACTLY! And those "premium" dollars are now government dollars that you don't have to be taxed for. Furthermore, all individuals will not be taxed for upkeep of a road that they all do not use as that cost is passed solely onto the drivers of said road. Remember: a private company cannot impose FURTHER taxes.

Think of it this way: if the inefficient government finds a shortfall in the funding for maintaining its own toll roads, that bill is passed on to the taxpayers. If this happens with a private company, that bill can only be passed onto those who use the road.

The bottom line is that SOMEONE has to pay for everything. It simply costs less to have private enterprises be responsible for the administration of such things.

4/5: No, AGAIN YOU ARE NOT PAYING TWICE! Yes, you are paying the leasing company for the cost of the lease. HOWEVER, as I have explained SEVERAL TIMES, the money that company pays for the lease is PAID BACK TO YOU. Government money is TAX money, and the leasing company pays the government money.

So, while you think that you're actually shelling out for the road TWICE, you're actually only paying for it ONE TIME. You're only looking at it halfway if you don't get this.

I'm going to point this out ONE LAST TIME, and I'm going to break it down as best I can.

1: Tax dollars were spent to build road.

2: Government recouped said tax dollars from leasing company as well as taxes on company's profit.

Ergo, NO TAX DOLLARS WERE *ACTUALLY* SPENT.

Ergo, YOU ARE ONLY PAYING FOR THE ROAD *1* TIME.

If you spend $100 on something but subsequently recieve the money back, YOU DIDN'T SPEND IT.

quote:


It's not capitalism. That leasing entity can't fail. If there's a road from point A to point B, and the detour will take you 20 miles out of the way, your option is pretty obvious. Subtract the costs of the toll from the costs of taking the detour + your time.

So, businesses that "can't fail" aren't forms of capitalism? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

quote:


There's a reason why roads are PUBLIC. Build with public money, and are supposed to be maintained with public money.

WRONG! The reason most roads are public is because they HAVE to be built on public land.

quote:


The money that the company pays the government are not recouped in any way, shape or form. It's just a gimmick for the government to get a fresh cash infusion.

You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences.

Even in the OTHER thread, you seem to not understand this one simple principle: tax money is government money is public money. You paid tax money. It becomes government money therefore public money.

Now, when another entity pays the government money, it becomes public money with is also "tax" money. Therefore, government has more money to spend on the same things that they would otherwise TAX YOU FOR.

Ergo, each individual SAVES TAX MONEY.

Dude, you're looking at about 3/4s of the picture while trying to describe the whole thing.

See, I DO see where you're coming from, but I find it to be overly simplistic when it comes to deciding whether or not this is a good thing.

Okay, here's another basic economic principle:

Let say the government has a $1 billion defecit in spending. They can either cut spending (yeah, right), make up the difference in taxes, or lease a road. They HAVE to do SOMETHING, because that money doesn't just appear out of nowhere.

So, by leasing the road, you save said amount of dollars in taxes.

Furthermore, by paying tolls to a private, efficient company who's profits are taxes and regulated, you save ADDITIONAL dollars in taxes. If you were paying those tolls to the unregulated government who's ineffecient, you end up paying MORE.

Remember this: someone ALWAYS has to pay...

quote:


If they don't lease it, all they are stuck with is money allocated for maintenance from DMV fees and other little sources. If they lease it out, they get a big chunk at one time, and then constant tax stream from tolls, while STILL getting their allocations from DMV and other sources.

Right, but that money now can be used for other things that you would otherwise have to pay TAX dollars for. What, did you think the government was just opening a big bank account and laughing while it got fat and rich off of YOUR money?

Hardly. Now, you could say that it would WASTE some of the money -- BUT, efficiency doesn't matter, right?

Actually, that is PRECISELY WHY I'd rather have private entities running our roads as they then become something that government inefficiency doesn't impact.

Your argument is essentially that you'd rather the government WASTE our money than a private company profit off of it. Said argument is silly considering that, when the company profits off of it, they pay more in taxes, causing us to pay less, AND THEREFORE SAVING EVERYONE MONEY.

quote:


With people like you defending those dealings.

If you want to categorize me as "people like me", I must now reciprocate:

People LIKE you can't see any further than the $3 more in tolls they are paying to comprehend the $5 LESS in taxes they are paying.

Wait, you want to argue you aren't saving that $5? Let's have that argument.

[YOU] The government is spending it on something else so I have to still pay the taxes.

[ME]Sure, but the government is spending it on SOMETHING else that YOU would otherwise have to pay for.

[YOU] Why should I have to pay for something I don't use?

[ME] Why should everyone pay for a road that NOT EVERYONE uses?

[YOU] Because it's MY road and *I* want to save the money.

See the endless cycle yet? Maybe you WON'T see a savings in tax DOLLAR amounts, but you WILL see the savings through the fact that less increases are needed.

And THAT is why I am OK with this. See, "people like me" look a little further than the number posted on the toll sign to decide whether or not we are in agreement with something, and if it will save us money.

[ 07-20-2006, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, if you want to try to say that the real solution is to cut spending, go ahead - I won't argue. I think that's the way to go.

However, considering that the nature of the beast is to feed itself, I still find that giving it less sources of "food" is a good idea. Hence, private highways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think all highways should be private. That way, we could charge visitors and illegals as well as resident taxpayers. Assuming, of course, the government doesn't give visitors and illegals free road passes as they come into the country.

Another advantage is there would be less overall traffic. While paying taxes is an annual event we do without thinking about it (usually, we're preoccupied with just getting the thing to the post office on time). But if we're forced to dig into our pockets every ten or twenty miles down the road, we're more likely to weigh the need to travel that next ten or twenty miles. Maybe it would be better to walk, or take a bike, or just stay home. Or carpool ... to divide the cost.

Granted, if the proceeds from the tolls all go to foreign investors, the solution can't be called "perfect." And, now that I think about it, if a not-so-friendly country was to set up a dummy company and purchase some of our more important roadways, they could undermine American commerce simply by failing to maintain those roads. In effect, they could destroy America from within. Not with bombs or radical brainwashing ... but by doing absolutely nothing. Just sit around and let the roads crumble.

Until that day, though, I'd be able to get from Santa Monica to downtown L.A. in record time. Assuming I could afford the tolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


And, now that I think about it, if a not-so-friendly country was to set up a dummy company and purchase some of our more important roadways, they could undermine American commerce simply by failing to maintain those roads. In effect, they could destroy America from within. Not with bombs or radical brainwashing ... but by doing absolutely nothing. Just sit around and let the roads crumble.

Government oversight wouldn't allow that to happen. Part of the stipulations of such deals are a requirement to post a large bond of money and assists that would be siezed should a company decide to not meet their maintenance obligations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Government oversight wouldn't allow that to happen. Part of the stipulations of such deals are a requirement to post a large bond of money and assists that would be siezed should a company decide to not meet their maintenance obligations.

Government oversight? They can't even manage the roads and have to sell them off and you want them to oversee someone else in the same task? Heh Heh Heh. That made me laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Government oversight? They can't even manage the roads and have to sell them off and you want them to oversee someone else in the same task? Heh Heh Heh. That made me laugh.

Actually, that contradiction of a comment you just made had me laughing pretty hard.

You want the government to be IN CHARGE of maintaining roads, but you think that same government can't even effectively oversee said roads.

Dude, WTF? How can a government be equipped to do a complex version of a task but can't even do a far simpler version of a related task?

I have a feeling that you're one of the "black helicopter" types who feels the government can't do anything right. Oh wait - except for building and maintaining roads that they would be unable to oversee...

Crap, now I'm confused.

Oh, by the way - government oversight has been fairly effective regarding private US ports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

You want the government to be IN CHARGE of maintaining roads, but you think that same government can't even effectively oversee said roads.

Or, it could be said you want the government to oversee roads but think the same government can't even effectively be in charge of maintaining said roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Or, it could be said you want the government to oversee roads but think the same government can't even effectively be in charge of maintaining said roads.

LOL.

Nice try, but no dice.

I NEVER said the government couldn't effectively maintain said roads. I've only advocated that it would be MORE EFFICIENT and beneficial for some roads to be run by private entities.

However, you'd miss the boat even if I DID say the government couldn't effectively maintain the roads.

Why? What do you think is easier: maintaining the roads or telling someone to maintain them?

My point was that it is absurd to assert that the more difficult task is doable but the easier one is not. When you reverse that point, it doesn't make sense any longer.

So, you miss on both counts. First, on responding my MY point then on responding to what you THOUGHT was my point.

Nice try, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, enough. Stop trying to confuse the people and muddy the issue with rethoric about "recouping taxes" and "Capitalism"

The taxes are NOT recouped, and it doesn't just "seem" (as you put it) that the taxpayer is getting charged twice. The taxpayer IS getting charged twice.

Here's a simple, layman explanation. All it relies on is a bit of logic and math that a 5 year old can do.

1. State decides to build a freeway that would cost $1,000,000.00 (million). (freeways are managed by states, local roads are managed by cities/towns *municipalities*). To finance that freeway the state takes money from a. DMV fees, b. Sells bonds that taxpayers will have to repay over the next 30 to 60 years (usual time span for a bond)

2. The bill comes out to $100 dollars per citizen (if there are 10,000 citizens that live in that state), to build the freeway, and $10 dollars thereafter (a year) to maintain it. Like I've already said. The people who live in that state pay out (finance) the project through a. DMV fees (those who own a car), + b. Property taxes (home/property owners), + c. Sales taxes (consumers), income taxes (working people). The money is drawn from all those sources. The bulk comes from DMV fees and bonds that the property owners will have to repay.

3. Once the road is build, I (a single taxpayer) is out $100 bucks, and then $10 bucks a year thereafter.

4. The state then decides to lease the road to a private entity. All this time the road has been building potential "value" to a scheeming private company/government. As the population around the area grew, more people travel that road, and therefore if a toll would be introduced (for a road that's already paid for, and maintenance being collected for), additional profits can be made.

5. So the state leases the road for 1.5 million. To "recoup" the costs of constrution as you put it. It would be recouped if the money went right back to the original people who PAID for that road. That's not how it works however. Once the road is leased, the private company will have to charge tolls to a. make up that 1.5 million, + b. it's administrative costs, + c. maintenance costs, + d. profits. But the citizens will NEVER see a single check in their mail.

6. Total cost per citizen? The original $100 dollars that I (plus others) have paid, PLUS additional fees (tolls) that I (and others) will be paying till that 1.5 million lease if made up by the private company that leases the road. Which means I am paying MORE than DOUBLE for that very same road.

Conclusion. The money is NOT recouped. It's just a gimmick to impose additional financial charges on a citizen and funnel money to the government with the help of a private company that will split the profits. Don't try to say that it's ok becaue the additioinal money that I will be paying will benefit me, it won't. The taxes that I pay benefit me when they are spend on PUBLIC PROJECTS, something that everyone can use, to primarily benefit the taxpayer with secondary benefits for others, NOT when it's spend on any kind of social entitlement program, or special interest, when someone OTHER THAN the taxpayer derives the primary benefits, those things do not benefit the taxpayer, the primary benefit goes to selected few.

So, who profits off of the citizens original investment? That private company that didn't take any risks, it just calculated how many people travel that road daily (a statistic available by request from state records), and then lease that road from the government that is corrupt enough to do so. With full knowledge that a citizen that has ALREADY paid for the road, will end up paying for it again. The deal just keeps it out of the public mind, and tangles it up so that people don't see where the money is going.

But that's only HALF the story. Those same citizens are STILL being charged the same ammount for DMV fees (remember that little $10 a month portion that is supposed to go towards maintenance), and money is still being funelled for that maintenance from property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes. That's all in addition to the toll fee, which is split between the private company and government. It's plain out robbery.

Does that explain the shady deal? Does that explain why the money is NOT recouped? Capitalism or criminal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...