HOUSE BILL: High-Speed Rail Act of 2018 (Passed)

[Leinad]

Yes, but I am concerned about the last part. I don't think we can dictate what a lower level of government's tax policy is.

I have never seen a Texan as bloody centralist as you Transit.

Somewhere Jbrase is shedding tears.

Haha, just another facet of my extremely confusing views. (Socon, economic centrist)

What would you suggest might be a better way to have a source for funding than the one-cent sales tax, then?

Well how much money does a one cent sales tax yield?

It depends on the region the sales tax will take effect on. I'm not an economist, so when I researched, I didn't find anything of use, but the sales tax would be one cent for every purchase that sales taxes apply to.

I am also not an economist, but with some amount of searching, back-of-the-envelope calculation, and "educated guesses," I would wager that a tax of 1 cent per item purchased (which is a pain and a half to figure out ) would be about $40 per person over the course of a year. So, in a city with a million people, $40m in revenue (duh).

[wxtransit]

Yes, but I am concerned about the last part. I don't think we can dictate what a lower level of government's tax policy is.

I have never seen a Texan as bloody centralist as you Transit.

Somewhere Jbrase is shedding tears.

Haha, just another facet of my extremely confusing views. (Socon, economic centrist)

What would you suggest might be a better way to have a source for funding than the one-cent sales tax, then?

Well how much money does a one cent sales tax yield?

It depends on the region the sales tax will take effect on. I'm not an economist, so when I researched, I didn't find anything of use, but the sales tax would be one cent for every purchase that sales taxes apply to.

I am also not an economist, but with some amount of searching, back-of-the-envelope calculation, and "educated guesses," I would wager that a tax of 1 cent per item purchased (which is a pain and a half to figure out ) would be about $40 per person over the course of a year. So, in a city with a million people, $40m in revenue (duh).

Thank you!

[Sestak]

Yes, but I am concerned about the last part. I don't think we can dictate what a lower level of government's tax policy is.

I have never seen a Texan as bloody centralist as you Transit.

Somewhere Jbrase is shedding tears.

Yeah, this is definitely a violation of regional rights.

Also, I feel like a tax "per item" is problematic.

[Leinad]

Also, I feel like a tax "per item" is problematic.

Very much agreed. It's pretty regressive--a purchase on a can of food seems to be taxed as much as a yacht.

[wxtransit]

Also, I feel like a tax "per item" is problematic.

Very much agreed. It's pretty regressive--a purchase on a can of food seems to be taxed as much as a yacht.

Hmm, what could we propose as an alternative to ensure it's fully funded?

[Leinad]

Also, I feel like a tax "per item" is problematic.

Very much agreed. It's pretty regressive--a purchase on a can of food seems to be taxed as much as a yacht.

Hmm, what could we propose as an alternative to ensure it's fully funded?

Normal percentage tax is the obvious answer but it still has the problem of forcing a city to institute a tax (not something I plan on supporting any time soon).

I guess we could sell food or something and charge extortionately high prices for it?

[RFayette]

Also, I feel like a tax "per item" is problematic.

Very much agreed. It's pretty regressive--a purchase on a can of food seems to be taxed as much as a yacht.

Hmm, what could we propose as an alternative to ensure it's fully funded?

We could use a VAT instead, as discussed in the college access thread.

[wxtransit]

Also, I feel like a tax "per item" is problematic.

Very much agreed. It's pretty regressive--a purchase on a can of food seems to be taxed as much as a yacht.

Hmm, what could we propose as an alternative to ensure it's fully funded?

Normal percentage tax is the obvious answer but it still has the problem of forcing a city to institute a tax (not something I plan on supporting any time soon).

I guess we could sell food or something and charge extortionately high prices for it?

I'm on board for $1,000 bottles of water.

Also, I feel like a tax "per item" is problematic.

Very much agreed. It's pretty regressive--a purchase on a can of food seems to be taxed as much as a yacht.

Hmm, what could we propose as an alternative to ensure it's fully funded?

We could use a VAT instead, as discussed in the college access thread.

Hmm, that may be a good idea. I'm currently busy atm, but when I'm more free (or of course another person can propose), I'll do some research and propose.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the latest on this discussion Leinad/Transit?

[NeverAgain]

As I discussed here/url] in my parts 2, 3, and 4.
A VAT, while I think should be discussed, has serious ramifications, especially if we are to "divide it up" for paying for the College bill, the school bill, and now this one. It is wholly useless to pass a "small" VAT, I mean the tax collection infrastructure costs may be MORE than the amount of revenue gained in the first year. Meaning a .1% VAT (as Rfayette discussed in the School Safety bill) may be ADDING to the deficit, rather than taking away from it.

Another issue, as Sestak and Transit noted, Value Added Taxes are highly regressive, if done improperly. The poorest percentages of a socioeconomic system tend to pay a higher overall percentage of their income to the VAT than their wealthier counterparts.
 
I, personally, believe there should be a Value-Added Tax COMBINED with a reduction in Corporate, Capital Gains, and Income Taxes. This MUST be discussed as separate legislation, and I would love to talk tax reform (including a well-regulated, and reformed VAT) immediately after I swear in (and finish my IB exams).

[Sestak]

Alright then, if that's the course we want to take:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can copy parts 2 and 3 into the other two bills as well.

However, this would also mean that we are committing to getting tax reform done this Congress.

[Sestak]

Any feedback on the above?

[Sirius_]

Since Wxtransit is no longer in the house I would like to assume sponsorship.

[wxtransit]

Since Wxtransit is no longer in the house I would like to assume sponsorship.

Woo!

[Leinad]

I guess kicking the can down the road with the idea that this dies if we don't find a way to fund it in a later bill is better than violating PayGo, but it gets me thinking...

How much exactly will this cost? And does it really need that much? And will this be profitable? Surely someone has done research on this.

If it's actually a good idea I'd imagine it would be profitable, which makes me wonder why no business has instituted it. If it's because of the initial investment hurdle, then maybe we can make it a loan of sorts? And if it's an idea that only works with subsidization, maybe we should consider if the money is better spent elsewhere? If we're committed to infrastructure spending, maybe repairing existing infrastructure, or helping cities develop public transit systems is a better idea.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I guess kicking the can down the road with the idea that this dies if we don't find a way to fund it in a later bill is better than violating PayGo, but it gets me thinking...

How much exactly will this cost? And does it really need that much? And will this be profitable? Surely someone has done research on this.

If it's actually a good idea I'd imagine it would be profitable, which makes me wonder why no business has instituted it. If it's because of the initial investment hurdle, then maybe we can make it a loan of sorts? And if it's an idea that only works with subsidization, maybe we should consider if the money is better spent elsewhere? If we're committed to infrastructure spending, maybe repairing existing infrastructure, or helping cities develop public transit systems is a better idea.

The main reason no businesses have instituted it is because of land rights and things of that nature, it is hard to obtain all of the land necessary without using eminent domain or cutting through land that may have an impact down the road. This is why there is such a big fight in California and Texas, because of how much land is needed around the train track in order to implement this and typically no regular ole train tracks already existing will do, you have to build a whole new network. 

[Leinad]

it is hard to obtain all of the land necessary without using eminent domain or cutting through land that may have an impact down the road.

Actually this is a very good reason why this might not be a good idea.

[wxtransit]

it is hard to obtain all of the land necessary without using eminent domain or cutting through land that may have an impact down the road.

Actually this is a very good reason why this might not be a good idea.

It's hard, yet nowhere near impossible. Yes, the process takes time and quite a bit of investment, but HSR companies have almost always found ways to get land, and, for the most part, without eminent domain (projects more notable for using eminent domain such as Texas Central use it as a very last resort, they've actually negotiated IRL almost half of the land needed and it's still in a conceptual phase). In recent memory, the primary reason that HSR projects don't get completed is the simple fact of other companies lobbying the government to not approve the project.

While I'm not in the House anymore, I would suggest to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Leinad]

In recent memory, the primary reason that HSR projects don't get completed is the simple fact of other companies lobbying the government to not approve the project.

Why are they up for government approval? Is there a real reason (i.e. due to imminent domain or destroying the habitat of mountain goats or whatever)? Or is it needless government authority we should get rid of?

[Sirius_]

In recent memory, the primary reason that HSR projects don't get completed is the simple fact of other companies lobbying the government to not approve the project.

Why are they up for government approval? Is there a real reason (i.e. due to imminent domain or destroying the habitat of mountain goats or whatever)? Or is it needless government authority we should get rid of?

I wouldn't think the environment would be a legitimate concern, generally constructing more railways instead of highways is beneficial to the environment, especially if they are electric railways. Imminent domain is the much more likely cause for this, which I believe can be avoided, especially if this is a government project. It would be best in this case to upgrade existing right of way as much as possible, especially in urban areas. It could also be a matter of people not wanting a new train line near their neighborhood due to noise or whatever, which again would best be avoided by using existing right of way.

[wxtransit]

In recent memory, the primary reason that HSR projects don't get completed is the simple fact of other companies lobbying the government to not approve the project.

Why are they up for government approval? Is there a real reason (i.e. due to imminent domain or destroying the habitat of mountain goats or whatever)? Or is it needless government authority we should get rid of?

Here's an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States%23Texas

Every transportation project, no matter how independent, can fall victim to lobbying firms literally pressuring state legislatures to make laws that will make it harder to build: https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/news/local/texas-lawmakers-lobby-to-derail-proposed-high-speed-train/411879573. These barriers can and have been exploited by rival companies (as in the earlier example) to the point that said projects have failed.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

We definitely need to amend this, maybe even need to withdraw it and fix it. I am wholly in support of high speed rail and have been since it started to become an issue in Fall 2016, but here are my problems/possibly amendments to this bill.

lets start with Section 1

1 and 2. Commissions tend to be useless from experience
3. is ok but to the point of 1 and 2, I assume you took this idea from DART
4. Not sure if this technically exists or if you should more say it is the job of the SoIA, but regardless...
5 and 6 are mostly good and I really like the private company funding idea, but, and this may be my Federalist roots speaking, but I don't think it is Constitutional to force the regions to fund this in any way, at the very least the clause only works with approval by bills from each of the 3 regions and if even 1 region denies it the plan sinks, so you really should have a backup clause for this if such a thing does happen.
7. At this point should be a regulated authority and perhaps controlled fully by the SoIA/DoT if we are going that route, not sure about the Sales tax so I will have to think about that
8. That's fine.

Section 2:
This triangle is good but I feel like we need a little Fremont and Lincoln love in here too

Section 3:
The terming corporation makes me a little uncomfortable and makes it sound like we are creating a monopoly

 
 

[Sirius_]

Regarding points 1 and 2 of section 1, it would probably be best if it was specified whether or not players would be on this commission. That does have a major effect on how this bill functions. I'm with dfw in thinking that it may not be possible to require regional funding, but it is a point of legal ambiguity. I agree with dfw on 7 to have it controlled by DoIA/DoT. I would like to see more corridors planned.

[Sirius_]

I don't actually believe that creating a transcontinental passenger route would be worthwhile, aircraft would provide far too much competition. Passenger routes generally work best for moderate distances. Now I do think that we could see a lot of success from building a transcontinental line for freight traffic and charging a usage fee would likely make a lot of money for the government. That seems more like something for a different bill, however.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since Wxtransit is no longer in the house I would like to assume sponsorship.

Representatives have 24 hours to object.