VenserSojo t1_ivxwtc4 wrote
It would be better for the state in a funding sense, as for the citizens and economy well that depends on a number of factors ultimately it would be mixed with some pros/cons but the state isn't going to do anything until the feds back off.
skullpizza t1_ivy34en wrote
Doesn't NH typically operate with a budget surplus every year?
Icy-Conclusion-3500 t1_ivyrj1n wrote
Budget surplus / deficit doesn’t matter really. An additional revenue stream would mean they could either lower other taxes, or get more infrastructure work done.
skullpizza t1_ivyx3kn wrote
After you said it, it seems obvious that this makes sense. Thanks
[deleted] t1_iw3wezs wrote
Increasing infrastructure also means increasing more-or-less permanent spend on maintaining said infrastructure.
I'm definitely all for expanding infrastructure, but people tend to think pretty basically when it comes to economic planning.
There are several examples of projects being done with no thought of maintenance.
For example, it seems like every state is always scrambling to find money when a bridge needs repairing.
Icy-Conclusion-3500 t1_iw3xoqu wrote
More infrastructure work ≠ more infrastructure. It could be used for maintenance that isn’t on the docket yet, or like you say, an emergency fund.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments