Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ripstep1 t1_jac6l61 wrote

Reply to comment by _Maxolotl in Feds not coming to MTA’s rescue under GOP House, Schumer says by newzee1

Why is this the federal taxpayers problem?

−6

dekalbavenue t1_jacb3q5 wrote

Because NYC alone contributes 8% of the entire country's GDP, far higher than any other city and higher than every state except California and Texas. It's in the Fed's interest that NYC is up and running.

59

CactusBoyScout t1_jacsa14 wrote

I remember reading years ago that NYC transit actually gets relatively little of its funding from the federal government compared to other global cities.

Supposedly other global cities have national governments that recognize how much of a return on investment their largest cities generate economically and so they support their infrastructure more. And other countries are more likely to have their seat of government in their largest city so the lawmakers are more keenly aware of its infrastructure.

But our federal government is sharply skewed in favor of rural states who don’t want to support big cities while taking huge subsidies for themselves.

12

Endofunctor t1_jadd3ck wrote

You think any of that would stop if they couldn't make it to the office on time? Doubt it, especially in a post-covid world.

2

dekalbavenue t1_jadmo49 wrote

It's not about going from 1.6 trillion to zero. It's about going from 1.6 trillion to 1.3 trillion (a loss of $300 billion) because the government couldn't bother to invest $3 billion. That's plausible if the MTA is dysfunctional to the point where economic decisions are made to account for it. To put it in perspective, the MTA strike in 2005 cost the city economy about $400 million a day. In 2023 dollars, that number would be closer to $615 million. Imagine if you will, a non functioning MTA that lasted a year. Or, a sub par functional MTA over a few years, say, over a presidential cycle.

Do you think hyperpartisanship for the benefit of Fox News viewers is worth $300 billion in lost public revenue?

2

_Maxolotl t1_jaceqyp wrote

Why would it not be when the bridges and tunnels clearly are?

9

LittleKitty235 t1_jacfggr wrote

Federal tax dollars going toward infrastructure improvements in the MTA seems like something the federal government should be doing. The idea it shouldn't is just Republican conditioning and that rejecting federal money is some noble principle.

I'm going to guess the argument is that only interstate bridges and tunnels should we paid for by federal tax dollars, or some other Republican nonsense

11

ripstep1 t1_jacs9p7 wrote

Absolutely. Why is the federal taxpayer paying for roads in Brooklyn.

−4

LittleKitty235 t1_jactynb wrote

https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/transportation-infrastructure/

Because the Federal government provides funding for that and it has bi-partisan support. Probably not the hill Republicans want to die on as that aid disproportionately goes to rural areas when you account for where the tax money comes from. Your question should really be why are your federal taxes paying for bridges and roads in rural Arkansas.

Neither political party wants the type of policy you seem to want.

5

ripstep1 t1_jacudtb wrote

Would be fine with less aid going to rural areas too.

−3

LittleKitty235 t1_jacviuw wrote

Well neither political party does and I question the economic benefit and short sightedness of reducing spending on infrastructure as it has tremendous long term returns. Building roads and bridges has been a core part of successful governments that predates the Romans.

3

dekalbavenue t1_jaddaiz wrote

As I already explained, and which you ignored, the government gets way more money out of NYC in taxes than the money it invests into it. So it's in the government's interest to pay for roads in Brooklyn so that we can get around and be productive.

2