Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (58124)	1/2/2005 11:46:47 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Lazarus, <BUT you think having the gov't continue to extract money from you for bridges you've already paid for is a GOOD idea? > Yes, it's a good idea because it manages demand, avoiding jams and ensuring high value trips have priority and it is a way of taxing the right people to do the next lot of building of roads and bridges. People who dislike cars, walk, ride bicycles or stay home wouldn't have to pay tax towards roads and bridges for cars. Other taxes could be reduced by the same amount. Me paying for a road I've built, via the state, is fine. That way, foreign visitors will also pay. Their payment will go to me, as a citizen, and show up in my citizenship value. I like profits. Me paying for a road I've built is like me paying for a Globalstar phone, which I've also built [as a shareholder funding the development]. I pay, but other buyers pay too. But I get the profits. I don't want free Globalstar phones and minutes given away to anyone who wants them, when they haven't put any money in. Giving away a country is like giving away Globalstar phones and minutes = really stupid. Outlaw bridges to avoid congestion? Well, I suppose you are joking, but I'm not sure as rabid Greenies say exactly that; "There's no point in building roads and bridges because they just get crowded and generate more traffic." I kid you not, they really do say exactly that. Were you joking? Why shouldn't people build on excessively sloping land if they want to take their chances? They might design their building to cope with the slope, or they might just like to take their chances. They could drain the hill to prevent excessive pore water pressures, loading and slope instability. It should be a decision by engineers, not some dopey government bureaucrat. I don't have a problem with people building their houses at Papamoa [tsunami] or Taupo [volcano] - they might think the benefits are worth the risk and who am I to tell them what risk they want to take? Provided they don't demand money from me when the inevitable happens, I don't object. Mqurice