Correct me if I'm wrong-Infrastructure and Taxes

[Midnight Writer]

I don't know much about economics, so I may be totally off base here.

A massive infrastructure bill, $2 trillion to maybe $4 trillion, would be a massive stimulus shot to the overall economy. Even beyond this infusion of cash, it will mean more and better paying jobs. That in turn will generate even more economic growth as these newly prosperous workers spend more money and "raise the boats" in all sectors of the economy.

Spending works upwards, and corporations and businesses would be expected to increase their revenue and profits "bigly".

The uber-rich who own shares in these corporations would see a handsome return immediately, and would also have a healthy long term prognosis from an improved and stable infrastructure, creating an environment ripe for further growth.

In light of this, wouldn't the 1% or so more then quickly make up and surpass any appreciable tax increase that would be needed to pay for these improvements? Doesn't it make sense for them to support a tax increase as an investment that will yield them far greater gains in the coming years? Is this an unreasonable argument for the Democrats to make?

[PoliticAverse]

1. Maybe. Obviously it depends on what the money is spent on...

Investment in infrastructure that generates more business might actually pay for itself, but investment in infrastructure that doesn't (for example replacing a old bridge with a nearly identical new one) might not.

[Brennus315]

6. A bridge is not an investment, though.

It's a badly needed repair. The good news is that you just have to bite the bullet and pay for it once. Then you never have to think about it for another 50 years.

[Caliman73]

7. Well... There are maintenance fees.

Metal bridges need to be painted regularly to keep protecting the metal from the elements. Concrete and asphalt, depending on the usage, grade, and application need to also be repaired. I know that Germany uses a type of asphalt that lasts maintenance free for up to 50 years. I don't think that it is used anywhere in America.

There are ongoing costs associated with bridges, roads, and other infrastructure, though they are ultimately a benefit to the economy, not a drain.

[Chainfire]

2. It is my humble opinion that only about 2% of the country understands the economy.

I agree with what you are saying, but if 95% of the money spent can't go to the top 2% then why bother?

[Midnight Writer]

3. I reckon 95% of the money will eventually go to the top. Doesn't it always?

[Chainfire]

4. Probably, but you want to make damn sure it doesn't trickle up from the bottom.

We all know that if the little people get money, they won't go to work. That is why it is important to assure that they never make a living wage.

[Blanks]

5. Republicans know if Joe's infrastructure bill passes...

They’ll lose voters for a generation. If he’s able to get it passed and begin implementation before the mid-terms, republicans won’t get the standard mid-term advantage that the party out of power typically gets.

They (the press) keep saying that we haven’t had a major infrastructure project since Eisenhower, that’s not entirely true. Reagan passed legislation to refurbish the interstate highway system and did it with a fuel tax. Republicans have been in and out of power since. Before that, democrats had been in control of Congress (with few exceptions) since the Great Depression.

A lot of people who vote straight republican do it because the republicans became the infrastructure party in the 1980’s under Reagan.

If Trump had passed an infrastructure bill, even with the pandemic, he would have won re-election.

This is the time to create a lot of engineering, construction, inspection, welding, equipment operator jobs. The majority of people who get those jobs will be democrats until republicans pass an infrastructure bill.

The tax increases on the wealthy are popular too, even among the wealthy. As long as the taxes are fair.

[Caliman73]

8. Your argument is entirely reasonable.

The problem is that the wealthy aren't especially attuned to reason, despite their desire to appear so. For the wealthy, and their Republican lapdogs, there are principles greater than just making money at stake. Yes, they are driven by making money, but POWER is actually more important. The money buys power. What they want more than even money, is to be able to dictate HOW money is spent. They don't want any more money than is absolutely necessary for subsistence to be spent on the rabble. They would prefer that infrastructure be privatized so that they would have the POWER to dictate its use.

A robust middle class to them, means that the average citizen has the opportunity for more education and leisure, which means more critical thinking, which means more knowledge of how the ultra wealthy are just leaches, taking money that they really don't deserve since all they did at one point is buy the rights to own a factory, or a company so that people could make them money (that is IF they didn't inherit the company/factory/etc... from mommy or daddy). When people actually have the time and the ability to really look into our economic system, that is when you get people talking about the 99% and calls for significant reform or even worse...Revolution. Many of the ultra wealthy aren't necessarily committed to the United States. They are looking at how India, China, and Brazil's middle classes are growing, and they see a new customer base for the future and enough of a husk of one here to hold them over for now.

[Midnight Writer]

9. Thanks. You've given me some things to think about.