this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
1069 points (96.4% liked)

Amtrak

459 readers
1 users here now

Anything Amtrak related. News, photos, questions, and more. We are not associated with Amtrak in any way, official inquiries should be referred to Amtrak.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Not so friendly reminder that musk specifically came up with, and pushed, for hyperloop knowing that it would never be made, as an effort to stop the development of highspeed rail in America and shift all political discussions of it because "something better is around the corner":

As I’ve written in my book, Musk admitted to his biographer Ashlee Vance that Hyperloop was all about trying to get legislators to cancel plans for high-speed rail in California—even though he had no plans to build it. Several years ago, Musk said that public transit was “a pain in the ass” where you were surrounded by strangers, including possible serial killers, to justify his opposition.

source: new york times

Also: 2024 update, the total length of China's high-speed rail tracks has now reached well over 45,000 km, or 28,000 miles, by the end of 2023.

They are additionally five years ahead of schedule and expect to double the total number within ten years. And, before someone inevitably complains about "how expensive it is", they are turning over a net-profit of over $600M USD a year.

Via

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

California's ENTIRE ANNUAL REVENUES are something like $150-150 billion. You'd have to dramatically increase taxes, and if you're going to do that, why not spend it on education, or homelessness?

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because we can dramatically increase taxes for those too. Land value taxes don't distort prices and we've barely scratched the surface.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't know if I agree with raising taxes that substantially, but at least it's a reasonable argument.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why not substantially? The surplus from land ownership is "unearned income" - we're basically giving a goverment handout to landlords right now. Land value is different from acreage, so your house would see very little increase in taxes.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Look, I'm not gonna bother with your evangelist tax pitch. Increasing the tax revenues of California by at least 30% is A LOT of new taxes, regardless of the source.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ok but who cares? We should increase them even more than 30%.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

...a lot of people care. An extra 30% lost would be financially ruinous for a lot of people.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's fortunate that increasing California's taxes by 30% doesn't necessarily impact a lot of people, then.

Land value is different from acreage, so your house would see very little increase in taxes.

I'm not evangelizing the woke narrative at you. This is just how land value taxes have always worked.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It would absolutely affect Californians. 30% is a lot. The money has to come from somewhere

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And yet, it wouldn't be 30% on a lot of Californians. The ones who would pay the most are landlords who would not be financially ruined. You need to read the Wikipedia article.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Told you, not interested. I don't think you even care about high speed rail.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

If you're not willing to learn how taxes work, then you should stop trying to spread that ignorance.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah that's what I thought

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why not just spend less on killing Muslims?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

California isn't killing any Muslims.

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The federal government pays Californian companies to make bombs. They also enlist and pay Californian residents to use those bombs, or otherwise get them in the hands of someone that will.

Instead, the federal government should pay Californian residents to do peaceful things. Like build trains.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

Ok, whatever, but it's not.

So, as I said in my initial comment, we're building what we can, as we can afford it.