75 replies to this topic

[Pseudo_Work]

Cotuit, on Mar 9 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

Well the part of the silver line that is electrified is the subway portion. The above ground portions of the silver line (Washington Street and from the tunnel portal on the waterfront outbound) are not electrified at all. Diesel buses.

I sort of wonder why they didn't electrify the whole thing.

[Cotuit]

Pseudo_Work, on Mar 9 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

I sort of wonder why they didn't electrify the whole thing.

Buses go to the airport via the Ted Williams Tunnel and the overhead cables are not allowed on an interstate highway.

[Frankie811]

Stimulus money helps Carcieri balance state budget plan

Gov. Donald L. Carcieri today unveiled a $7.62 billion state budget proposal for fiscal 2010 that uses millions of dollars in federal stimulus money.

http://www.pbn.com/detail/40855.html

[Lone Ranger]

Quote

The package called for the corporate income tax to be reduced from 9 percent to 7.5 percent, starting Jan. 1, 2010, the first of five planned incremental steps to eliminate the tax entirely.

To call this tidbit interesting is an understatement.  Can anybody here elaborate on this item for me?

[frymasterspeck]

Republican free-marketer's last hurrah? Honestly, it's like this is the only idea they've ever had, can ever have and/or will ever have.

It may have some level of merit, but if this is the best a 'blue ribbon' panel can come up with, we need new ribbons. Or at least new colors.

This completely ignores the fundamental problem at the core of the state's revenue model - the nation's smallest state is largely relying on a physical-product-only sales tax with an out-of-state exemption in an age of services. Physical products in a services economy. Smallest state has out-of-state delivery exemption. Is anybody awake up there?

Over the years I've shipped about $100k worth of printed materials to clients in NH, MA and CT. $7,000 over about that many years is no great thing, but an incremental $1k from every business would be helpful.

This state BADLY needs to add an incremental tax on services. Not 7% like the sales tax, but more like 1%. Don't whine to me about having to pay it, either. I'll be paying too.

Jackass that I am, I'm approaching the state's tax policy from the perspective that the state needs revenue for stupid, porky projects like roads, bridges, schools, etc. Our blue ribbon-ers approach the same issue from an "economic development" perspective.

But that perspective relies entirely on the idea that economic development equals large employers from out of state building new facilities. Those are the kinds of employers that are extremely sensitive to taxation and a factor in selecting locations. But they're also the kinds of employers that bring in low-wage, low-education jobs and then lay everybody off without notice and move to Senegal. Those guys are in a race to the bottom. Is that a race Rhode Island really needs to win?

If you know about how our economic clusters map, you know we need more knowledge jobs. Our 'upper right quadrant' (high wage/high growth) is basically empty.

Bottom-up economic development that builds on what's already there rather than importing new "jobs" generates deeper and longer lasting benefits. What's the most efficient form of economic stimulus? Increasing food stamps. Experts refer to this kind of stimulus as "automatic stabilizers". What's the best way to grow a knowledge economy? Invest in education.

These guys are really, really, really wrong in their entire approach. Economic development centered around importing large employers creates suburbs and strip malls, starves the state for revenue and makes us unnecessarily sensitive to economic cycles. Economic development that cultivates growth mostly from existing assets creates strong communities, strong local economies and a diverse, broad-based business sector that's less prone to collapse.

[FjmArch]

frymasterspeck, on Mar 11 2009, 08:14 AM, said:

Republican free-marketer's last hurrah? Honestly, it's like this is the only idea they've ever had, can ever have and/or will ever have.

It may have some level of merit, but if this is the best a 'blue ribbon' panel can come up with, we need new ribbons. Or at least new colors.

This completely ignores the fundamental problem at the core of the state's revenue model - the nation's smallest state is largely relying on a physical-product-only sales tax with an out-of-state exemption in an age of services. Physical products in a services economy. Smallest state has out-of-state delivery exemption. Is anybody awake up there?

Over the years I've shipped about $100k worth of printed materials to clients in NH, MA and CT. $7,000 over about that many years is no great thing, but an incremental $1k from every business would be helpful.

This state BADLY needs to add an incremental tax on services. Not 7% like the sales tax, but more like 1%. Don't whine to me about having to pay it, either. I'll be paying too.

Jackass that I am, I'm approaching the state's tax policy from the perspective that the state needs revenue for stupid, porky projects like roads, bridges, schools, etc. Our blue ribbon-ers approach the same issue from an "economic development" perspective.

But that perspective relies entirely on the idea that economic development equals large employers from out of state building new facilities. Those are the kinds of employers that are extremely sensitive to taxation and a factor in selecting locations. But they're also the kinds of employers that bring in low-wage, low-education jobs and then lay everybody off without notice and move to Senegal. Those guys are in a race to the bottom. Is that a race Rhode Island really needs to win?

If you know about how our economic clusters map, you know we need more knowledge jobs. Our 'upper right quadrant' (high wage/high growth) is basically empty.

Bottom-up economic development that builds on what's already there rather than importing new "jobs" generates deeper and longer lasting benefits. What's the most efficient form of economic stimulus? Increasing food stamps. Experts refer to this kind of stimulus as "automatic stabilizers". What's the best way to grow a knowledge economy? Invest in education.

These guys are really, really, really wrong in their entire approach. Economic development centered around importing large employers creates suburbs and strip malls, starves the state for revenue and makes us unnecessarily sensitive to economic cycles. Economic development that cultivates growth mostly from existing assets creates strong communities, strong local economies and a diverse, broad-based business sector that's less prone to collapse.

[Garris]

Lone Ranger, on Mar 11 2009, 07:51 AM, said:

To call this tidbit interesting is an understatement.  Can anybody here elaborate on this item for me?

Obviously that money has to eventually come from somewhere, but in the short term, as a recent NY Times article detailed, it's a move to stay competitive with MA (which I believe just lowered their corporate income tax to 7.5%) and CT (which I think is 7%).  Obviously, we couldn't stay at 9 and be competitive.  

At a certain level this definitely sucks, but it's a regional, not just RI, issue.  The NE has been getting killed for years economically on competitive issues like this.  

As many have said, it's time to completely rethink how taxation works in the US...

[Pseudo_Work]

Garris, on Mar 11 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

Obviously that money has to eventually come from somewhere, but in the short term, as a recent NY Times article detailed, it's a move to stay competitive with MA (which I believe just lowered their corporate income tax to 7.5%) and CT (which I think is 7%).  Obviously, we couldn't stay at 9 and be competitive.  

At a certain level this definitely sucks, but it's a regional, not just RI, issue.  The NE has been getting killed for years economically on competitive issues like this.  

As many have said, it's time to completely rethink how taxation works in the US...

It's also time to rethink how New England operates as a region.  It doesn't make the least bit of sense, if you ask me, to have six tiny states competing against each other for resources when the bottom line for the region as a whole is a bit bleak.  It inhibits planning and operation at all levels.  New England should really be one state.

[Lone Ranger]

Pseudo_Work, on Mar 11 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

New England should really be one state.

And Rhode Island should really be about 7 municipalities, but good luck trying to get anyone to change anything around here.  

Thanks for the analysis, Mr. Speck.  



In defense of the Blue Ribbon panel, I would guess that they're trying to stabilize our economy by building our job base in the short term (with an eye on the 195 land in Providence).  This move isn't necessarily their final solution.  In the long term, I think we all know that the state needs more knowledge-based industries and will only get them by improving the education system top to bottom.  But with a jobless rate near the worst in the country, RI can't really afford to pick and choose, right at the moment.

Rhode Island made its mistakes when it was a rich state, an industrial powerhouse.  We banked on keeping that strength forever, and we lost big.  We've had a bad century, which can happen to anybody -- ask any Cubs fan.  And the consequences of our mistakes were compounded by certain choices that Americans made 60 years ago, added to the fact that we're so small.  But we can learn from our mistakes, going forward.  It's just a long uphill climb.  And we do have to start somewhere ...

Edited by Lone Ranger, 12 March 2009 - 05:21 AM.

[Cotuit]

Pseudo_Work, on Mar 11 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

It's also time to rethink how New England operates as a region.  It doesn't make the least bit of sense, if you ask me, to have six tiny states competing against each other for resources when the bottom line for the region as a whole is a bit bleak.  It inhibits planning and operation at all levels.  New England should really be one state.

I think it would be a bad idea to give up our 12 Senators. But there's no reason we can't operate more regionally and still maintain our individual statehood. We could be like the EU.

[mental757]

I think the key point in all of this is to not be higher than MA & CT in terms of these taxes.  We all know that RI has a lot to offer in terms of quality of life and location, but companies have boards and stockholders to answer to and selling a decision based on "but RI is such a nice place to locate to" is a tough sell when it will cost the business more than if they located 30 miles in any other direction.

[Urbaner]

Cotuit, on Mar 12 2009, 12:35 AM, said:

I think it would be a bad idea to give up our 12 Senators. But there's no reason we can't operate more regionally and still maintain our individual statehood. We could be like the EU.

It really would only be 10 Senators lost or a 10% power-block in the Senate. New England's current power advantage would become a power weakness. If New England became a state, where to you suppose it would be argued to locate the state capitol because of transportation and economic advantages? Would Massachusetts or Boston dominate the other 5 former states? Should Fairfield County with the bulk of Connecticut's wealth be given to New York, since it's really part of the New York metropolitan area? New England should stay as it is and focus on it's strengths as a region to develop a new economy. How much of New England's annual wealth is sent away to the oil and gas producing regions of the world? A responce to that question lies the answer to reviving New England's economic power.

[mental757]

If there were simply more partnerships on things as simple as transportation, we'd be better off.  RI & MA play nice in terms of the MBTA service, but thats about it.  RIPTA should team with GARTA, and whoever is in Fall River to link systems, etc.  No exhange of money (the Pilgrim partnership does call for RI to pay for new train stock, but it is needed to physically extend the service and help pay for operations) for the bus systems, just like an "interline agreement" or a "code-share" like airlines do.

[Urbaner]

mental757, on Mar 12 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

If there were simply more partnerships on things as simple as transportation, we'd be better off. RI & MA play nice in terms of the MBTA service, but thats about it. RIPTA should team with GARTA, and whoever is in Fall River to link systems, etc. No exhange of money (the Pilgrim partnership does call for RI to pay for new train stock, but it is needed to physically extend the service and help pay for operations) for the bus systems, just like an "interline agreement" or a "code-share" like airlines do.

It’s interesting how easy it was for partnerships to be constructed between Connecticut and New York, New York and New Jersey, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania for transit, commuter trains, and airports.  Why is it so difficult or unusual to do the same between Rhode Island and Massachusetts?  Massachusetts had to be denied additional runways at Logan to encourage the development of the Manchester and Providence airports, and had to be forced by the federal government to install road signs to divert traffic to 295 so people driving south to T.F Green could get to their flights on time. When the MBTA commuter rail is extended south, Rhode Islanders will pay double, if they get on at stations south of Providence. Rhode Island will be the only state with interstate commuter rail service with this privilege. Maybe it's because Rhode Islanders were never Pilgrims. "RI and MA play nice with the MBTA" because MA financially benefits from the deal. Perhaps if an interstate authority, similar to The Port Authority of NY & NJ or the MTA were created all parties would benefit equally.

[brick]

I do not agree completely with speck, as like all things I think there is value in some diversity.  That means fostering growth from the small as well as trying to nab the big, etc.

I will tell you guys this.  Taxes are a problem but in recent months in talking to various people I don't think it's the big one.  The problem is a combination of two things:  the high price of doing business, in which taxes are a part but not close to all.  That wouldn't be a problem, except for the second thing:  there is a perception that there is not much talent in RI.  Technical, business, etc.  There is a third piece and that is that people still feel RI is in large part a bad place to do business because of corruption and glad handing.

[Urbaner]

Patrick Ward, on Feb 2 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

Maybe I am reading this wrong. A street car system would only cost $20 million? Seems like too much money for a study and too low for actual construction cost.

http://www.projo.com...v9.3e66cf3.html