In 1980- people made more an hr than the cost of the toll..today the toll costs almost 30% more than the minimum wage!
So by this graph, being the tunnel toll went up 13x, people should be making $30 an hr minimum wage!
You beat me to it ESPY.
It's the cost of the toll you should be worried about, not minimum wage.
You beat me to it ESPY.
It's the cost of the toll you should be worried about, not minimum wage.
So Texas is a blue state now? You can't just make a blanket statement without even checking.....
So Texas is a blue state now? You can't just make a blanket statement without even checking.....
The E-Z pass discount plan:
Carpool Plan 3 or more people.. peak or off peak .. $5.00.
Rather than raise the min.wage for low shilled workers .....replace workers with labor-saving machines.
The E-Z pass discount plan:
Carpool Plan 3 or more people.. peak or off peak .. $5.00.
Rather than raise the min.wage for low shilled workers .....replace workers with labor-saving machines.
For the record, I am not a fan of raising the min. wage as I stated on various threads before. I merely just pointed out "no toll roads at all..." just wasn't true.
Since I reside in Texas most of my life, I can't tell whether those are the exceptions or not. I did a lot of traveling within the state and I believe one of those were opened back at 1989(Beltway8 in Houston) so it's almost 25 years ago and I am not even sure that's the first one either. They also have those at least in Dallas and Austin as well. Your "not lately" is definitely not a spin.
For the record, I am not a fan of raising the min. wage as I stated on various threads before. I merely just pointed out "no toll roads at all..." just wasn't true.
Since I reside in Texas most of my life, I can't tell whether those are the exceptions or not. I did a lot of traveling within the state and I believe one of those were opened back at 1989(Beltway8 in Houston) so it's almost 25 years ago and I am not even sure that's the first one either. They also have those at least in Dallas and Austin as well. Your "not lately" is definitely not a spin.
Once a tax/toll starts it is hard to get rid of. Growing up on the Westbank of New Orleans I saw it first hand.
Because of population growth in the suburbs the city had to build a second bridge. Once it was complete, sometime in the late 80's, they started charging a toll. They said the toll would be eliminated once the bridge was paid for. Twenty five years later, long after the bridge was paid for, the toll was still in place. Last year the citizens of metro New Orleans were allowed to vote whether the toll would stay in place. Politicians were telling voters if you vote against the toll it would kill jobs (tollbooth collectors). So the toll went from paying for the bridge to paying bridge employees.
The voters voted against the toll and it was eliminated.
Once a tax/toll starts it is hard to get rid of. Growing up on the Westbank of New Orleans I saw it first hand.
Because of population growth in the suburbs the city had to build a second bridge. Once it was complete, sometime in the late 80's, they started charging a toll. They said the toll would be eliminated once the bridge was paid for. Twenty five years later, long after the bridge was paid for, the toll was still in place. Last year the citizens of metro New Orleans were allowed to vote whether the toll would stay in place. Politicians were telling voters if you vote against the toll it would kill jobs (tollbooth collectors). So the toll went from paying for the bridge to paying bridge employees.
The voters voted against the toll and it was eliminated.
Rick, you may be familiar with this story since it's from your neck of the woods.
Back in the 30's there was a huge natural disaster somewhere in Pennsylvania (I can't remember where) that destroyed much of the infrastructure and killed a lot of people. The local govt passed a bill that would pay for the rebuilding of that area. It would only be a few pennies on the dollar. I don't see anything wrong with that. The problem is as of 2010 that tax was still in place. Long after the city was rebuilt.
That small tax went from paying for rebuilding infrastructure in 1930 to paying for God knows what in 2010.
Rick, you may be familiar with this story since it's from your neck of the woods.
Back in the 30's there was a huge natural disaster somewhere in Pennsylvania (I can't remember where) that destroyed much of the infrastructure and killed a lot of people. The local govt passed a bill that would pay for the rebuilding of that area. It would only be a few pennies on the dollar. I don't see anything wrong with that. The problem is as of 2010 that tax was still in place. Long after the city was rebuilt.
That small tax went from paying for rebuilding infrastructure in 1930 to paying for God knows what in 2010.
For the non-political people reading this thread:
Do you see why some politicians are against growing the size of government? Social Security went from people paying a small tax for their retirement to now people paying a small tax for someone else's retirement. Medicare went from people paying a small tax for their future medical care to now people paying a small tax to keep a bloated government bureaucracy going. Obamacare is in it's infant stages. We already know about some of the negatives associated with this bill. What's scary is the thousands of unforeseen negatives the future holds.
For the non-political people reading this thread:
Do you see why some politicians are against growing the size of government? Social Security went from people paying a small tax for their retirement to now people paying a small tax for someone else's retirement. Medicare went from people paying a small tax for their future medical care to now people paying a small tax to keep a bloated government bureaucracy going. Obamacare is in it's infant stages. We already know about some of the negatives associated with this bill. What's scary is the thousands of unforeseen negatives the future holds.
For the non-political people reading this thread:
Do you see why some politicians are against growing the size of government? Social Security went from people paying a small tax for their retirement to now people paying a small tax for someone else's retirement. Medicare went from people paying a small tax for their future medical care to now people paying a small tax to keep a bloated government bureaucracy going. Obamacare is in it's infant stages. We already know about some of the negatives associated with this bill. What's scary is the thousands of unforeseen negatives the future holds.
Four thousand posts later, you finally say something that is policy in nature without the usual Republicans=worship, Democrats=evil drivel that permeates your thoughts. Good work.
It can always be said that social nets like Social Security, Medicare and taxes in and of themselves have changed in nature, but they have not. Social Security, Medicare, etc. were always premised on the idea of payments associated with taxes on earnings. If that wasn't the case, we would all pay X per month, no matter our earnings and received the same in return. Same with taxes.
The size of the government is disassociative causation of our tax and entitlement system, neither the direct cause or a benign factor. ObamaCare, for its infinate problems, is directed at a system that has seen no other solution. I suppose in some ways, it can be compared to Social Security, which was also intended as a solution for a problem where there wasn't one.
For the non-political people reading this thread:
Do you see why some politicians are against growing the size of government? Social Security went from people paying a small tax for their retirement to now people paying a small tax for someone else's retirement. Medicare went from people paying a small tax for their future medical care to now people paying a small tax to keep a bloated government bureaucracy going. Obamacare is in it's infant stages. We already know about some of the negatives associated with this bill. What's scary is the thousands of unforeseen negatives the future holds.
Four thousand posts later, you finally say something that is policy in nature without the usual Republicans=worship, Democrats=evil drivel that permeates your thoughts. Good work.
It can always be said that social nets like Social Security, Medicare and taxes in and of themselves have changed in nature, but they have not. Social Security, Medicare, etc. were always premised on the idea of payments associated with taxes on earnings. If that wasn't the case, we would all pay X per month, no matter our earnings and received the same in return. Same with taxes.
The size of the government is disassociative causation of our tax and entitlement system, neither the direct cause or a benign factor. ObamaCare, for its infinate problems, is directed at a system that has seen no other solution. I suppose in some ways, it can be compared to Social Security, which was also intended as a solution for a problem where there wasn't one.
You are.
Mostly.
It was created to assist those that would most need it (destitute), while others could use it as an addition to retirement.
You are.
Mostly.
It was created to assist those that would most need it (destitute), while others could use it as an addition to retirement.
You are.
Mostly.
It was created to assist those that would most need it (destitute), while others could use it as an addition to retirement.
You are.
Mostly.
It was created to assist those that would most need it (destitute), while others could use it as an addition to retirement.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.