A National Infrastructure Investment Fund
Most people set aside part of each paycheck for a variety of things. 6.2% of each paycheck (up to $102,000) pays for contributions to Social Security, 1.45% goes to Medicare. Then there is income tax withholding, contributions to 401k plans, health plan co-payments, and so on. I think we should create an additional voluntary withholding item with a variable rate that would feed into a fund that invests in revenue generating national infrastructure.
The idea is to offer taxpayers an investment option with a risk profile somewhere between Social Security (which is designed to be a sure thing) and a 401k (which can be lost completely). Contributions would be invested only in critical national infrastructure projects, like transport and renewable energy. The investments would be structured so that they would pay dividends. For example, the fund could build wind turbines, and the dividends would come from the electricity revenue.
This would help solve three problems :
- It would give taxpayers a relatively safe investment option. The dividends might fluctuate from year to year, but the investment could never be lost. This would provide a nice compliment Social Security and a 401k.
- It would create a pool of money designated for projects of crucial national importance. The fund would be big enough that it could invest on a scale impossible for private equity. Also, the focus on generating long-term reliable revenue instead of capital gains would allow the fund to invest on a much longer time horizon than most private equity.
- It would bring patriotism, volunteerism and ecological-mindedness into alignment with individual financial self-interest.
I'm not interested in yet another speculative investment option. The private sector does a good job there, and doesn't need to be duplicated. I'm thinking of a different sort of model, more like social entrepreneurism, but with mass-participation.
This is a fantastic idea! Within a few months all the highways in the U.S. can be converted into toll roads, and the dividends will start to flow. Perhaps we could charge for the use of sidewalks and traffic lights as well. And we can bring back pay toilets!
I hate to point it out, but if it were possible to "invest" in wind turbines and get any kind of sensible return out of it, private industry would have already done so. Even with government support, no one want to build the things unless they're a smokescreen for Mr. T. Boone "I want California to subsidize my natural gas empire" Pickens.
Plus they kill birds. You don't hate birds, do you?
Besides which, the purpose of U.S. energy policy is and always has been to keep caviar on the table of the power barons. But go ahead; I'm sure the federal government will provide the same rigorous and enthusiastic oversight of this project as it did with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Enron.
Arm yourself. The revolution is coming.
Hmm... I suggest you study the economics of renewable energy projects a little more carefully. They most certainly are profitable, and people do invest in them, even without subsidies. Conservatively, the annual return is perhaps a three to six percent of the capital investment, but always positive. The problem is that most ventures need to borrow the money to build the things, so the return would be the revenue minus debt maintenance. If debt is expensive, then it's hard to make much of a profit.
On the other hand, if you don't need to borrow the money, then turbines are like money in the bank. Literally.
And no, they don't kill birds, at least not any more than anything else that humans build. An office building is many times more lethal to bird populations than a wind turbine. So is a good size rock outcropping, or a wall, or a parked car, or a telephone pole. Birds sometimes crash into stuff and die. So do people. An operating wind turbine helpfully warns birds away by, you know, moving.
I'm not a big fan of toll roads, though happily I don't think there are very many places in the country that are in such desperate need for another highway that people would pay enough tolls to justify the expense building one. But if people really need the road, why not? You got something against roads? Wouldn't you rather those tolls go to stocking up aunt Millie's cupboards than padding the accounts of some anonymous hedge fund?
As for the poor oversite that led to the subprime mess, Enron, and various other disasters, I remind you that America will soon be under new management.
The revolution is not coming. It happened two weeks ago, and from what I've seen so far, I won't be buying any ammo. The only round I'll be buying is one for my friends, with which we may toast good times. You are welcome to stay in your bunker, of course. We'll be up here, pulling the country out of the ditch. We'd be happy to drop off some aluminum foil should you stumble and damage your hat.
The revolution did NOT happen; Ron Paul lost. And if you think that by switching to "Obama" brand mixed nuts you're going to save money, then I've got a wind farm to sell you. It's just more fascism/socialism, under a new umbrella.
Besides which, bird deaths are a REAL and SERIOUS problem, along with all kinds of health effects linked to the vibration. Shepard Smith did an expose on this only a couple of weeks ago. Who's going to pay for all the new cancer patients once they figure out exactly what those effects are? Because if you're hoping for some free healthcare from Rahm Emanuel, I've got a dead fish to send you.
Vibration? That's just stupid.
Look, if you honestly believe that crap, you're reading the wrong blog.
Or, if you're pulling my leg, consider it quite thoroughly pulled. Har har.
http://bangornews.com/detail/93716.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1218250522129010.xml&coll=7
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=941550
Har, har, *hack, cough, sputter, faint*.
When people like you are confronted by science you don't like, you declare "that's stupid" and end debate. For another example, that's why we can't have a serious discussion about intelligent design in this country. The so called "mainstream scientific community" is so quick to demonize the opinions of its own former members that good Christians have to resort to the political process to fix our education system.
And what's wrong with wanting to know about the health risks of these giant machines you hippies are so keen on ramming up our backsides? There's obviously a debate going on. I bet you don't live anywhere near a wind farm.
Yes. People like me are a pain in the ass because we insist on things like "statistical significance" and "controlled conditions." I'm not interested in having conversations with people who don't.
I live within a few miles of the biggest wind farm in North America. I am not worried about magical turbine vibration rays, or whatever.
Posts
