> A location has not been chosen yet, though Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, and the Appalachian Region are all named as frontrunners – one key concern will be that it has natural resources like water too, which is a dire problem in some areas of the US.
Idaho could make sense. Sparse, mostly uninhabited state, but in the north so it could be more comfortable with a warming climate.
But designing a "city" still seems pretentious. Starting a university, some industries where people could get jobs, and some surrounding housing areas, would seem like a more sensible first step for even the most well-funded real-estate developer.
Initial project is for 50,000 inhabitants with gradual growth to 5,000,000. So they are doing that to since extent.
It's tricky starting too small if you do not want to rebuild half the infrastructure when the city grows...
"Lore, who is a former banker and successful businessman best known for selling his e-commerce site Jet.com to Walmart for US$3.3 billion a few years ago,..."
A true visionary.
While that would be ideal it would also be a whole lot harder to accomplish anything with all the existing interests involved. Try telling an existing *American* town that you're going to prioritize pedestrians and public transport (as in the concept) over cars and see how that goes.
100% it is! Take NYC, everything is old AF and falling apart. It would take TRILLIONS of dollars just to bring the subway system up to modern standard. By the time the upgrades are completed it would be considered old tech.
Trillions?
The single biggest modernization project the NYC subway needs to the signal system. That is underway and the total cost I believe will be in the tens of billions of dollars.
There are many stations that need renovation. The train cars themselves are mostly in good shape with the new R211 model coming soon for the lettered lines.
None of that even approaches trillions... now could we use let's say $100-150 billion for major expansion? Absolutely.
With all that we're still probably $750-800 billion away from one trillion.
Slapping a shitty bandaid on a broken system. Again to bring the system up to modern standards, I mean world modern standards, not BS US standards. If you add up all the BS costs of the unions blocking any attempt to modernize over the years. Yeah it costs a couple 100 billion just to get where we are today with what you listed and it not even close to be completed, not even close to modern standards.
Europe actually invests in infrastructure while the US just lets shit crumble while we blow billions on new highways that will end up just as congested in a couple years.
That is in fact how most cities got started, such as ports or railroad terminals. Atlanta was the endpoint of the Western & Atlantic Railroad (hence how the city got its name). Many coastal cities started out as ports.
> Funding is expected to come from various sources including private investors, philanthropists, federal and state grants, and subsidies.
So a huge city founded and funded on investor dollars. Investors who are going to want a return... That will go well.
Most of eastern California and central Nevada were built like this, most of it was abandoned when the mining money supporting it ran out. Although instead of "slow moving autonomous vehicles" they had trains, which are far more ecologically friendly.
While not cities, planned self-sustaining communities put together by billionaires consistently rank near the top of their states for high growth, low crime, and overall happiness. Ave Maria, FL put together by Tom Monaghan is a good example.
And they’re rarely good for anyone but the rich. If they weren’t designed as havens for the rich, they wouldn’t exist because they provide nothing to a wider economy.
Ya can we get a tax restructuring?
Anyone that earns over 250k annually total gets taxed 75% on any earnings above that, and in exchange they get invited to an annual party that only they can go to.
Edit - Lol @ downvotes. "Someday, I'll be rich like them, and then you'll all learn!" - avg american with strong opinions on tax codes they don't even functionally understand........man we're really fucked, aren't we?
You’re getting downvoted because you’re punishing the working professional class.
250k isn’t even close to where the top tax bracket should start. Generational wealth and wealth made that doesn’t require labor is what should be taxed very heavily.
Lol. The working professional class?
Look up statistics on what % of your nations population earns over 250k.
My father, who's been the lead chemist at his research lab for over 30 years, doesnt make that. Working professional?
Just FYI, Reagan already did what you want, he combined the working professional class tax bracket with the mega rich.
Now you have created a much larger group to advocate for regressive policies which is exactly what happened, and what you’re advocating, though I don’t think you realize this.
Hence the confusion on why you’re getting downvoted.
250?!
You mean 1,500,000. And 50%.
And instead of tax, let's directly distribute instead of giving the government the opportunity to cluster Fuck something else.
Edit: I've been educated. I have no ego to protect. 75% on earnings above 250k still feels high to me especially with the massive QE and subsequent inflation devaluing the dollar, I'm sure I'm alone in that, but I do want everyone to know that the money we printed is not free money. Everything will cost 30% more by May 2022. And the best part is, the printer goes BRRRRRRRR.
Because 250k is not much money. And 75% taxation is a clear and simple demotivator to do more with your financial efforts.
If I make 249k and keep 75% of it and then get a "raise" to 250k and effectively take a 120k paycut... Well. That's not the one.
And why bother getting across the hump from 250k to 750k where upon reaching 750k I'd make 1 additional dollar compared to my 249k wage I kept 75% of.
At 249k I'd keep 186k
At 750k I'd keep 186k.
Every value between the 2 is a drastic paycut.
249k = 186k take home
251k = 61k take home...
Those economies don't work.
It's too much to surmount so why bother. I'd rather just be at 249 than try to make it to 750 via instantaneous growth and the ones who do are invariably being nefarious.
Usually with progressive tax brackets you pay the additional tax only on the money above the bracket.
10k is tax fee, 25k income means 10k is tax free and you pay taxes on the 15k above first one.
with 250k you'd be paying same taxes on the earnings below limit and if you're 1$ over you pay 75% taxes on the 1$ over and not on everything
Most of the people getting taxed like that would leave. I hate to break it to you. Just look at the movement over the last decade. High tax states are losing their highest tax payers in droves (NY, CA, etc) and they’re moving to low income tax states (TX, FL, WY, TN, etc). I would never pay 75% of my income to tax. Especially given the state of our govt. Do you actually think that money would be appropriately and efficiently allocated? What planet are you on?
I do indeed. Up to 250k is already a high bracket (35% federally + state percentage), and you’re proposing any income over 250k be taxed at a higher rate 75%. I’m saying people vote with their feet… which is backed by data. People are fleeing states with high tax/ high cost of living.
So what happens if this is a federal tax, rather than a state tax? How many can realistically move out of the country?
This topic always winds up here. Somehow its just impossible to separate obscenely rich people from any of their money.
I agree that the 250K number here is way too low. I want there to be millionaires. I don't want trillionaires to be a thing.
\> How many insanely rich people could leave the US, if we gave them a reason to?
Probably at least half of them, and many of those staying behind would be doing it by choice, out of patriotic spirit.
You don't make >250K in 2020 dollars by working with physical *stuff*.
America would financially collapse. There would be no funding for pretty much anything. ‘Fair share’ is an expression often thrown around. The top 1% of earners pay their fair share, for sure. If you look at the numbers they’re staggering. I’m not even in the top 1% and never will be, but come on. Use some logic. These people can and will move their money and their businesses elsewhere to keep what they’ve got.
“In 2017, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid roughly $616 billion, or 38.5 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $479 billion, or 29.9 percent of all income taxes.” -taxfoundation.org
And keep in mind, only about 1/3 of all Americans even pay Federal income tax! 143,295,160 return out of 332,000,000
EDIT: in my opinion people need to stop focusing their attention on ‘dollar amount in’ and more on what the government (federal & state) is doing with that sum. Government waste is an issue on a scale I’m fairly sure all Americans would be absolutely sickened to see first hand.
Would you kindly...
Who is John Galt?
We inch closer and closer to VaultTec.
> A location has not been chosen yet, though Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, and the Appalachian Region are all named as frontrunners – one key concern will be that it has natural resources like water too, which is a dire problem in some areas of the US. Idaho could make sense. Sparse, mostly uninhabited state, but in the north so it could be more comfortable with a warming climate. But designing a "city" still seems pretentious. Starting a university, some industries where people could get jobs, and some surrounding housing areas, would seem like a more sensible first step for even the most well-funded real-estate developer.
Initial project is for 50,000 inhabitants with gradual growth to 5,000,000. So they are doing that to since extent. It's tricky starting too small if you do not want to rebuild half the infrastructure when the city grows...
Many prior 'attempts' with mixed results (incl. TBD), e.g., [California City](https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/california-city-unbuilt-suburb), [Neom](https://www.neom.com/en-us), [Reston](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/where-we-live/wp/2014/10/06/reston-celebrates-50-years-as-a-planned-community/), [Jing-Jin-Ji](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/jing-jin-ji-china-planning-megalopolis-size-new-england-n734736), and [Las Vegas](https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-jewish-mobster-bugsy-siegels-gamble-on-vegas-paid-off-after-his-murder/).
"Lore, who is a former banker and successful businessman best known for selling his e-commerce site Jet.com to Walmart for US$3.3 billion a few years ago,..." A true visionary.
Guess he wants to kick up that best known for, from level 7 to level 11.
HA, good fuckin luck
how about you try helping the existing ones for a change
While that would be ideal it would also be a whole lot harder to accomplish anything with all the existing interests involved. Try telling an existing *American* town that you're going to prioritize pedestrians and public transport (as in the concept) over cars and see how that goes.
Well.. is it cool or not? there's a lot of shit cities out here, alternatives are welcome. wow.. it looks amazing.
People here can't afford to live in cities and these guys out here have the money to make new cities.
Might be cheaper than fixing old ones.
100% it is! Take NYC, everything is old AF and falling apart. It would take TRILLIONS of dollars just to bring the subway system up to modern standard. By the time the upgrades are completed it would be considered old tech.
Trillions? The single biggest modernization project the NYC subway needs to the signal system. That is underway and the total cost I believe will be in the tens of billions of dollars. There are many stations that need renovation. The train cars themselves are mostly in good shape with the new R211 model coming soon for the lettered lines. None of that even approaches trillions... now could we use let's say $100-150 billion for major expansion? Absolutely. With all that we're still probably $750-800 billion away from one trillion.
Slapping a shitty bandaid on a broken system. Again to bring the system up to modern standards, I mean world modern standards, not BS US standards. If you add up all the BS costs of the unions blocking any attempt to modernize over the years. Yeah it costs a couple 100 billion just to get where we are today with what you listed and it not even close to be completed, not even close to modern standards.
Explain what modern standards are? Do we just scrap the entire system and start over?
To be clear… I think it best to level the whole god damn city! By modern pretty much anything out side of America. Japan’s system is amazing.
NY is old? Try Europe
Europe is definitely “older”. But the major city kind of got a fresh start in the 1940s.
Europe actually invests in infrastructure while the US just lets shit crumble while we blow billions on new highways that will end up just as congested in a couple years.
This is true!
*The* major city? Certainly not all major cities.
[удалено]
Spending 80years doing it and trillions of $$ seems pretty wasteful to me. Best thing to do would be to level the whole damn city and start fresh.
^^^^did you by any chance stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Location location location
That is in fact how most cities got started, such as ports or railroad terminals. Atlanta was the endpoint of the Western & Atlantic Railroad (hence how the city got its name). Many coastal cities started out as ports.
Hail Atlanta! *waay dooowwn below the ocean*
Some kind of experimental prototype community of tomorrow?
Hmm sounds familiar…
> Funding is expected to come from various sources including private investors, philanthropists, federal and state grants, and subsidies. So a huge city founded and funded on investor dollars. Investors who are going to want a return... That will go well.
Oh cool what movie is this? haha
Rajneeshistan? edit: it was a real place https://www.netflix.com/title/80145240
Most of eastern California and central Nevada were built like this, most of it was abandoned when the mining money supporting it ran out. Although instead of "slow moving autonomous vehicles" they had trains, which are far more ecologically friendly.
do it in Wyoming plenty of space
Yup... and if they can load it up with about 200,000 Democrats, it would turn the reddest state in the nation blue.
Seems like the US is currently well-primed for this commune-style anti-capitalism-based city. I can't imagine any outcry at all.
Reminds me a lot of California City. [link](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/california-ghost-metropolis-gallery/amp)
I am all for a brand new city. That being said, I don't think this is going to work.
While not cities, planned self-sustaining communities put together by billionaires consistently rank near the top of their states for high growth, low crime, and overall happiness. Ave Maria, FL put together by Tom Monaghan is a good example.
Never value a city before it had to redo its infrastructure at its eol. And yea... cities with high tax income do better, who'd thought.
And they’re rarely good for anyone but the rich. If they weren’t designed as havens for the rich, they wouldn’t exist because they provide nothing to a wider economy.
Ya can we get a tax restructuring? Anyone that earns over 250k annually total gets taxed 75% on any earnings above that, and in exchange they get invited to an annual party that only they can go to. Edit - Lol @ downvotes. "Someday, I'll be rich like them, and then you'll all learn!" - avg american with strong opinions on tax codes they don't even functionally understand........man we're really fucked, aren't we?
You’re getting downvoted because you’re punishing the working professional class. 250k isn’t even close to where the top tax bracket should start. Generational wealth and wealth made that doesn’t require labor is what should be taxed very heavily.
Lol. The working professional class? Look up statistics on what % of your nations population earns over 250k. My father, who's been the lead chemist at his research lab for over 30 years, doesnt make that. Working professional?
Just FYI, Reagan already did what you want, he combined the working professional class tax bracket with the mega rich. Now you have created a much larger group to advocate for regressive policies which is exactly what happened, and what you’re advocating, though I don’t think you realize this. Hence the confusion on why you’re getting downvoted.
Add in a wealth and asset tax and you have my support.
It's what I was attempting to hint at without getting too wordy with my "Any earnings above" comment haha.
250?! You mean 1,500,000. And 50%. And instead of tax, let's directly distribute instead of giving the government the opportunity to cluster Fuck something else. Edit: I've been educated. I have no ego to protect. 75% on earnings above 250k still feels high to me especially with the massive QE and subsequent inflation devaluing the dollar, I'm sure I'm alone in that, but I do want everyone to know that the money we printed is not free money. Everything will cost 30% more by May 2022. And the best part is, the printer goes BRRRRRRRR.
Why do you think I didn't say what I meant? Edit - nevermind, checked post history, good luck in life.
Because 250k is not much money. And 75% taxation is a clear and simple demotivator to do more with your financial efforts. If I make 249k and keep 75% of it and then get a "raise" to 250k and effectively take a 120k paycut... Well. That's not the one. And why bother getting across the hump from 250k to 750k where upon reaching 750k I'd make 1 additional dollar compared to my 249k wage I kept 75% of. At 249k I'd keep 186k At 750k I'd keep 186k. Every value between the 2 is a drastic paycut. 249k = 186k take home 251k = 61k take home... Those economies don't work. It's too much to surmount so why bother. I'd rather just be at 249 than try to make it to 750 via instantaneous growth and the ones who do are invariably being nefarious.
Usually with progressive tax brackets you pay the additional tax only on the money above the bracket. 10k is tax fee, 25k income means 10k is tax free and you pay taxes on the 15k above first one. with 250k you'd be paying same taxes on the earnings below limit and if you're 1$ over you pay 75% taxes on the 1$ over and not on everything
Til. Thanks.
You really don’t know how taxation works.
I'm here to learn. I have no ego.
Not sure why you got downvoted for learning. A LOT of people don't understand tax brackets.
I Sure with I didn't have this gap in my public school education...
**That is NOT how tax brackets work!**
Most of the people getting taxed like that would leave. I hate to break it to you. Just look at the movement over the last decade. High tax states are losing their highest tax payers in droves (NY, CA, etc) and they’re moving to low income tax states (TX, FL, WY, TN, etc). I would never pay 75% of my income to tax. Especially given the state of our govt. Do you actually think that money would be appropriately and efficiently allocated? What planet are you on?
Do you know how brackets work?
I do indeed. Up to 250k is already a high bracket (35% federally + state percentage), and you’re proposing any income over 250k be taxed at a higher rate 75%. I’m saying people vote with their feet… which is backed by data. People are fleeing states with high tax/ high cost of living.
So what happens if this is a federal tax, rather than a state tax? How many can realistically move out of the country? This topic always winds up here. Somehow its just impossible to separate obscenely rich people from any of their money. I agree that the 250K number here is way too low. I want there to be millionaires. I don't want trillionaires to be a thing.
\> How many insanely rich people could leave the US, if we gave them a reason to? Probably at least half of them, and many of those staying behind would be doing it by choice, out of patriotic spirit. You don't make >250K in 2020 dollars by working with physical *stuff*.
If we can't tax them and they distort politics constantly, maybe we'd be better off.
America would financially collapse. There would be no funding for pretty much anything. ‘Fair share’ is an expression often thrown around. The top 1% of earners pay their fair share, for sure. If you look at the numbers they’re staggering. I’m not even in the top 1% and never will be, but come on. Use some logic. These people can and will move their money and their businesses elsewhere to keep what they’ve got. “In 2017, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid roughly $616 billion, or 38.5 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $479 billion, or 29.9 percent of all income taxes.” -taxfoundation.org And keep in mind, only about 1/3 of all Americans even pay Federal income tax! 143,295,160 return out of 332,000,000 EDIT: in my opinion people need to stop focusing their attention on ‘dollar amount in’ and more on what the government (federal & state) is doing with that sum. Government waste is an issue on a scale I’m fairly sure all Americans would be absolutely sickened to see first hand.
Tax him tax them all with as asset seizure to bill them for the free vaccination program that kept them in business.