Well, not quite, according to a paper from a group that includes one of my former La Follette School instructors (Andy Reschovsky- who was kind of a blah teacher, but he has an awesome knowledge of state and local taxation.)
Here's the paper on Property Taxes and Likelihood of Moving.
Basically, the biggest changes happen with people 75+ facing property tax increases of more than 5% in a given year. And how many of those people have to move for reasons that have nothing to do with the property tax? (i.e. need more assistance, spouse dies, etc.) Even among the super-elderly (80+), it appears that income changes are the bigger factor vs. property taxes, with more money making them more likely to move. This holds for the younger folks as well, as the people most likely to move are ones under 50 that make more money and are more likely to both upgrade and move for job reasons.
Anyway, much like the reasons that companies locate, this study says there are many more reasons that are more important than property taxes in determining whether the elderly and others choose to move. Not that property taxes are a variable to be ignored, they need to be part of the equation and strategy that communities and individuals take in when making decisions. But it also holds that taxes are the #1 determiner of outcomes only in Sykes-world, and not the real one.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Following the bouncing taxes and fiscal years
I think a lot of people get confused over how different levels of government work with each other in Wisconsin, and politicians and cynical talk show hosts use this to their advantage. I'm going to give the 3 of you who might read this blog a better understanding of how this all fits together, and then it's your job to tell others and lessen the chances of more duping of the "talk more than I know" crowd. Ready? GO!
We hear a lot about the federal government and their spending, because our media is based on national news and doesn't make a whole lot of effort to get out of their D.C./ NYC bubbles. So we get to understand that the federal government spends for programs like health care coverage, interstate highways and rail, and military expenditures (although our media doesn't do a good job of explaining that the money for these things come from the same place- us). I also think people mostly understand that these items are paid for by federal income taxes, but they don't get that capital gains taxes are significantly lower, or understand that cap. gains is for productive uses like day trading of stocks, house-flipping and other legalized forms of gambling (as opposed to more legitimate but illegal forms like betting lines on sporting events).
They get a bit fuzzy when you try to explain that Social Security and Medicare are paid for by segregated funds, although once you show them that FICA line, they get it a bit more. But they think any potential deficit there is somehow different than the deficits that come from spending more of the non-Social Security/ Medicare money, when it's really not. We get those deficit funds from the same place- China and various others we like to owe. But once you get to state and local spending, the just know that "they pay a lot of taxes" and have no idea where all that spending is from. And that's why I'm here.
First of all, the feds, state and local governments have 3 different fiscal years.
Fed- Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 (i.e. Oct. 2009 starts the first fiscal year under Obama, the record deficit recently completed was based on the last budget for Dubya).
State- July 1 to June 30. 2-year budget. We are currently in 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 is mostly set and starts in 6 1/2 months.
Local- Jan.1 to Dec. 31, so their new 2010 fiscal year begins in 12 days.
You can see where this becomes a problem if you are the city of Madison and get nailed with a 17-inch storm in December, because you're working on a budget you set 13 months ago in November 2008, when you anticipated normal snow and normal levels of opperations, and you're trying to ride it out till the end of the year. When this comes up, you usually have to borrow money or take it out of your contingent fund to cover it, but most citizens think that city budgets are set for the entire "winter season", instead of being two separate budgets that change over come Jan. 1.
This also leads to confusion on when states and localities receive their funding from one of their main sources - higher levels of government. Many government grants are handed out to lower levels with the idea that the more local levels might be able to direct resources to better places (which may or may not be true, depending on who you're dealing with). So when you hear all this whining about stimulus funds not being spent, the different dates of government fiscal years is a good explanation. For example, Wisconsin's new budget started on July 1, and generally used stimulus funds for those two years (July 2009- June 2011). Part of it was to fill their huge budget deficit, and part of it was to jump on projects they'd otherwise be spending themselves (Gov. Doyle's billion-dollar adventure on I-94 from Milwaukee to Kenosha is a good example). Likewise, Obama wasn't even elected when local governments made their 2009 budgets, so while they've had to change around some priorities and items this year, more likely they used the stimulus funds and programs to deal with their 2010 budgets. It's why you will likely see a ton of construction projects around Milwaukee and other communities next Spring and Summer, because it's the first budget year where the extra money from the feds kicks in, and local officials prefer that the feds pay for it than with property taxes, as it tends to help their future job prospects.
A problem comes up when the higher levels don't decide to help their brethren down below. For example, when huge amounts of federal money are going to overseas adventures and you have a president and Congress who don't like book-learning, often items such as medical research at universities are cut. A lot of states have schools like UW that rely on large amounts of research being offset by federal grants, since people in other states stand some chance of being helped by medical or producitivity advances that come out of thinking places. So now they have to find a place to get the money to do their jobs of research. Maybe that comes from the state, if you have a mindset that education is important, or maybe you hit up donors or corporations to help you out to get it done. Of course, that means you need to find someone that cares enough about the subject to help pay for it, and that person might want to see a certain result regardless of what the facts say, but that's the way it goes when you don't get cash from a taxpayer accountable entity. Or you might not get the money at all, and you don't do the research, regardless of the needs.
Another issue might be when a needed expense keeps rising, kind of like what is happening in Wisconsin with Medicaid expenses . If you think giving medical help to those without a lot of money is a priority, and if companies choose not to offer coverage or if economic conditions (like the deregulation-driven recession we're now in) drive down incomes enough to greatly increase the amount of people needing help, then these expenses go up. The same situation happens if you think locking up criminals for various offenses is worth doing and your prisons fill up, requiring you to feed and house more inmates (as has happened in Wisconsin). Since the pot of money is limited in what states can spend money on, and these items keep going up, you can either 1. Cut out some of these priorities, and therefore give less coverage to the sick (as Robin Vos would like to do in the article) or 2. You knock out some other item you usually spend on. In the state's case, this means they'll decide to give less money to previous priorities like the UW System, or they'll cut the money they share to all the local governments in Wisconsin, and tell these groups to come up with their own funding.
So you drop down to local governments, who handle needs like police and fire services, snow plowing, street fixing, and other extravagances. In Wisconsin, localities can only raise revenue in a handful of ways outside of state and federal allocations. Most of this is through property taxes, but they can also institute a sales tax (if the state lets them, which is has not done for the City of Milwaukee), some other user tax like rental cars or hotels (again, if the state will let them) licenses and fees to do certain actions (i.e. bartender licenses, building permits, parking on city streets), tickets from law enforcement, and selling locally-owned assets (cars, land, etc.) What they cannot do is put in a local income tax (the state explicity prohibits this), and they have to balance their books. So because the feds don't want to handle it, and the state doesn't want to handle it, the locals have to handle it. And the locals can't go many routes to handle it, based on the state not allowing them to do much other than raising property taxes and other fees, so that's what they raise to make sure cops are on the street and potholes get fixed and related things.
NOW, here's the fun part. Tea-baggers and corporates complain that taxes and spending are too high in D.C., so they try to limit tax levels and pass the buck to the state. Sykesist tea-baggers blame people in the Legislature for high taxes and make up stats about how the state is some kind of tax hell (they conveniently leave out the state's low sales taxes and license fees when they do), so the legislators are cowed into budget games to avoid raising state income or sales taxes (which despite all the squawking, they've pretty much done for most of us in the real Wisconsin), but they do it by cutting shared revenue and other state help to localities.
So when localities have to figure out how to come up with things the tea-baggers want to see (like cops on the streets or their roads plowed), they raise the one thing they can - property taxes - or they try to sell their land or services. Who does the land or services go to and who are they accountable to? In the Bush era, it was people like Blackwater and Haliburton for the feds, or maybe it's Scott Walker's buddy that runs a custodial service, or maybe it's former Bush Budget guy Mitch Daniels in Indiana, who sells off the state's Social Services (oops, scratch that last one) .
So in a nutshell in Wisconsin, the feds won't tax and pay their share and pass the buck to the state, who won't tax and pay their share and passes it to the locals, who raise property taxes and/or don't pay for what's needed, and the tea-baggers complain that government is dysfunctional and doesn't work. And the argument of "government doesn't work" means that there should be lower taxes and spending, which makes the feds pass the buck to the states who...and the cycle continues.
And the corporates who tell the tea-baggers what to say blame government for their property taxes and state taxes going up and not doing a good job, when it would do a better job, be more fucntional, provide better services and not need local or state taxes to go up if they didn't try to placate the corporates and cut the damn expenses at the higher levels in the first place!
There, now go forth and spread the good word this Christmas season!
We hear a lot about the federal government and their spending, because our media is based on national news and doesn't make a whole lot of effort to get out of their D.C./ NYC bubbles. So we get to understand that the federal government spends for programs like health care coverage, interstate highways and rail, and military expenditures (although our media doesn't do a good job of explaining that the money for these things come from the same place- us). I also think people mostly understand that these items are paid for by federal income taxes, but they don't get that capital gains taxes are significantly lower, or understand that cap. gains is for productive uses like day trading of stocks, house-flipping and other legalized forms of gambling (as opposed to more legitimate but illegal forms like betting lines on sporting events).
They get a bit fuzzy when you try to explain that Social Security and Medicare are paid for by segregated funds, although once you show them that FICA line, they get it a bit more. But they think any potential deficit there is somehow different than the deficits that come from spending more of the non-Social Security/ Medicare money, when it's really not. We get those deficit funds from the same place- China and various others we like to owe. But once you get to state and local spending, the just know that "they pay a lot of taxes" and have no idea where all that spending is from. And that's why I'm here.
First of all, the feds, state and local governments have 3 different fiscal years.
Fed- Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 (i.e. Oct. 2009 starts the first fiscal year under Obama, the record deficit recently completed was based on the last budget for Dubya).
State- July 1 to June 30. 2-year budget. We are currently in 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 is mostly set and starts in 6 1/2 months.
Local- Jan.1 to Dec. 31, so their new 2010 fiscal year begins in 12 days.
You can see where this becomes a problem if you are the city of Madison and get nailed with a 17-inch storm in December, because you're working on a budget you set 13 months ago in November 2008, when you anticipated normal snow and normal levels of opperations, and you're trying to ride it out till the end of the year. When this comes up, you usually have to borrow money or take it out of your contingent fund to cover it, but most citizens think that city budgets are set for the entire "winter season", instead of being two separate budgets that change over come Jan. 1.
This also leads to confusion on when states and localities receive their funding from one of their main sources - higher levels of government. Many government grants are handed out to lower levels with the idea that the more local levels might be able to direct resources to better places (which may or may not be true, depending on who you're dealing with). So when you hear all this whining about stimulus funds not being spent, the different dates of government fiscal years is a good explanation. For example, Wisconsin's new budget started on July 1, and generally used stimulus funds for those two years (July 2009- June 2011). Part of it was to fill their huge budget deficit, and part of it was to jump on projects they'd otherwise be spending themselves (Gov. Doyle's billion-dollar adventure on I-94 from Milwaukee to Kenosha is a good example). Likewise, Obama wasn't even elected when local governments made their 2009 budgets, so while they've had to change around some priorities and items this year, more likely they used the stimulus funds and programs to deal with their 2010 budgets. It's why you will likely see a ton of construction projects around Milwaukee and other communities next Spring and Summer, because it's the first budget year where the extra money from the feds kicks in, and local officials prefer that the feds pay for it than with property taxes, as it tends to help their future job prospects.
A problem comes up when the higher levels don't decide to help their brethren down below. For example, when huge amounts of federal money are going to overseas adventures and you have a president and Congress who don't like book-learning, often items such as medical research at universities are cut. A lot of states have schools like UW that rely on large amounts of research being offset by federal grants, since people in other states stand some chance of being helped by medical or producitivity advances that come out of thinking places. So now they have to find a place to get the money to do their jobs of research. Maybe that comes from the state, if you have a mindset that education is important, or maybe you hit up donors or corporations to help you out to get it done. Of course, that means you need to find someone that cares enough about the subject to help pay for it, and that person might want to see a certain result regardless of what the facts say, but that's the way it goes when you don't get cash from a taxpayer accountable entity. Or you might not get the money at all, and you don't do the research, regardless of the needs.
Another issue might be when a needed expense keeps rising, kind of like what is happening in Wisconsin with Medicaid expenses . If you think giving medical help to those without a lot of money is a priority, and if companies choose not to offer coverage or if economic conditions (like the deregulation-driven recession we're now in) drive down incomes enough to greatly increase the amount of people needing help, then these expenses go up. The same situation happens if you think locking up criminals for various offenses is worth doing and your prisons fill up, requiring you to feed and house more inmates (as has happened in Wisconsin). Since the pot of money is limited in what states can spend money on, and these items keep going up, you can either 1. Cut out some of these priorities, and therefore give less coverage to the sick (as Robin Vos would like to do in the article) or 2. You knock out some other item you usually spend on. In the state's case, this means they'll decide to give less money to previous priorities like the UW System, or they'll cut the money they share to all the local governments in Wisconsin, and tell these groups to come up with their own funding.
So you drop down to local governments, who handle needs like police and fire services, snow plowing, street fixing, and other extravagances. In Wisconsin, localities can only raise revenue in a handful of ways outside of state and federal allocations. Most of this is through property taxes, but they can also institute a sales tax (if the state lets them, which is has not done for the City of Milwaukee), some other user tax like rental cars or hotels (again, if the state will let them) licenses and fees to do certain actions (i.e. bartender licenses, building permits, parking on city streets), tickets from law enforcement, and selling locally-owned assets (cars, land, etc.) What they cannot do is put in a local income tax (the state explicity prohibits this), and they have to balance their books. So because the feds don't want to handle it, and the state doesn't want to handle it, the locals have to handle it. And the locals can't go many routes to handle it, based on the state not allowing them to do much other than raising property taxes and other fees, so that's what they raise to make sure cops are on the street and potholes get fixed and related things.
NOW, here's the fun part. Tea-baggers and corporates complain that taxes and spending are too high in D.C., so they try to limit tax levels and pass the buck to the state. Sykesist tea-baggers blame people in the Legislature for high taxes and make up stats about how the state is some kind of tax hell (they conveniently leave out the state's low sales taxes and license fees when they do), so the legislators are cowed into budget games to avoid raising state income or sales taxes (which despite all the squawking, they've pretty much done for most of us in the real Wisconsin), but they do it by cutting shared revenue and other state help to localities.
So when localities have to figure out how to come up with things the tea-baggers want to see (like cops on the streets or their roads plowed), they raise the one thing they can - property taxes - or they try to sell their land or services. Who does the land or services go to and who are they accountable to? In the Bush era, it was people like Blackwater and Haliburton for the feds, or maybe it's Scott Walker's buddy that runs a custodial service, or maybe it's former Bush Budget guy Mitch Daniels in Indiana, who sells off the state's Social Services (oops, scratch that last one) .
So in a nutshell in Wisconsin, the feds won't tax and pay their share and pass the buck to the state, who won't tax and pay their share and passes it to the locals, who raise property taxes and/or don't pay for what's needed, and the tea-baggers complain that government is dysfunctional and doesn't work. And the argument of "government doesn't work" means that there should be lower taxes and spending, which makes the feds pass the buck to the states who...and the cycle continues.
And the corporates who tell the tea-baggers what to say blame government for their property taxes and state taxes going up and not doing a good job, when it would do a better job, be more fucntional, provide better services and not need local or state taxes to go up if they didn't try to placate the corporates and cut the damn expenses at the higher levels in the first place!
There, now go forth and spread the good word this Christmas season!
Friday, December 11, 2009
UW-Marquette quick thought
I was thinking of a big rant on tax structures and the general idiocy of Climategate (it isn't anything except in the Angry Man Radio/ Writer world, and their yapping will only make those of us in the reality community more pissed off and willing to bring the myriads of facts). But I decided the Viagra addicts' act was starting to eat me up from the inside, and since that's what those losers want, I decided to instead do some Christmas gift wrapping, got groceries, and will try out this Point Winter brew.
I will give a few words on tomorrow's UW-Marquette tussle at the Kohl Center. Without being the kiss of death, I like the chances of UW bouncing back at home. Plus, they gave UW-GB their moment of glory for the next decade earlier this week, going with the Wisconsin Idea of having the Madison campus help all corners of the state. This is quite a bit different than the Wells Street cult of displaced FIBs and Sykesists, now isn't it?
Oh, and with that in mind:
Tom Barrett- UW undergrad, UW law.
Scott Walker - Marquette dropout.
It don't happen in a vacuum folks.
I will give a few words on tomorrow's UW-Marquette tussle at the Kohl Center. Without being the kiss of death, I like the chances of UW bouncing back at home. Plus, they gave UW-GB their moment of glory for the next decade earlier this week, going with the Wisconsin Idea of having the Madison campus help all corners of the state. This is quite a bit different than the Wells Street cult of displaced FIBs and Sykesists, now isn't it?
Oh, and with that in mind:
Tom Barrett- UW undergrad, UW law.
Scott Walker - Marquette dropout.
It don't happen in a vacuum folks.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
UW 73 Evil Empire 69
BELIEVE IT!!!!! I was there, and yes, it kicked ass.
Let's face it, rooting for Duke = rooting for the Yankees = rooting for ND football = rooting for Goldman Sachs. And that's why as a decent American, it's always nice to see any of these teams go down. Even nicer when its your team doing it.
P.S. Check the Goldman Sachs "prediction" on the unemployment numbers tomorrow morning. They're strangely accurate. Wonder why ? (Actually, I don't wonder. I just seethe)
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Concert ettiquette
Went to a show at the Turner Hall Ballroom last night with my girlfriend. Saw Camera Obscura, a very good melodic band from Scotland (my girlfriend has very good taste). They were a bit frustrated by their sound system, but put together a solid set. Something about Scottish female lead singers slinging guitars combined with a high-quality lead guitarist and great Smiths-style pop works for me.
But I need to call out the d-bag I saw in the crowd. It's no one in particular, because this guy seems to show up at any show. It's the dimwit near the front who's making a spectacle by clearing out an area in the standing crowd, often in a costume or with some kind of prop, throwing his hands up and encouraging the crowd to look at him and his act instead of the people we spent $15 to see.
Now, I have no issues with enthusiastic crowd members who bounce to the music, and you can even dance and sing if it hits you. But you'd better not be doing it because you want other people TO SEE YOU DANCING, SINGING AND CARRYING ON. Memo to you, you are not interesting, you are not profound, and we did not come to deal with your stupidity. Stop getting in the way of our entertainment you self-absorbed jag.
Far too many people in this world, both individually and economically, think the world is about them and their needs, and that everyone else should care about them and their needs. We do not, and the world does not. This is why governments exist to balance these needs, and why being an a-hole is not an accpetable way to go through life.
Back to the Sunday laundry, the "Smells Like the '90s Weekend" on the radio (just heard Fiona Apple's "Criminal" for the first time in years- I forgot how flat-out wacked that girl was, no wonder her career fizzled), and waiting out NFL injury news.
P.S. On a related note, sports fans who paint their faces and wear dumb outfits are not "more intense and hardcore" fans than those of us who don't. I'm tired of that type of loser being portrayed as a positive. It's not Halloween, why are you dressing up in some outfit? (and yes, I includes Cheeseheads in this analysis-particularly at Badger games. Cheeseheads are only remotely acceptable at a Packer game, if at all.)
But I need to call out the d-bag I saw in the crowd. It's no one in particular, because this guy seems to show up at any show. It's the dimwit near the front who's making a spectacle by clearing out an area in the standing crowd, often in a costume or with some kind of prop, throwing his hands up and encouraging the crowd to look at him and his act instead of the people we spent $15 to see.
Now, I have no issues with enthusiastic crowd members who bounce to the music, and you can even dance and sing if it hits you. But you'd better not be doing it because you want other people TO SEE YOU DANCING, SINGING AND CARRYING ON. Memo to you, you are not interesting, you are not profound, and we did not come to deal with your stupidity. Stop getting in the way of our entertainment you self-absorbed jag.
Far too many people in this world, both individually and economically, think the world is about them and their needs, and that everyone else should care about them and their needs. We do not, and the world does not. This is why governments exist to balance these needs, and why being an a-hole is not an accpetable way to go through life.
Back to the Sunday laundry, the "Smells Like the '90s Weekend" on the radio (just heard Fiona Apple's "Criminal" for the first time in years- I forgot how flat-out wacked that girl was, no wonder her career fizzled), and waiting out NFL injury news.
P.S. On a related note, sports fans who paint their faces and wear dumb outfits are not "more intense and hardcore" fans than those of us who don't. I'm tired of that type of loser being portrayed as a positive. It's not Halloween, why are you dressing up in some outfit? (and yes, I includes Cheeseheads in this analysis-particularly at Badger games. Cheeseheads are only remotely acceptable at a Packer game, if at all.)
Monday, November 23, 2009
Who's (Ex) Cited, and Who's Taxed in Wisconsin?
First, off I want to thank Capper at Cognitive Dissidence for referencing this blog. Given my (lack of) prolificness on the site, you can tell it's a hobby at best, but it's still pretty cool to see yourself cited...and even linked to! So I'll return the favor on the BRAND NEW links page on the right. I have joined Cognitive Dissidence on the links page with Aaron Renn's excellent blog, the Urbanophile, which goes into city government and lifestyle issues much better than I ever could. I strongly encourage (all 2 or 3 of you that aren't me) to check it out.
Now that I have the killer traffic (it's jest folks), I want to draw your attention to an interesting study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, titled Who Pays in Wisconsin
What you'll find is the regressive nature of sales taxes (i.e. poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in these taxes), the relatively higher hit to the middle and upper-middle class of property taxes, and the progressive nature of Wisconsin income taxes, where the rich pay a higher percentage. And it also shows that the highest-taxed group (by % of income) is the 20-60% group, mostly because they still pay relatively high sales and property taxes, and can't write off as many of their taxes as richer people can. It also illustrates that those write-offs and regressive nature of sales taxes means the richest folks in this state pay the smallest percentage of state and local taxes, at 6.7%, much lower than the 10.3-10.7% that the middle 3/5 of income-earners in Wisconsin do.
That last item is an important point to make, as the Charles Sykes and Scott Walkers of the world conveniently leave out that higher-income people are much more likely to itemize their taxes on their federal return, which allows them to get back some of their state and local taxes. I've never had any reason to itemize, and have taken the standard deduction in my previous tax years because it was the bigger deduction, and I bet many of you do the same. But you can bet Charlie and Scotty don't, the WMC types that back them don't, and they're counting that the dopes who listen to them don't know that. It's a lot like how national angry-man radio hosts leave out that the "overtaxed" rich pay a much lower % of their income on Social Security and Medicare taxes due to the income cap (by comparison, we pay the full 7.65%)
The state reoport also shows that from a pure % of income standpoint, it's doubly stupid for the WMC crowd to be against higher sales taxes to pay for transit and parks, as opposed to either increased property taxes or cuts that hinder people's ability to take advantage of these needed public goods. Unless you have NPD and think government exists solely for you and your needs, of course.
Also, read the entire report from the ITEP, as it links to all other states, and you'll see just how regressive the plantation states are, especially on people with incomes in the lower 40%, and it'll make you glad you live in a thinking state.
P.S. Enjoying a New Glarus Snowshoe Ale this evening, an amber/red that's sufficiently smooth for me. It's one of the best ways you can help your local manufacturing- drinking high-quality local brews and vinos.
Now that I have the killer traffic (it's jest folks), I want to draw your attention to an interesting study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, titled Who Pays in Wisconsin
What you'll find is the regressive nature of sales taxes (i.e. poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in these taxes), the relatively higher hit to the middle and upper-middle class of property taxes, and the progressive nature of Wisconsin income taxes, where the rich pay a higher percentage. And it also shows that the highest-taxed group (by % of income) is the 20-60% group, mostly because they still pay relatively high sales and property taxes, and can't write off as many of their taxes as richer people can. It also illustrates that those write-offs and regressive nature of sales taxes means the richest folks in this state pay the smallest percentage of state and local taxes, at 6.7%, much lower than the 10.3-10.7% that the middle 3/5 of income-earners in Wisconsin do.
That last item is an important point to make, as the Charles Sykes and Scott Walkers of the world conveniently leave out that higher-income people are much more likely to itemize their taxes on their federal return, which allows them to get back some of their state and local taxes. I've never had any reason to itemize, and have taken the standard deduction in my previous tax years because it was the bigger deduction, and I bet many of you do the same. But you can bet Charlie and Scotty don't, the WMC types that back them don't, and they're counting that the dopes who listen to them don't know that. It's a lot like how national angry-man radio hosts leave out that the "overtaxed" rich pay a much lower % of their income on Social Security and Medicare taxes due to the income cap (by comparison, we pay the full 7.65%)
The state reoport also shows that from a pure % of income standpoint, it's doubly stupid for the WMC crowd to be against higher sales taxes to pay for transit and parks, as opposed to either increased property taxes or cuts that hinder people's ability to take advantage of these needed public goods. Unless you have NPD and think government exists solely for you and your needs, of course.
Also, read the entire report from the ITEP, as it links to all other states, and you'll see just how regressive the plantation states are, especially on people with incomes in the lower 40%, and it'll make you glad you live in a thinking state.
P.S. Enjoying a New Glarus Snowshoe Ale this evening, an amber/red that's sufficiently smooth for me. It's one of the best ways you can help your local manufacturing- drinking high-quality local brews and vinos.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Budget busters
Well, let's see what's happened in the last 2 1/2 months. The health care bill finally got passed out of the House, albeit very watered-down, and is now languishing in the Senate where dimwits are arguing over diversions like abortion and other lame triggers. The Dems and Obama and co. better push hard on this, because it's their asses if they don't. The GOP needs the boogeyman of possible crazy change over something bad being done, because if something's done, it reminds people that they HAVE NO ANSWERS. Which is why I still think the GOP barely gains in 2010, if at all. The Silent Majority knows who screwed this up.
But if Obama keeps selling out to Wall Street, then the GOP has a chance, because the average dude just getting by will erroneously say "Well, they must not be different. Screw it, change them out." We've seen the S&P go up over 65% in 8 months...and unemployment spike up to 10.2%.
These stats should completely put to bed any illusions people may have about corporations using their profits to help real people, but amazingly, some people are still spouting this "They're the creators of everything and need even more advantages than they already had." What world are these people living on? (This assumes they're honestly this deluded, I think a lot of them are paid hacks) Their idol Gordon Gekko was telling the truth when he said "I create nothing, I own." It's time to demand income taxes at 50-60% on incomes above some ridiculous number (like $2 million), and treat cap. gains the same as income. You do that, it's amazing how much less likely the greed and casino nature of today's corporations gets diminished. It's simple market economics in action.
Speaking of "What planet are you from?" Silly Scotty Walker is trying to get the endorsement of SARAH PALIN???? I mean, it's not like anyone with any sense of decency or brains would vote for that toolbag, but did he not notice the election results in Wisconsin last November? That 17% victory wasn't all Obama, it was also a lot of people in a thinking state saying "We aren't letting THAT near the White House." Combine that with Scotty's "money is more important than equal partner benefits", and you've just turned off anyone under 40 with a brain.
And that's not going into Walker's disastrous budget for the County. The County's already more or less bankrupt, they're just gambling that somehow the market turns around to make their pensions somewhat funded. But the un-negotiated job reductions, ridiculous levels of outsourcing, and fake revenue sources (you're not selling the Park East next year for that amount, bud), and then joking about fake layoff notices are Goldman Sachs-level shameless douchebaggery. I work in the biz, and we had every bit the challenges that Scotty's boys had, without anywhere near the conflict. We eneded up with a more responsible budget that didn't triple our borrowing, nor did we guarantee the municipality's insolvency to hit the year after the exec leaves. There's a reason competent people from my grad school don't sign up to work for the County (at least areas under Walker's control). It's the GOP affirmative action program in full effect.
I know the GOP owns WTMJ and WISN, but people do get their sources from people who aren't getting paid to lie. They do know that, don't they? It must suck to live your life in a bubble like that.
But if Obama keeps selling out to Wall Street, then the GOP has a chance, because the average dude just getting by will erroneously say "Well, they must not be different. Screw it, change them out." We've seen the S&P go up over 65% in 8 months...and unemployment spike up to 10.2%.
These stats should completely put to bed any illusions people may have about corporations using their profits to help real people, but amazingly, some people are still spouting this "They're the creators of everything and need even more advantages than they already had." What world are these people living on? (This assumes they're honestly this deluded, I think a lot of them are paid hacks) Their idol Gordon Gekko was telling the truth when he said "I create nothing, I own." It's time to demand income taxes at 50-60% on incomes above some ridiculous number (like $2 million), and treat cap. gains the same as income. You do that, it's amazing how much less likely the greed and casino nature of today's corporations gets diminished. It's simple market economics in action.
Speaking of "What planet are you from?" Silly Scotty Walker is trying to get the endorsement of SARAH PALIN???? I mean, it's not like anyone with any sense of decency or brains would vote for that toolbag, but did he not notice the election results in Wisconsin last November? That 17% victory wasn't all Obama, it was also a lot of people in a thinking state saying "We aren't letting THAT near the White House." Combine that with Scotty's "money is more important than equal partner benefits", and you've just turned off anyone under 40 with a brain.
And that's not going into Walker's disastrous budget for the County. The County's already more or less bankrupt, they're just gambling that somehow the market turns around to make their pensions somewhat funded. But the un-negotiated job reductions, ridiculous levels of outsourcing, and fake revenue sources (you're not selling the Park East next year for that amount, bud), and then joking about fake layoff notices are Goldman Sachs-level shameless douchebaggery. I work in the biz, and we had every bit the challenges that Scotty's boys had, without anywhere near the conflict. We eneded up with a more responsible budget that didn't triple our borrowing, nor did we guarantee the municipality's insolvency to hit the year after the exec leaves. There's a reason competent people from my grad school don't sign up to work for the County (at least areas under Walker's control). It's the GOP affirmative action program in full effect.
I know the GOP owns WTMJ and WISN, but people do get their sources from people who aren't getting paid to lie. They do know that, don't they? It must suck to live your life in a bubble like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)