Conquer Club

The REAL bottom line is that people want services, but don't want to have to pay for them.

The details don't really matter except to those who live there. It's the same basic story everywhere.

rockfist wrote:
Yep, and dadt has nothing to do with the economy which is the number one issue to a large plurality of the people. The Democrat party controls congress and this is what they are spending the time on...smooth, really smooth...

whoops, got my threads mixed up -- i thought this was the dadt thread

PLAYER57832 wrote:The REAL bottom line is that people want services, but don't want to have to pay for them.

The details don't really matter except to those who live there. It's the same basic story everywhere.

You've said something I agree with. And there is no free services, even if its "free" to the recipient someone winds up paying for it.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:most outrageous? you really gonna take a stand against my statement that

when you raise taxes, people move to places with lower taxes

While I understand your point, don't you think that having excruciatingly limited police and fire departments as well as having a third of your streetlights out might not ALSO cause people to move to other locales?

Ya know, that is about the oldest, easiest.......oh well what the hell OK.

IF you are saying that the police force is "excrucuatingly" limited, and the fire dept as well as street lights.....THEN we must assume, every single thing that the gov't spends it's money on of lesser importance (everything) has been considered and addressed......

Is this the case??? (everything else has been looked at)

I don't live there, so I can't answer that question. However, your statement that people would leave because taxes were raised makes the same amount of sense as saying that people would leave because they didn't have police or fire protection, never mind protection on the streets created by well-lit areas.

Actually an uninformed buyer is more likely to not notice the lack of police and fire protection than the taxes which are evident on the real estate listing...as for trash removal, well that's a different story.

if they want it, they will choose to pay for it. Shut the f*ck up and let Freedom Ring

Phatscotty wrote:if they want it, they will choose to pay for it.

Colorado property taxes cannot exceed the rate of 0.4%. That's not 4%, it's 0.4%. That is not a local law, it's a state law. So, Colorado Springs could increase its property tax rate to 0.4% (assuming it is not already so). If this would solve the budget problems, I guess they should do it. Alternatively, they could make cuts in things other than watering their parks or picking up their fucking trash; that's just poor governance (or else some kind of blackmail).

In terms of sales tax, Colorado Springs is a home-rule city (meaning it collects its own sales tax; the state would collect the local sales tax for a non home-rule city). The rate is 2.6%... somewhere in the middle. So, the combined sales tax rate for someone in Colorado Springs is 5.5% (Philadelphia is 8%). In any event, where there are less sales, sales tax revenues obviously go down.

Finally, this is not something that is advocated by the Tea Party people. This is something that happens when you spend too much money and the economy goes in the shitter. Sultan is fishing for the sorts of responses he's received so far.

thegreekdog wrote:Alternatively, they could make cuts in things other than watering their parks or picking up their fucking trash; that's just poor governance (or else some kind of blackmail).

Cuts in what else then?

In terms of sales tax, Colorado Springs is a home-rule city (meaning it collects its own sales tax; the state would collect the local sales tax for a non home-rule city). The rate is 2.6%... somewhere in the middle. So, the combined sales tax rate for someone in Colorado Springs is 5.5% (Philadelphia is 8%). In any event, where there are less sales, sales tax revenues obviously go down.

Wow you have incredibly low sales taxes.

Finally, this is not something that is advocated by the Tea Party people. This is something that happens when you spend too much money and the economy goes in the shitter. Sultan is fishing for the sorts of responses he's received so far.

Why is it not waht the tea party advocates?

(1) I'm sure there are other things they could cut. I suspect that in about 6 months some "new shit will come to light" where the city council and the mayor decided to cut the shit they cut to blackmail the people in agreeing to pay more taxes. I'll take a look at the city's salaries to further illustrate the point.

(2) Yes, I understand our sales taxes are low compared to VAT taxes.

(3) The Tea Party people do not advocate the removal of all taxes or the cutting of things like trash pickup.

The only government employee that was mentioned (I think) in the article was Schroeder, the Park Treails & Open Space Manager. He made $100,302 in 2009. Perhaps Mr. Schroeder should consider asking city council to reduce his salary.

There are 67 other government employees that make over $100,000.

http://www.gazette.com/sections/infocen ... 9961340473

(1) The Tea Party People advocate making homeless people eat trash.

(2) The Tea Party People think government is paid for with air and patriotic feelings.

(3) The Tea Party People think that Obama is a super villain from a Batman movie.

pimpdave wrote:(1) The Tea Party People advocate making homeless people eat trash.

(2) The Tea Party People think government is paid for with air and patriotic feelings.

(3) The Tea Party People think that Obama is a super villain from a Batman movie.

(1) Yeah, so?
(2) Patriotic feelings carry a high value... check that chart in one of those other threads on gold, silver, and whatnot.
(3) True.

thegreekdog wrote: (3) The Tea Party people do not advocate the removal of all taxes or the cutting of things like trash pickup.

Then what do they advocate? All I've heard is that they are against too much spending and for keeping taxes low.

Snorri1234 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: (3) The Tea Party people do not advocate the removal of all taxes or the cutting of things like trash pickup.

Then what do they advocate? All I've heard is that they are against too much spending and for keeping taxes low.

Yes. Let's compare.

No taxes vs. keeping taxes low
Cutting trash pickup vs. cutting wasteful spending

There's an incredibly gigantic difference between cutting fucking trash pick up and cutting pet project spending. That's why Sultan's OP doesn't make sense from an ideological standpoint.

I'll get back to making dumb jokes in a second, but first,

thegreekdog wrote:No taxes vs. keeping taxes low
Cutting trash pickup vs. cutting wasteful spending

I think you and I disagree on what the definition of wasteful spending is. I don't think it's wasteful spending for tax dollars to go to making jobs. That's good for the country, it's good for employment, etc. I tend to think that huge tax cuts for the wealthy indeed is wasteful spending, if that money isn't going to make jobs (and you can't prove it does -- the intangible argument that people always make for trickle-down is that it makes jobs, but the real data conflicts with that assertion).

Of course, this thinking is coming from a mind seriously dulled by heavy, heavy drinking last night.

I'll go back to making dumb jokes now.

I agree on the spending to make jobs thing. I liked President Obama's economic discussion during the State of the Union. I have no problem with that. I still think tax cuts would create more jobs than spending, but that's a philosophical difference (although I think there should be some discussion on why it costs $300K to create a $35K job... I saw a study on that somewhere regarding the economic stimulus bill).

0.4%

My taxes are about 4% of the appraised value of my house. And, because the tax appraiser has a personal issue with my family (true, but cannot get into it in detail here), our appraised value is above the market value whereas most people's is well below market value. (in part, I was too new here to realize there was a problem when it was appraised .... and did not have the money to hire a lawyer to fight it anyway).

thegreekdog wrote:I agree on the spending to make jobs thing. I liked President Obama's economic discussion during the State of the Union. I have no problem with that. I still think tax cuts would create more jobs than spending, but that's a philosophical difference (although I think there should be some discussion on why it costs $300K to create a $35K job... I saw a study on that somewhere regarding the economic stimulus bill).

The problem I have with tax cuts is that claiming they create jobs overall is contradicted by the evidence. It may be that a particular taxcut increases jobs somewhere, but it's always tossed around as a general rule. Much like "taxes are always worse". Some taxes are effective, and some aren't.

notice how the mayor did not cut his salory! and what the f*ck???? how did they lose all there money? maybe they should be more fiscial responsibal.

targetman377 wrote:notice how the mayor did not cut his salory! and what the f*ck???? how did they lose all there money? maybe they should be more fiscial responsibal.

Mayor and council are part-time jobs in Colorado Springs, points out Mayor Rivera, that pay $6,250 a year ($250 extra for the mayor).

Yeah, if not for that son of a bitch mayor and his exorbitant 6 grand salary Colorado Springs would be just fine. And they didn't lose their money. They don't have any money outside of taxes. If you don't pay taxes the government doesn't have any money.

Yeah, the mayor makes like $6,000.

PLAYER57832 wrote:0.4%

My taxes are about 4% of the appraised value of my house. And, because the tax appraiser has a personal issue with my family (true, but cannot get into it in detail here), our appraised value is above the market value whereas most people's is well below market value. (in part, I was too new here to realize there was a problem when it was appraised .... and did not have the money to hire a lawyer to fight it anyway).

0.4% appears to be appropriate and reasonable for Colorado.

My property tax rate is also about 4% and there is a higher assessed value where I live in New Jersey than in most places. For example, if one put my townhouse in Colorado, the assessed value would like be cut in half.

Snorri1234 wrote:The problem I have with tax cuts is that claiming they create jobs overall is contradicted by the evidence. It may be that a particular taxcut increases jobs somewhere, but it's always tossed around as a general rule. Much like "taxes are always worse". Some taxes are effective, and some aren't.

I sort of agree. It has to be the right taxpayers and the right tax. I think creating jobs by spending is contradicted by evidence as well, if one looks at the average cost to create a job based on the economic stimulus bill.

thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, the mayor makes like $6,000.

PLAYER57832 wrote:0.4%

My taxes are about 4% of the appraised value of my house. And, because the tax appraiser has a personal issue with my family (true, but cannot get into it in detail here), our appraised value is above the market value whereas most people's is well below market value. (in part, I was too new here to realize there was a problem when it was appraised .... and did not have the money to hire a lawyer to fight it anyway).

0.4% appears to be appropriate and reasonable for Colorado.

My property tax rate is also about 4% and there is a higher assessed value where I live in New Jersey than in most places. For example, if one put my townhouse in Colorado, the assessed value would like be cut in half.

Snorri1234 wrote:The problem I have with tax cuts is that claiming they create jobs overall is contradicted by the evidence. It may be that a particular taxcut increases jobs somewhere, but it's always tossed around as a general rule. Much like "taxes are always worse". Some taxes are effective, and some aren't.

I sort of agree. It has to be the right taxpayers and the right tax. I think creating jobs by spending is contradicted by evidence as well, if one looks at the average cost to create a job based on the economic stimulus bill.

gov't spends money unproductively. every dollar the gov't spends is at the expense of taking a dollar out of something productive. It is, as always, just a matter of time before it catches up.

Phatscotty wrote: gov't spends money unproductively. every dollar the gov't spends is at the expense of taking a dollar out of something productive. It is, as always, just a matter of time before it catches up.

Corporations are wasteful, too. The problem is that when people will only elect those who will BOTH provide the benefits they want AND reduce taxes .. you get nothing in return.

And yes, the people who tend to run and buy into that are often the same ones who are happy to boost their own salaries, and worry about the consequences later. But, the blame goes to the people. The government is just people, its not this independent entity.

targetman377 wrote:notice how the mayor did not cut his salory! and what the f*ck???? how did they lose all there money? maybe they should be more fiscial responsibal.

i propose that the word i've bolded here become the name of a new superhero, who saves the day by eating the villain