I like it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/13/us-usa-tax-states-idUSBRE90C08C20130113
Quote from: guido911 on January 13, 2013, 02:14:07 PM
I like it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/13/us-usa-tax-states-idUSBRE90C08C20130113
Typical and expected. Shifting the tax burden over to the one's who can least afford it.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 13, 2013, 02:25:28 PM
ATypical and UNexpected. Shifting the tax burden over to the one's who can least afford it.
fixed that for you.
It's hard to get passed, but elimination of income taxes makes a significant impact in growth and employment, and actually evens out the tax burdon by levying taxes on consumption instead of income, and makes taxation impossible for the wealthy nearly impossible avoid.
Sales tax based systems also change the nature of commerce in the state and force government to focus on increasing consumption, through tourism, population growth, innovation, and increased employment through small business growth, instead of simply focusing on attracting and keeping big companies.
QuoteGet States off the Federal Dole
Why are U.S. taxpayers footing the bill for surveillance cameras in Alaska?
http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/12/get-states-off-the-federal-dole
For a model of how to reform federal grants, Cato's Edwards suggests looking to Canada. Our neighbors to the north cut their national debt as a share of GDP from 68 percent in the mid-1990s to just 34 percent today. One key part of that reform was cutting federal aid to provincial and local governments while consolidating the remaining aid into three large block grants.
Over all, just 38 percent of government spending in Canada is done at the national level, compared to 71 percent in the United States. Canada has no federal department of education, for example. Far from hurting children, Canada's localized approach to education has correlated with test scores that are typically higher than those of American kids. Some provinces have made great strides in school choice and other innovations.
This could happen in the United States too. The federal government should warn states that it is turning off the grant spigot and then do it. When bills come due for regular, predicable expenditures such as education, states and localities should figure out how to make ends meet. If states stop depending on the feds for bailouts and start saving for a rainy day, they will finally be ready for the next hurricane.
States rights....
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 14, 2013, 11:32:38 PM
States rights....
I just Rokered myself. I have absolutely no disagreement with what Teatown has posted.
As was intended by the founders of this country. . .
We tried the centralized experiment, and as history continuously proves, centralized spending approaches always become unsustainable, and deliver lower quality products and services.
Clown, have you had a moment of clarity?
Quote from: Gaspar on January 15, 2013, 07:32:48 AM
I just Rokered myself. I have absolutely no disagreement with what Teatown has posted.
As was intended by the founders of this country. We tried the centralized experiment, and as history continuously proves, centralized spending approaches always become unsustainable, and deliver lower quality products and services.
Clown, have you had a moment of clarity?
Hell no. He thought he was being clever and didn't realize he just F'd himself.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 15, 2013, 07:32:48 AM
I just Rokered myself. I have absolutely no disagreement with what Teatown has posted.
As was intended by the founders of this country. . .
We tried the centralized experiment, and as history continuously proves, centralized spending approaches always become unsustainable, and deliver lower quality products and services.
Clown, have you had a moment of clarity?
You didn't live through the times in Tulsa when a guy named Commissioner Thomas was water commissioner. He kept water rates so low, that by the late 1970's into the early 80's. We reached the point where we were treating and pumping over 120 million gallons a day during summer, but actually BILLING for less than half that. What that meant was there were leaks in the system to the tune of 60 + million gallons per day. The Tulsa water department infrastructure had collapsed and was literally in crisis full time.
But we had cheap water rates!! As well as water rationing time after time... when was the last time we had rationing?? Did it happen this summer.
You can either pay the taxes and fees that it takes to perform certain operations or you don't. Tulsa chose not to for a long time and paid an even bigger price in the long run trying to catch up.
And the whole idea of "getting rid of waste in government" so we need to cut this, that or the other first to force them to do it right - give it a rest... put on your grown up panties and gain some understanding of reality. That's a lame, plaintive, BS bleat of children trying to act grown up. It is the people who bleat the loudest who get their favorites elected - those elected who do this kind of stuff....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 15, 2013, 12:45:51 PM
You didn't live through the times in Tulsa when a guy named Commissioner Thomas was water commissioner. He kept water rates so low, that by the late 1970's into the early 80's. We reached the point where we were treating and pumping over 120 million gallons a day during summer, but actually BILLING for less than half that. What that meant was there were leaks in the system to the tune of 60 + million gallons per day. The Tulsa water department infrastructure had collapsed and was literally in crisis full time.
But we had cheap water rates!! As well as water rationing time after time... when was the last time we had rationing?? Did it happen this summer.
You can either pay the taxes and fees that it takes to perform certain operations or you don't. Tulsa chose not to for a long time and paid an even bigger price in the long run trying to catch up.
And the whole idea of "getting rid of waste in government" so we need to cut this, that or the other first to force them to do it right - give it a rest... put on your grown up panties and gain some understanding of reality. That's a lame, plaintive, BS bleat of children trying to act grown up. It is the people who bleat the loudest who get their favorites elected - those elected who do this kind of stuff....
Huh? What does this have to do with de-centralizing (de-federalizing) government? Actually what does this have to do with anything on this thread?
Perhaps you are lost?
Quote from: Gaspar on January 15, 2013, 12:49:16 PM
Huh? What does this have to do with de-centralizing (de-federalizing) government? Actually what does this have to do with anything on this thread?
Perhaps you are lost?
Cutting taxes. To the point that we have done before in this state AND locally where there was serious damage done to our infrastructure.
Like the roads in Oklahoma today. Education in Oklahoma today - primary through secondary. Water, as in drought - both at state and local level. And yes, social infrastructure - like the way we ignore mental health issues in this state - the same as other states and Federal.
You really ought to get a broader view of reality if you didn't understand that connection - too much "cut the taxes" tunnel vision.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 15, 2013, 01:00:56 PM
Cutting taxes. To the point that we have done before in this state AND locally where there was serious damage done to our infrastructure.
Like the roads in Oklahoma today. Education in Oklahoma today - primary through secondary. Water, as in drought - both at state and local level. And yes, social infrastructure - like the way we ignore mental health issues in this state - the same as other states and Federal.
You really ought to get a broader view of reality if you didn't understand that connection - too much "cut the taxes" tunnel vision.
And what does that have to do with water bills?
As for drought, that typically is a function of weather patterns, but I assume that wouldn't' stop a liberal from making the argument that higher taxes can prevent it.
We'll just chalk this up to smoking your lunch. ;D
I wish I understood the love of taxes, or the worship of government as provider and purveyor of all things great, but I don't. Probably never will.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 15, 2013, 01:13:56 PM
And what does that have to do with water bills?
As for drought, that typically is a function of weather patterns, but I assume that wouldn't' stop a liberal from making the argument that higher taxes can prevent it.
We'll just chalk this up to smoking your lunch. ;D
I wish I understood the love of taxes, or the worship of government as provider and purveyor of all things great, but I don't. Probably never will.
It's less fun when you play dumb like that. You know very well what he was saying, which is that if you don't pay for maintenance of infrastructure the deferred maintenance ends up costing us all a lot more in the long run. Doesn't matter whether it's a water system, roads, public buildings, or anything else.
And yes, sometimes government does things better than private business. Often it does not. That's why rational people examine each individual situation and decide on the basis of evidence whether the private markets are working or not (or whether a government program is working or not), rather than being a slave to ideology.
Quote from: nathanm on January 15, 2013, 01:53:38 PM
It's less fun when you play dumb like that. You know very well what he was saying, which is that if you don't pay for maintenance of infrastructure the deferred maintenance ends up costing us all a lot more in the long run. Doesn't matter whether it's a water system, roads, public buildings, or anything else.
And yes, sometimes government does things better than private business. Often it does not. That's why rational people examine each individual situation and decide on the basis of evidence whether the private markets are working or not (or whether a government program is working or not), rather than being a slave to ideology.
Except that 1/2 of our daily water supply was NOT being lost to leaks. Loss of that magnitude would result in horrendous flooding. The issue was that we did not have a source and treatment network to handle larger demand. We eventually did add that capacity which is why we've not had any talk of rationing for the last 30 years until this last summer.
Quote from: nathanm on January 15, 2013, 01:53:38 PM
It's less fun when you play dumb like that. You know very well what he was saying, which is that if you don't pay for maintenance of infrastructure the deferred maintenance ends up costing us all a lot more in the long run. Doesn't matter whether it's a water system, roads, public buildings, or anything else.
And yes, sometimes government does things better than private business. Often it does not. That's why rational people examine each individual situation and decide on the basis of evidence whether the private markets are working or not (or whether a government program is working or not), rather than being a slave to ideology.
But the original discussion was the shift from an income based tax system to a consumption based system. Consumption based systems generate more revenue and less waste. That's why states like Texas have such great roads, schools, and infrastructure. Of course we need to pay for infrastructure, the debate was over how and who.
Heiron's wake and bake response was simply confusing and disconnected.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 15, 2013, 02:01:07 PM
Except that 1/2 of our daily water supply was NOT being lost to leaks. Loss of that magnitude would result in horrendous flooding. The issue was that we did not have a source and treatment network to handle larger demand. We eventually did add that capacity which is why we've not had any talk of rationing for the last 30 years until this last summer.
I don't think the current water department has a clue. Public diswerks knows how to patch and repair breaks.
The one street that meets the test of time is 71st from Riverside to Garnet. How much Federal dollars went into that main street? I know Mike Buchert oversaw the entire project and based on the credible job should have been elevated to head of the department. This municipality could use some real talent and talk about a straight shooter. I don't believe anything anymore coming out of Citty Hall.
Anybody notice Jan Brewer got smart? She's not timid about taking Federal dollars.
Quote from: guido911 on January 15, 2013, 08:07:20 AM
Hell no. He thought he was being clever and didn't realize he just F'd himself.
Gaspar and Guido, I want you both to start attacking our Governor for her lack of consistency.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19757.msg261791#msg261791
Quote from: Gaspar on January 15, 2013, 02:21:00 PM
Consumption based systems generate more revenue and less waste.
You need to provide some evidence for this assertion. It seems like complete nonsense. What does the method of tax collection have to do with the waste or lack thereof in spending? How, exactly, does a consumption tax generate "more revenue" than an income tax set to collect the same revenue? No matter how the government gets its money, it takes what it takes, no more and no less. How it takes it is completely irrelevant.
Quote from: nathanm on January 15, 2013, 03:48:27 PM
You need to provide some evidence for this assertion. It seems like complete nonsense. What does the method of tax collection have to do with the waste or lack thereof in spending? How, exactly, does a consumption tax generate "more revenue" than an income tax set to collect the same revenue? No matter how the government gets its money, it takes what it takes, no more and no less. How it takes it is completely irrelevant.
It's the teabagger way.... that's why their debt ceiling argument carries no weight.
Quote from: nathanm on January 15, 2013, 03:48:27 PM
You need to provide some evidence for this assertion. It seems like complete nonsense. What does the method of tax collection have to do with the waste or lack thereof in spending? How, exactly, does a consumption tax generate "more revenue" than an income tax set to collect the same revenue? No matter how the government gets its money, it takes what it takes, no more and no less. How it takes it is completely irrelevant.
Ahh, but it is. Consumption based taxation is exempt from the 6,000 pages of loopholes and special provisions that allow taxpayers to reduce their tax burdon. Consumption based systems also collect extra revenue from transient sources such as tourism, undocumented workforces, and interstate transactions. Because they are based on a simple flat rate, they require far less administrative cost to administer, enforce and audit. They also remove the political incentive to write tax code that favors pet projects, industries, individuals, or corporations.
They are not perfect, but the do remove much of the abuse and inequality delivered in income based systems. But I'm sure you disagree.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 15, 2013, 04:32:44 PM
Ahh, but it is. Consumption based taxation is exempt from the 6,000 pages of loopholes and special provisions that allow taxpayers to reduce their tax burdon. Consumption based systems also collect extra revenue from transient sources such as tourism, undocumented workforces, and interstate transactions. Because they are based on a simple flat rate, they require far less administrative cost to administer, enforce and audit. They also remove the political incentive to write tax code that favors pet projects, industries, individuals, or corporations.
They are not perfect, but the do remove much of the abuse and inequality delivered in income based systems. But I'm sure you disagree.
And yet still, no evidence.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 15, 2013, 04:32:44 PM
Consumption based taxation is exempt from the 6,000 pages of loopholes and special provisions that allow taxpayers to reduce their tax burdon.
If only that were true. Even the sales tax is riddled with
loopholes development incentives.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 15, 2013, 01:13:56 PM
And what does that have to do with water bills?
As for drought, that typically is a function of weather patterns, but I assume that wouldn't' stop a liberal from making the argument that higher taxes can prevent it.
We'll just chalk this up to smoking your lunch. ;D
I wish I understood the love of taxes, or the worship of government as provider and purveyor of all things great, but I don't. Probably never will.
It just means you don't understand. Sad, that.
If even a portion of that is true, your company is in deep trouble....so...obviously you are trying to be > 90 but < 180 degrees.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 15, 2013, 02:01:07 PM
Except that 1/2 of our daily water supply was NOT being lost to leaks. Loss of that magnitude would result in horrendous flooding. The issue was that we did not have a source and treatment network to handle larger demand. We eventually did add that capacity which is why we've not had any talk of rationing for the last 30 years until this last summer.
Yeah...most of it was. Pumping twice as much as billing is the issue. We treated and pumped, but only half made it to the meters to be measured and billed. Half the water went elsewhere. That was from the people at the water plants that I worked with at that time....60 mgd spread over the city of Tulsa of 1978 during peak times (gotta take the fluctuation throughout the day) really didn't put much into any one area. 100,000 leaks at 600 gallons a day isn't much of a flood...that's what neglect and incompetence will do. If I remember right, Thomas was a Republican, too....
Amazing what a couple bucks extra per month on the water bill will do.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 15, 2013, 08:25:23 PM
Yeah...most of it was. Pumping twice as much as billing is the issue. We treated and pumped, but only half made it to the meters to be measured and billed. Half the water went elsewhere. That was from the people at the water plants that I worked with at that time....60 mgd spread over the city of Tulsa of 1978 during peak times (gotta take the fluctuation throughout the day) really didn't put much into any one area. 100,000 leaks at 600 gallons a day isn't much of a flood...that's what neglect and incompetence will do. If I remember right, Thomas was a Republican, too....
Amazing what a couple bucks extra per month on the water bill will do.
I remember that time well. Had just bought a house and started to see "well water" signs pop up all over (even though most were fake). It goes to show how being on the inside of the water works like you were gives one a more accurate picture of what's really happening. At the time we had no idea that the lines were leaking so much, having been told that it was drought related only.
Those who know from first hand experience generally are trumped by those with pr power and no fear of losing their jobs.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2013, 09:44:08 AM
I remember that time well. Had just bought a house and started to see "well water" signs pop up all over (even though most were fake). It goes to show how being on the inside of the water works like you were gives one a more accurate picture of what's really happening. At the time we had no idea that the lines were leaking so much, having been told that it was drought related only.
Those who know from first hand experience generally are trumped by those with pr power and no fear of losing their jobs.
There were capacity issues, but mainly due to leakage. And future growth when one looked at the future. We now have supplies beyond Eucha. Water costs us more, but it has been amazingly dependable, safe, and actually quite good tasting for many, many years. Well, it always tasted good, but still does....
Last years rationing may (I hope not) be a cautionary tale to the "massive growth" advocates...if we grew at even 20% of the Texas rate, we would run out of water. Probably very soon.