A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:02:05 pm
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 100th Birthday of The Income Tax  (Read 16220 times)
Ed W
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2941



« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2013, 12:27:53 pm »

Apparently the toilet itself cost about $9,000 direct from the manufacturer, and the gov reports spending $98k on the toilet and structure, so I would expect the actual expenditure includes imbedded costs and is well over $100-$120k.   Wink


A couple of reports mention that the toilets START at $9K but there's no indication of the price of this one. Additionally, it has to be shipped from the lower 48 and the construction company that won the bid is 3 hours away from the site.

But a real eye-opener is the BLM impact statement that has to cover all the bases, environmental, geologic, wildlife, aesthetic, and even treaty obligations as well as relevant state laws. Someone has to do the reviews and that's undoubtedly another big expense. Here's the link to the study, good reading if you have insomnia:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files/2012_BLM-GFO_NEPA_Documents.Par.67560.File.dat/0019_SWEDE_LAKE_EA_DECISION_508_Web_Ready.pdf

But there's something here that I don't understand. I take it that the original idea was that income tax wouldn't have an impact on the poor, and that was a good idea. However, we've had a long thread recently on how the poor don't pay their fair share of taxes. Now, if your ideal is to return to pre-WW1 taxation levels, the tax situation for the poorest Americans doesn't change. (We'll ignore that income taxes were implemented largely as a substitute for liquor taxes as Prohibition loomed on the horizon.) So it seems that our conservative friends should applaud the fact that the poorest among us are still adhering to pre-WW1 taxation.

I'm mystified by the scrutiny of something as miniscule in the federal budget as this outhouse. And I know it's only provided as an example we're supposed to use as the basis for a much larger generalization - accepted wisdom among our conservative friends - that all government spending is wasteful. Yet when asked to cut those programs they believed were a waste of taxpayer's money, the Republicans couldn't agree on how to do so. It's easy to use a broad brush and pontificate about government waste. It's much harder to do the nuts and bolts details.

If you want to question government waste, ask why we spend as much on the military as the next 5 largest countries combined. Like any other bureaucracy, the military has to justify it's existence in order to keep receiving funds. Ask why we have draconian drug laws that incarcerate non-violent offenders rather than put them through treatment. We need more prisons and jail more of our citizens than any other so-called enlightened nation.
Logged

Ed

May you live in interesting times.
heironymouspasparagus
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 13208



« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2013, 12:28:24 pm »

It is 1/4 of a mile off the highway next to the trailhead.  That area is closed for half the year.  I am willing to bet the funds could have been spent on a portable outhouse that could be towed away in the winter.  Perhaps take the same $9,000 toilet and install it in a nice wooden building with skids that could be loaded up and hauled to another site in the off-season.  Gosh, it only took me about two minutes to think up that innovative solution that would likely save about $80K.



I'll call that bet and raise you that is was probably done that way for several decades, and over time (probably a very short time) it was found that rental/maintenance ending up costing much more than the cost and maintenance of this thing.

Logged

"So he brandished a gun, never shot anyone or anything right?"  --TeeDub, 17 Feb 2018.

I don’t share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently.  I share my thoughts to show the people who already think like me that they are not alone.
heironymouspasparagus
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 13208



« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2013, 12:36:34 pm »



But there's something here that I don't understand. I take it that the original idea was that income tax wouldn't have an impact on the poor, and that was a good idea. However, we've had a long thread recently on how the poor don't pay their fair share of taxes. Now, if your ideal is to return to pre-WW1 taxation levels, the tax situation for the poorest Americans doesn't change. (We'll ignore that income taxes were implemented largely as a substitute for liquor taxes as Prohibition loomed on the horizon.) So it seems that our conservative friends should applaud the fact that the poorest among us are still adhering to pre-WW1 taxation.

I'm mystified by the scrutiny of something as miniscule in the federal budget as this outhouse. And I know it's only provided as an example we're supposed to use as the basis for a much larger generalization - accepted wisdom among our conservative friends - that all government spending is wasteful. Yet when asked to cut those programs they believed were a waste of taxpayer's money, the Republicans couldn't agree on how to do so. It's easy to use a broad brush and pontificate about government waste. It's much harder to do the nuts and bolts details.


Bet they don't though...the basic philosophy promoted is that even though the poorest people have taken a 30% or so real cut in pay since 1968, they should be hit some more by eliminating 100 years of tax policy.


As for the scrutiny - well, you know that once again goes back to perspective.  They would rather whine about $500 million to a failed solar company than look with any kind of serious intent at an extremely successful company that got $90 billion (with a b) in no-bid contracts just because their CEO happened to be Vice President of the nation.  Or whining about tens of billions being given to those poor people in food stamps, when almost a Trillion was given to their Big Pharma buddies.  Or dozens of other examples of that hypocrisy that are rife through the Fox News World.  Their indignation is false as well as disingenuous.


Oh, and don't ya just love the "cost of waste at all levels" argument??  Yeah, we should be worried about dozens of pennies when thousands of dollars are slipping through are fingers like sand through an hourglass.  (Which soap opera did that come from??)









« Last Edit: October 04, 2013, 12:38:34 pm by heironymouspasparagus » Logged

"So he brandished a gun, never shot anyone or anything right?"  --TeeDub, 17 Feb 2018.

I don’t share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently.  I share my thoughts to show the people who already think like me that they are not alone.
Gaspar
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10964


Connoisseur of fine bacon.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2013, 01:31:57 pm »

A couple of reports mention that the toilets START at $9K but there's no indication of the price of this one. Additionally, it has to be shipped from the lower 48 and the construction company that won the bid is 3 hours away from the site.

But a real eye-opener is the BLM impact statement that has to cover all the bases, environmental, geologic, wildlife, aesthetic, and even treaty obligations as well as relevant state laws. Someone has to do the reviews and that's undoubtedly another big expense. Here's the link to the study, good reading if you have insomnia:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files/2012_BLM-GFO_NEPA_Documents.Par.67560.File.dat/0019_SWEDE_LAKE_EA_DECISION_508_Web_Ready.pdf

But there's something here that I don't understand. I take it that the original idea was that income tax wouldn't have an impact on the poor, and that was a good idea. However, we've had a long thread recently on how the poor don't pay their fair share of taxes. Now, if your ideal is to return to pre-WW1 taxation levels, the tax situation for the poorest Americans doesn't change. (We'll ignore that income taxes were implemented largely as a substitute for liquor taxes as Prohibition loomed on the horizon.) So it seems that our conservative friends should applaud the fact that the poorest among us are still adhering to pre-WW1 taxation.

I'm mystified by the scrutiny of something as miniscule in the federal budget as this outhouse. And I know it's only provided as an example we're supposed to use as the basis for a much larger generalization - accepted wisdom among our conservative friends - that all government spending is wasteful. Yet when asked to cut those programs they believed were a waste of taxpayer's money, the Republicans couldn't agree on how to do so. It's easy to use a broad brush and pontificate about government waste. It's much harder to do the nuts and bolts details.

If you want to question government waste, ask why we spend as much on the military as the next 5 largest countries combined. Like any other bureaucracy, the military has to justify it's existence in order to keep receiving funds. Ask why we have draconian drug laws that incarcerate non-violent offenders rather than put them through treatment. We need more prisons and jail more of our citizens than any other so-called enlightened nation.

Good points, but the idea behind the thread was to provide a basis and filter, if you will, for viewing current new programs.  More precisely, looking at what will essentially be the largest government program ever attempted, and the way it is/has been sold to the American people.  There are these claims that ACA would lower the deficit, and that it would create more competition in the marketplace, as well as many other claims, most of which are standard with the introduction of new government programs.  The logical path is to take those claims and compare them to the claims made for programs of the past.  This provides a roadmap to anticipate how ACA will look in the future.  Pointing out incidents of government waste simply provides example of how government solves problems, and every new program is going to be packed with new problems.

As for:
Quote
If you want to question government waste, ask why we spend as much on the military as the next 5 largest countries combined. Like any other bureaucracy, the military has to justify it's existence in order to keep receiving funds. Ask why we have draconian drug laws that incarcerate non-violent offenders rather than put them through treatment. We need more prisons and jail more of our citizens than any other so-called enlightened nation.
We are 100% on the same page.  In the early 70s when Nixon coined the phrase War on Drugs and signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act we saw the birth of a new government program, and the exact same mechanism of expansion brings us to the same results. Initially it had noble goals too:

increased research, into, and prevention of, drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent persons; and to strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse.

But the mechanism of government works the same every time so we saw the birth of new bureaucracies (DEA, BNDD, ODALE) and new authorities were awarded to law enforcement.  Each requiring additional funding "for the public good."  This program with a humble beginning and a noble goal has now cost well over a trillion dollars and puts 1.6 million people in jail a year, yet the problems it was created to solve have gotten worse?  I wonder if ACA will increase the quality of healthcare?

I favor free trade in drugs for the same reason the Founding Fathers favored free trade in ideas: in a free society it is none of the government's business what ideas a man puts into his mind; likewise, it should be none of its business what drugs he puts into his body. – Thomas Szasz

I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control. – George L. Roman

First Law of Government: All government programs accomplish the opposite of what they are designed to achieve. – John Pugsley

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. – Ronald Reagan

Whenever there is some trouble in any area of the economy, the simplest solution to many people is "Let the government fix it." Yet … every time the government uses its money or its power to favor this group or that … the net result is such a web of supports, subsidies, interventions and controls that it is almost impossible for a nation to find its way back into a dynamic system of really free enterprise. – Lawrence Fertig

National Health Insurance means combining the efficiency of the Postal Service with the compassion of the I.R.S. … and the cost accounting of the Pentagon. – Louis Sullivan
Logged

When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.
heironymouspasparagus
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 13208



« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2013, 01:42:00 pm »


No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. – Ronald Reagan



Prophetic quote from the guy who initiated the largest escalation and growth spurt in government spending and more particularly, government debt that the country has ever seen.  Yay, team!!

Reagan took office - debt about $900 billion.  Took 200+ years to get there...

Reagan left office - debt about $ 2.9 trillion.  And his successors just took that ball and ran with it!  At the same time, accusing Democrats of being "tax and spenders"...which was of course, just as untrue then as it is today!

End of the fiscal years for each.

Logged

"So he brandished a gun, never shot anyone or anything right?"  --TeeDub, 17 Feb 2018.

I don’t share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently.  I share my thoughts to show the people who already think like me that they are not alone.
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29334



« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2013, 02:18:04 pm »

I don't think that the $98 thousand to build a bathroom in the backwoods in Alaska is out of whack.

Here is a map of the area...
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/gdo/pdf_files.Par.12713.File.dat/05TLAD_trails_brochure.pdf

These materials had to be shipped a long distance and assembly meant a contractor had to get crews off the highway to work as well. They had to level ground, pour a pad and build a bathroom that could withstand the harsh weather conditions.

These trails are supposed to be unbelievable scenery and some of them allow four-wheelers. The tourism is picking up and they needed a bathroom in the park.

But I am sure you heard about this outhouse on hate talk radio yesterday and just felt it important enough to express your new outrage for us.

People can do what I do when I ride my mountain bike on remote BLM or Forrest Service property: bring their own tp and cover it up.

Aside from that, I've seen quite a few trailheads with porta-potties, and very high traffic ones like the base of Mount Evans near Leadville, Colorado which has no facilities at all at the base. 

$98K seems pretty extravagant for a smile hole with a shed over it.  But that's just me.

$98K doesn't sound like a lot but once you add up a thousand or two $98K smile holes, it becomes significant.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
Gaspar
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10964


Connoisseur of fine bacon.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2013, 02:34:21 pm »



$98K seems pretty extravagant for a Smoot hole with a shed over it.  But that's just me.


Remember the new terminology.  Wink

Logged

When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29334



« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2013, 02:55:13 pm »

Remember the new terminology.  Wink



Think of all the worthless smoot holes all level of government throws money into.  Including the Oklahoma ABLE Commission!
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
Gaspar
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10964


Connoisseur of fine bacon.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2013, 03:07:36 pm »

Think of all the worthless smoot holes all level of government throws money into.  Including the Oklahoma ABLE Commission!

Spent the evening with a local brewer last night and was amazed at all of the Smoot he has to jump through.  I also learned something interesting about 3.2 beer that I never realized.  

Alc in most beer is measured by volume. For instance, if you buy a Boulevard Wheat at the liquor store, you are enjoying 4.4% alc by volume beer.  If you buy that same Boulevard wheat at the grocery store, you are enjoying a 3.2 alc by WEIGHT beer (equals 4%-+ by volume depending on other ingredients).  For many of the big breweries, a label change is all that is required.

Basically for most beers (highpoint not included) 3.2 is an engineered illusion created through collusion with the big breweries to shut out the little guys from competing due to the expense of creating multiple packages.  

An illustration for highpint beer would be If you drink a 6pack of OK beer it would be the same as drinking 5 highpoints (5%-6% ABV).
« Last Edit: October 04, 2013, 03:19:38 pm by Gaspar » Logged

When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.
nathanm
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 8240


« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2013, 04:08:35 pm »

Can't win an argument, so you bring up toilets? Good one.

By the way, if you really think you can divine people's inner motivations, you may want to see a psychiatrist. They have meds for that. They also have computer programs that will help you not write "intension" repeatedly.
Logged

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
RecycleMichael
truth teller
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12913


« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2013, 04:21:28 pm »

... you are enjoying a 3.2 alc by WEIGHT beer

I try to keep my personal alcohol levels to always be less than 3.2% by weight.

Thank goodness for my size for it allows me to drink a lot.
Logged

Power is nothing till you use it.
Gaspar
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10964


Connoisseur of fine bacon.


WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2013, 05:03:47 pm »

Done to keep you in rigor. Have a super weekend. Smiley
Logged

When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10887


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2013, 09:06:54 pm »

They also have computer programs that will help you not write "intension" repeatedly.

I think intension is a state of stress.  It's the inverse of in-compression.
 
 Grin
Logged

 
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10887


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2013, 09:08:03 pm »

I try to keep my personal alcohol levels to always be less than 3.2% by weight.

Thank goodness for my size for it allows me to drink a lot.

Dang.... I knew I shouldn't have shed 25 Lb.
Logged

 
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10887


WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2013, 09:13:32 pm »

Alc in most beer is measured by volume. For instance, if you buy a Boulevard Wheat at the liquor store, you are enjoying 4.4% alc by volume beer.  If you buy that same Boulevard wheat at the grocery store, you are enjoying a 3.2 alc by WEIGHT beer (equals 4%-+ by volume depending on other ingredients).  For many of the big breweries, a label change is all that is required.

Basically for most beers (highpoint not included) 3.2 is an engineered illusion created through collusion with the big breweries to shut out the little guys from competing due to the expense of creating multiple packages.  

Your brewer friend should have also told you that normal ABV is different for different styles. Most American Pilsners will be about 5% to 5.5% ABV, so more than a label change is required. Wheat beer is one of the styles that will be easy to qualify as 3.2% Alc by weight. Others, maybe not so much.
Logged

 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org