This is topic Washington State Legislators are Digging Themselves Into A Hole in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001642

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-14-2003, 07:12 PM:
 
Hmmmm…. I guess The Great State of Washington (The Ever-stump State) is basically broke. No Money. According to an industry publication I have just scanned over, Washington State is faced with about a $3 Billon budget overrun. The legislature just convened, and this is what they are looking at:

1. Expand Gambling. The WRA (Washington Restaurant Association) is supporting new electronic machines as one revenue option for the state. Fully implemented, it would provide $500 million for state and local governments.
2. Sales Tax Increase: Every 0.1 percent added to the sales tax brings in about $200 million.
3. B&O Tax Increase: A 5 percent increase would raise about $200 million.
4. Value Added Tax: A new proposal that would tax the “value” added to a product by a business. One method would be a tax on all sales with a deduction allowed for all purchases.
5. Personal Income Tax: Rejected many times in the past, a 1 percent income tax would net about S1.4 billion.
6. Alcohol Taxes: The Governor’s Council on substance abuse is pushing to increase beer taxes from $8.08 a barrel to a whopping $31.74 – a 393 percent increase.
7. Sales Tax on Services: There are many services which are exempt from sales tax. A tax on business services would generate about $2 billion.
8. L & I Increase 29%: The Department of Labor and Industries has backed off its proposal to raise industrial insurance tax rates by 40.5 percent. Instead, L & I has implemented an increase of 29 percent.

The only thing that will “probably” fly would be No. 1. Anything else would probably result in small business going bust; higher unemployment, and less buying would cause fewer taxes to be collected.

What do you guys think? I personally think many of our elected officials will be out of a job the next time around.
 

---

Posted by Robert Golding (Member # 746) on 01-14-2003, 07:22 PM:
 
Paul, come on down to California. Our govenor and his thugs are like a bad case of cancer. Seems we are somewhere around 35 BILLION in debt. We need to get rid of this growth without killing the host (all of us living here). If he has his way we are basically SCEWED. If I could, I'd move my drive in to some other state. I sure hope he's not able to run for president in the future. Believe me it would be a mistake for this country.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-14-2003, 07:26 PM:
 
An income tax properly structured would be the least regressive option. A sales tax increase or a VAT impacts people of lesser means more than the wealthy because they must spend a greater portion (often all) of their income. On the other hand an income tax can be designed as a progressive tax where the well heeled pay at a higher percentage.

That's one of the arguments against a flat national income tax. It gets touted as tax simplification (the legendary tax return that fits on a post card) but that's really just a sneaky way to take away the progressive tax rate system we have. You could still have a simplified tax system and a progressive tax rate by retaining a lookup table that encompasses it. Instead of take your income; multiply by whatever; here is your tax, it would be take your income and look up the tax amount in a table. Not any more complex but it retains the idea that the rich can afford to pay a greater percentage.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-14-2003, 07:46 PM:
 
Personally, I oppose the income tax...it (and the 16th amendment) was brought about in time of World War...this country existed for over half its life without a Federal income tax and many states do not have one. It is about the most horrible tax a government can employ. It quite literally penalizes the worker. I also dispise the graduated income tax.

I have less problem with property tax...if you own property, you probably want it protected and might have kids that go to school...etc. There is a case where those that are more able to pay will pay the most.

Perhaps, government should learn that one of their options for saving money, isn't taxing more, it is spending less...that is less service from the government. As a business what it does when it can't afford something (or a responsible citizan)...you learn to do without and prioritize what you feel you need.

Government is one of the most inefficient entities for moving money, why have them do it? Government is often, though not always, bad for the enconomy.

Governments are there for the military, police, fire, utiltites...etc..things that are essential to a peaceful civil society and can't be trusted to greedy profit-driven pivate industry. The governments often suck at trying to make things utopias but they are quite expensive at trying.

Another thing a state can do to improve its economy...encourage industry to MAKE THINGS. Creation of products create wealth...it also will bring pollution but a balance has to be struck with that. Environmentally friendly everything sounds good on TV and in print but the reality is that it is horrible for an economy. A balance needs to be struck.

If we choose to impose environmental restrictions on ourselves for the betterment of our society, don't give an economic advantage to others to take our industry. That is, those nations that don't choose to maintain the levels of environmental standards should be tarriffed such that they don't benefit by polluting our planet. It isn't protectionism, it is sanity. As an example, at the Olympics, does the US put hurdles up on our lanes only and compete with those countries that choose to run the race without hurdles? No, any comparision between the competitors would be silly.

So, you people in WA...think about what you don't need the government to provide for you. Consider the gambling machines. And encourage industry...your economy and the country's will be booming in no time.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 01-14-2003, 07:51 PM:
 
I'm curious if Governor Locke will get elected to another term. He was sure shocked when the gas tax initiative went down in flames last year.

I wonder what Tim Eyman has up his sleeve for this election?

Edit: Tim Eyman is the guy who started the tax revolt in Washington.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-14-2003, 07:56 PM:
 
It's disturbing that none of the listed options actually addresses the real issue: that the government is spending too much. When most of us find ourselves in that position, the appropriate reaction is to SPEND LESS. Governments should be expected to function in a similar manner.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-14-2003, 08:07 PM:
 
Unfortunately there are simply too many things we need which are clearly the purview of government: The military, schools, road building, prisons, and yes, social security and welfare too. Some of you are going to take the attitude that you can invest for retirement better yourself. The problem with that is that many people simply won't do it or will make speculative investments and lose it all. I don't think any of us want a country with people starving on the street corners like the worst days of Calcutta. Look how many homeless there are already (many of them mentally ill). Can you imagine if there were no safety nets?

Unfortunately this all takes money and even if government were perfectly efficient and free of pork barrel and graft the tax burden would not go down all that much. So pay or start cutting. Which service do you no longer want?
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-14-2003, 08:25 PM:
 
Steve K: You have to live in this state to actually see what is going on. No wonder Boeing moved their headquarters to Chicago! As time goes on, you'll probably see more of this happening.

Tonight on the way home, I saw a bunch of school teachers standing on the corner of main intersections with signs saying "Save Our Schools." Governor Lock wants to fiddle around in them, too. Pay is the issue on that one, as far as I determine. I have not been following that area to close because I have not brats in school.

Ray, I don't think The Gov will have the balls to run again. If he thought we were idiots to go along with a 9-cent per gallon tax increase, he was nuts!

Scott, you are absolutely correct. Washington State has the philosophy of "TAX AND SPEND."

Robert, that comes out to $1033.31 for every man, woman, and child in the State of California. That is about twice as much as ours.... which is $508.98 for ours. This is based on Year 2000 population counts.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2003, 08:39 PM:
 
Paul, My sister and Dad live in Poulsbo and they say the same things you are saying.......Humpty Dumpty is about to fall off the wall and they won't be able to put him back to gether again!
Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-14-2003, 08:41 PM:
 
Gallagher, the comedian, said it best:

"I don't think we should pay any of the politicians until the country shows a profit!"
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-14-2003, 08:45 PM:
 
Oregon is the same. The economy is in the crapper, so tax revenues are down for state & local governments. They're saying that state troopers and other such services will be cut. We're voting on an emergency increase in the income tax, from 9% to 9.5% I think, but it's expected to go down in flames. Here in Eugene the streets are falling apart and they have like $100M backlog in unfunded road repairs, so the city is implementing a street repair tax! They want EWEB (Eugene Water & Electric Board) to collect the tax but EWEB is saying "NO WAY! We get yelled at enough for high utility bills." Gov. Kitzhaber just left office after 8 years, and his timing is perfect -- let the new guy Ted Kulangoski (sp?) inherit the big mess.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-14-2003, 09:30 PM:
 
Wow...9.5%.

Illinois' is at 3% of AGI. The late Governor Ogilvie, a Republican, initiated it (at 2.5%) in 1969 to save the state from bankruptcy and he paid for it at the next election (He lost. Later he was trustee for the bankrupt Milwaukee Road RR.)

I found this online and thought it instructive:

quote:

---

Illinois is one of only six states that has a flat individual income tax rate. Thirty-three states have graduated rates, two states tax only dividends and nterest income, and two states have rates as a percentage of federal income tax liability. Seven states levy no income tax.

---

quote:

---

from Robert Golding:
Our govenor and his thugs are like a bad case of cancer

---

quote:

---

from Ray Brown:
I'm curious if Governor Locke will get elected to another term. He was sure shocked when the gas tax initiative went down in flames last year.

---

quote:

---

from Steve:
I have no problem with taxes on the sale of gasoline...IF IT GOES TO THE ROADS. If you are buying gas...it is pretty safe to presume, you are using the roads. I do have a problem with a gas tax that goes to deficet reduction.

---

They tried to convince the voters that this new gas tax would be dedicated exclusively to roads... but there's a lot of ingrained distrust right now.

A case in point that most old pfartes around here remember is how our state lottery got voted in. The State assured us all that the proceeds would be used (and therefore, the whole reason for the lottery) to meet the State's obligation to fully fund education. We voted it in. THEN, the weasels in Olympia told us that it would be illegal to earmark this money to a specific use and the money would have to be put into the general fund, where it's darn near impossible to track what goes where. Today, nobody knows what percentage of the lottery goes to schools... but it isn't much.

We also have a bridge on the Hood Canal up here that was originally constructed as a toll bridge. Again, to get it voted in, the State agreed (in writing) that the tolls would be used exclusively to pay off the bridge, and they would be discontinued by a certain date. The date came and went, and the State admitted using the money to support other projects, like the ferry system. It took an uprising and some well-place lawsuits to get the State to keep their word. The toll booths were finally removed, though there was a lot of yelling and screaming and doom-saying and wringing of hands over it.

Finally, there's the problem with the "other side" of the state. Washington is split down the middle by the Cascade mountain range. Life on the eastern side is much different than the west. As it happens, our state capital is on the west side, so naturally, it appears most attention is given to the needs of our side of the state... namely, SEATTLE. It makes it pretty hard to get much sympathy from the easterners... and probably rightly so, since they have a lot of concern about minor things... like WATER, and don't see any particular reason to be paying for the ferries and bridges and viaducts that occupy our attention on the western side of the state.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-14-2003, 10:53 PM:
 
Well said, Jack. There was, at one time as you probably recall, some folks wanted to split Washington State into two states... Eastern Washington and Western Washington. Naturally, that went over like a mercury-filled tennis ball - from Western Washington politicians.

And, yes ... these damned morons in Olympia speak with forked tongue. They also wait until an undesirable referendum or initiative to be passed. Then they question the constitutional validity of it, and literally bust their butts to get it thrown out.

Seems to me an issue like that should be tested even before it reaches the voters, not after!
 

---

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 01-14-2003, 11:40 PM:
 
Steve Guttag, I salute you. As a man of common sense, of ethics, and of reason, for all these and more, I salute you.
 

---

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 01-14-2003, 11:58 PM:
 
I don't make alot of money so I naturally have to decide what I can or cannot do without. Why can't the clowns in government do the same. There is so much waste in our bloated government. With Boeing and now the famous Olympia Brewery going bye-bye, when is our governor going to wake up and see what a business un-friendly state we have?
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-15-2003, 12:32 AM:
 
A gas tax can also be reasonably spent on mass transit. The road user benefits because in many large cities transit gives the taxpayer more bang for the buck in terms of movement of large numbers of people in traditional commuting patterns. It benefits those who actually use it, those who who don't but would otherwise have to share the roads with those who do, and even those who go a different way entirely because their taxes are being used more efficently over on the commuting routes which leaves more for highway building elsewhere.

Mr. G wrote
Having a safety net like SS encourages financial irresponsibility.

So what would you do with the people who become old or incapacitated (yeah, SS applies there too) in your laise faire utopia and have no savings, let them starve on the street corners? I think not. The government would have to do something about it and you'll end up paying in the end anyway with the only difference being that those people blew their money and didn't contribute so it will come from working people like you.

Doing away with SS would be a more realistic solution if people could be counted on to sock that amount into savings and investments. But mostly they won't. How do I know this? Because we in the U.S. have the lowest or second lowest personal savings rate out of the largest 7 industrialized nations. And not by a little. We save at a rate of less than half the others (except for Canada who used to be way ahead of us too but sometimes drops below us). No, I don't see a need for SS going away anytime soon.
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 01-15-2003, 12:36 AM:
 

quote:

---

There was, at one time as you probably recall, some folks wanted to split Washington State into two states... Eastern Washington and Western Washington.

---

Some one else had an idea of combining Eastern Washington & Eastern Oregon along with North Idaho to form a new state with Spokane as the capitol. That also didn't go over to well in Olympia, Salem, and Boise. This was several years ago.

I don't mind paying taxes to support our roadways if it is actually used for that purpose. The states commerce depends on a good road system and that includes the Seattle area. (I can just hear Paul commenting on Seattle traffic.)

Life is different here on the east side, but I wouldn't trade it.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-15-2003, 03:27 AM:
 
Paul & Ray:
I remember that movement. I was working for a radio & TV station in Yakima back then.

Ray... hope I didn't infer anything negative about Eastern Washington. Yes... it's a cool place... especially in the Winter!

Having been raised on this side, I missed the trees & the wonderfully unpredictable rain we get here.

Besides... someone had to stick around to make sure the Space Needle didn't really get shipped over to you guys!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-15-2003, 07:02 AM:
 

quote:

---

Ray, I don't think The Gov will have the balls to run again. If he thought we were idiots to go along with a 9-cent per gallon tax increase, he was nuts!

---

quote:

---

Here, gas is in the $1.55 (ish) per gallon range, tax included.

---

quote:

---

I tend to agree that a "social safety net" is important for those who suffer extremely unfortunate circumstances, but does this really need to be run by the government?

---

quote:

---

Ray... hope I didn't infer anything negative about Eastern Washington. Yes... it's a cool place... especially in the Winter!

---

Don't forget that it's cooking here during the summer.

What really irked me about that gas tax initiative is the money they spent on the advertising. For weeks I couldn't turn on a radio, watch a local TV channel, or open a newspaper, with out hearing or seeing one of those ads saying it wouldn't cost us very much per month. Can't remember the exact amount now.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-15-2003, 08:12 AM:
 
Steve K. The monorail does indeed possess an advantage over other masstransit systems (ie conventional rail)...when elevated, they take up significantly less real estate than either roads or rail roads. Their chief disadvantage is that their number of passengers per car is very low due to the mechanics of its ability to make turns.

As to gas taxes going to mass-transit? No effin way. Mass transit should survive based on its superiority or fail on its inferiority. When a Bus fills up at their pumps, the fuel they use would be taxed and go into the roads they use.

Most mass transit systems just don't work for me...they are not 24 hour systems...they can get you there but not ncessarily get you home (me working in the movie industry).

As to SS...I'll take people starving in the streets over the present system...that, I guess, is a cold side of me. I'd much prefer a system where the money that would go to SS would instead be invested in a "trust fund" type of account that is one's personal account...no government...it could be a required investment (just like a SS) where governments involvement would be minimal. That is, only approved types of investments (but the citizen can choose) and there would be restrictions on taking it out, like a trust fund. Think IRA here. This would be money that the government can not get it's hands on to use for other stuff.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-15-2003, 09:01 AM:
 
IRA?! What does a terrorist group have to do with social security provision?
 

---

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-15-2003, 09:27 AM:
 
Leo, IRA here = Individual Retirement Account.
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 01-15-2003, 09:54 AM:
 
Leo... surely your joking?? IRA (Individual Retirement Account).

I've always agreed with the idea that we should be able to "opt out" of Social Security, and have the ability to make our own investments in the open market. I wouldn't even mind a small portion of my S/S deduction to continue to be sent to the S/S administration to continue the funding for the existing needs of the fund. However, I'd like the ability to make my own choices with my own money. If I crash and burn... it's my fault. If I don't save my money for retirement... it's my fault, and I shouldn't be able to come back to the goverment for a free handout if I do crash or don't save. I think that you must either take the money and solely invest it for retirement or you must continue with the standard S/S deductions are they are now.

Speaking of Governors... our beloved Don Sundquist here in Tennessee has three more days in office... and we're all looking forward to seeing him go. I'd personally pay for his U-Haul if I could.

He tried "unsuccessfully" 3 times to impose a state income tax on the citizens of this state, even though he ran on a campaign of "NO STATE INCOME TAX"... twice!
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-15-2003, 10:34 AM:
 
Coming in late on this thread....
Paul
I've often wondered why the government doesn't have to do like it's citizens. If I have an "off" month or two, I know that I have to spend less. Why doesn't the govt have to do that? Why now with all the $ problems in this state are we talking about spending 14 billions on a monorail which is nothing more than a token (geewhiz) transit system. I'm really leaning towards a system by which the users of anything pay for it. Ferries, Bridges, Schools etc. What does a farmer in E Wash care about the Kingston-Edmonds ferry? I think what I'm angling towards is financial responsibility. Maybe put more of the load of taking care of ones needs on the individual rather than some government entity?
Income tax Don't get me started. Progressive income tax is a punishment for success. Do I get to use anymore of anything because I get gaffed by IRS, and have to pay a higher percentage than the guy driving next to me on the freeway? Why do successful people have to pay $0.38 of every dollar when less successful ones pay 0. Wouldn't it be much more fair if we all had to give 10% flat? A successful person would still be paying more but not progressively more. Progressive income tax is the greatest stifler of the economy as far as I'm concerned.
Ok I'm better now

Steve G
what's that gizmo you're standing in back of in your pic?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-15-2003, 01:23 PM:
 
Bob and Barry - mention the acronym 'IRA' to anyone in this part of the world and it would mean Irish Republican Army! An individual retirement account is what we'd call a personal pension. Talk about crossed wires!
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-15-2003, 01:41 PM:
 
State income tax is just another way to rip people off. I read in the paper the other day that our flat rate sales tax is unfair to the poor. That's what the poiliticians want us to believe.

Seems to me that if you buy something from Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Radio Shack, or whatever - the amount of sales tax on a given item is still the same, whether you make $100 per week of $2,000 per week.

That horse's assed belief of "sales tax puts a burden on low-income people" is bullshit. Most states have state sales tax instituted anyway, so what the hell is the difference? On top of that, most states (with the exception of two) also have state income tax. Seems like a double whammy to me. A person is not only paying a percentage across the board when they buy someting, but that same person is saddled with an additional tax for the state on his gross earnings.

State income tax is nothing more that a method for the weasles to extract more money out of the pocket of everyone. State income tax is not going to fix anything. California, Wisconsin, and a bunch of others are badly in dept right along with us. That just proves it.

While I was in North Dakota this past holiday season, I picked up a copy of a Minneapolis, Minnesota newspaper that had an article about Minnesota's governor. In that article, it stated that the typical governor is nothing more than a snake charmer. I can tell you one thing..... Our governor in Washington certainly failed in charming my snake.

Anyway, I brought the newspaper back with me to save. However, Poopers accidently pee'd on the floor, and I used the front page of the newspaper to soak it up.
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 01-15-2003, 02:00 PM:
 
Here in Tennessee, instead of a State Income tax, we got a new sales tax structure, but it's so complicated that not many people understand it.

A good example (this is TRUE)

Candy is supposed to be taxed at the highest rate, 9.25 percent. But Twix and Kit Kat, because they contain flour, are considered food, and taxed at a rate of 8.25 percent rate.

We've always had sales tax on food, but it varies depending on what you buy. Another example, Deli Foods in the grocery store. If you go back to the deli counter and buy a roasted chicken it's taxed at 9.25%, but if you go over to the meat cooler, you can buy the same chicken - not cooked, and it's taxed at 8.25%.

Makes perfect sense!!
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-15-2003, 02:43 PM:
 
Barry, a long time ago they tried something similar to that here. It got so confusing, the merchants didn't know what to and what not to tax. Food is not taxed in this state now, (it used to be) providing it was purchased in a grocery store. However, any "prepared food" such as what you buy in a deli, convenience store, or restaurants and is taxed full bore.

Sales tax on services .... That can be a disaster. Can you see the problems if a doctor had to place a sales tax on a major heart operation? How about hospitals? Sales tax on a hospital stay? You know what that would do to health insurance premiums? Naturally, it'll drive them sky high....as they are now!
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 01-15-2003, 08:31 PM:
 
Hey Paul, Ken, Jack, & Greg, remember this little pissy fit our senate threw last year?
State Senate Loses French Chefs
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-15-2003, 08:56 PM:
 
Yes, I remember that one..... Jeeze! Kinda makes you wonder about these people, doesn't it?

Oh, by the way - today's paper mentioned that Gov Locke cautions the legislature about raising taxes....NO SHIT, Dick Tracy!!!

I think one answer is what many have said so far. Live within the means. I always thought a budget should be based on what is available, not what they think they can bilk out of us. Yet, they count the chickens before they are hatched anyway.
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 01-15-2003, 09:38 PM:
 
Mike Hewitt the senator from my district signed that letter.

Here's the local article

Here I'm driving a 15 year old Nissan and work 40+ hours a week and he's worried about having a french chef prepare his meal.

quote:

---

Oh, by the way - today's paper mentioned that Gov Locke cautions the legislature about raising taxes

---

Hey Gary, I think it's a lil to late......
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2003, 10:30 PM:
 
Steve G.,
Monorail is THE most expensive to build and maintain transit system ever developed. Just ask Washington State, or Disney about that! I don't dislike it...its actually pretty cool and I agree with the fact that it takes less real estate, but you will see Mag Lev replace just about everything else in human rail transportation out there over the next 50 to 75 years. The Germans have gotten it to a very highly developed form of transport which will only become much more efficient, and cheaper, and cheaper as time marches on. I've always seen Monorail as stand between gimmick thats allowing us to bide time in that narrow real estate realm till more efficient and cost effective transport systems come into being. All in all the monorail has had a VERY short lifespan so far.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2003, 10:34 PM:
 
Hey Paul,
So the Senate gets The French Chef's.....Who was serving the House Members....Ronald McDonald? These guys should be crucified....made to eat at a local bar nearby where they are in full view of all the public, and all the cops eating lunch!
Mark
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-16-2003, 12:04 AM:
 
And today....another laugh. Right next to the newspaper column where the Gov Gary Babe cautioned the legislature about raising taxes, there was another about the city of Burlington is going to ask the voters for a $1.5 million hand-out so they can build a new fire station in March! It is going to cost another 60 bucks a year on property taxes for the next 20 years if your home is ASSessed at $150,000. I am sure the county ASSessors will insure that it is and the assessed value will stay there or become higher so they can collect more taxes.

Split second timing and precision at its best. I think a bunch of monkeys in a monkey cage of a zoo are more aware of their surroundings than our elected officials.

Hey, people..if you want a good laugh, please check out Ray's links. You just might slap yourselves in the forehead and laugh your butts off. All that stuff is true!
 

---

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 01-16-2003, 12:50 AM:
 
I'll have to remember that the next time I go into Taco Bell and get my 2 tacos for 99 cents.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-16-2003, 12:56 AM:
 
Plus tax, Ken...
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-16-2003, 02:30 AM:
 
Greg writes:

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be much more fair if we all had to give 10% flat? A successful person would still be paying more but not progressively more. Progressive income tax is the greatest stifler of the economy as far as I'm concerned.

---

Not only that, but it leads to tax evasion and a grey economy. I know people who earn just below the higher income tax threshold of £31k earnings per year. Rather than have a pay rise which would take them over the threshold, they are being offered enhanced perks such as company cars, lower rate mortgages and share options.

Paul raises an interesting issue about how the tax burden should be balanced - in broad terms, should we be taxed on what we earn or what we spend, or a combination of the two? If the latter, where should the balance lie? Personally I'd much rather have higher sales tax of one form or another on luxury and non-essential goods. What we have is a blanket VAT rate of 17.5% plus extra duties payable on certain specific goods and services, e.g. petrol (gasoline), alcohol, tobacco and the sale of homes. BTW, there also used to be an 'entertainment tax' on the sale of cinema tickets, but the Thatcher government got rid of that in the 80s when the industry was in dire straits just before the multiplexes came along. I'd also like to see that combined with more tax relief on saving, especially on pensions (IRAs).

A big issue in Britain recently has been the so-called 'pensions timebomb'; the argument being that we are not saving enough for retirement and that at present taxation levels, the social security system will not be able to cope when my generation ends up retiring. It makes me mad that I've done the sums and are saving what the experts tell me I need to save, but I know many people of my generation who go out to nightclubs virtually every weekend, go on expensive foreign holidays and get a new car every couple of years (I drive an 11 year-old Fiat), but save nothing. When the time comes I'll probably end up paying sky-high taxes on my hard-earned pension to keep these people from starving. IMHO we probably do have a duty to keep them from starving however stupid they've been, but we certainly don't have a duty to do any more than that.
 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 01-16-2003, 03:01 AM:
 
I read an interesting article on 401k that are popular in the States. Anyway these are based mainly on the stockmarket investments. The Baby boomer generation are due to retire in or around the tear 2010 and they are sup[posedly going to take their money out of the market for their retirement. This would cause a mini crash.
The main problem I see with this kind of investment scheme is that you don't know exactly you will have to retire with.
Then again it may not come true.
I am hedging my bets by investing in superannuation, real estate (business & home) & growing my own business.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-16-2003, 04:26 AM:
 
That is a big part of the problem here, too. Up until the late 40s/early 50s, company pension funds were invested almost entirely in bonds or other gilt-edged investments. Not much return, but zero risk as well so the flow of money in and out of a fund could be planned pretty accurately. There was then a move to investing pension funds in the stock market. Most of the big pension funds are invested almost entirely in stocks and shares now, thus exposing them to stock market boom and bust cycles. When the three-year decline in the value of the UK stock market seriously started to bite, many big companies abandoned (and are still abandoning) their final salary-based pension schemes and replacing them with ones that fully expose investors to the stock market. At the moment, people are taking one look at the stock market and deciding that it's a bad investment, with the result that Britons are now consumer spending like mad and also investing more in property, which has pushed house prices through the roof (excuse the pun). But the fact that this situation seems to have pushed people into just not saving at all is likely to be a real worry, IMHO. I wouldn't have thought that a large cohort of new pensioners around 2010 would provoke a crash, because they'll just be converting their pension fund investment into an annuity - and annuity providers invest in the stock market too. So that money won't actually be leaving the system, just being invested for a slightly different purpose. But if the overall value of stock markets in the developed world is in a long-term downward trend, then that spells trouble for everyone.

A nice cheerful thought to start the day...
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 01-16-2003, 09:48 AM:
 
Well if anybody else's 401K looks like mine... I feel for you as well. I've got mine spread over 4 different types of funds, and over the last year I've watched it self destruct to the point where all I have left is a 201K. I've lost almost HALF of my account within the last 12 months. The bright side is that I have another 30 years to make that up, and I feel confident enough in the future of the US economy that it will recover... and gain back everything it's lost plus much, much more.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-16-2003, 10:21 AM:
 
Yah, this economy thing seems to be pretty cyclic. As close as I can figure it's an 11 year cycle (like sunspots). We'll be back on top soon. I keep telling my investment councilor to "make me money" too, and he usually says "Ok how much would you like?"
I usually try not to ask him how things are going. It's to depressing and there's nothing I can do about it anyway, except wait it out.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-16-2003, 11:21 AM:
 
There's a book out about that forthcoming 401k debacle. In general the theory is that when 401k's were introduced, trillions of dollars were invested in stocks and stock funds, rather than traditional things like money market funds, bonds, or T-Bills. The money was coming from a wide cross-section of the working class, from young to old. All that money going into stocks contributed to drive stock prices up. The Internet bubble and corporate financial scandals have rocked the market, but most of the invested money is still in place. So time goes by, and more people will start retiring. The 401k laws state that you MUST start withdrawing your money no later than a certain age (I think it's 70 1/2?). So at some point due to the aging population, more people will be withdrawing their money than there will be new money going in from new workers. There will be far more sellers of stock than buyers, which will cause a major crash in the markets, lasting over a period of many years. This all happens just about the same time as the Social Security system will self-destruct too, for the same reason: too many retirees, not enough new money coming in.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-16-2003, 01:53 PM:
 
Nothing like thinking you have money in the bank and find out someone has been stealing it. Namely, the state. If your savings account shows inactivity for two (maybe 3 years), the banks must notify the state so the state can start stealing your money without you knowing it.

Washington State does that, I am curious how many others do. I have been a victim of this legalized stealing.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-16-2003, 03:33 PM:
 
They say that the stock market is the most accurate way ever invented of representing the true value of a national economy in the long term, but that it can fluctuate wildly in the short term. That's fine if, like me, you've got 35 years to go until retirement, or if you retire when the market is going through a peak. But if you have to retire when the market is at the bottom of a trough... not so nice.

quote:

---

The 401k laws state that you MUST start withdrawing your money no later than a certain age (I think it's 70 1/2?). So at some point due to the aging population, more people will be withdrawing their money than there will be new money going in from new workers.

---

Our personal pension (IRA) laws are similar. The age limit is 75. When you put money into a personal pension during your working life, it attracts income tax relief. That is to say, the government pays into your pension fund the value of the income tax you paid on the money you're investing. The quid pro quo for this is that what you can do with this fund when you retire is highly restricted. You can take 25% of the total fund value as a tax-free lump sum, but the rest has to be used to purchase an annuity. This is an insurance product which, in return for paying a fixed sum, guarantees you an income for life. The amount this income costs at the moment you buy the annuity varies from day to day on stock market values (and to a lesser extent other parameters, like your life expectancy), because annuity providers service their liabilities with the return from stock market investments. But once you've purchased the annuity, its income is fixed.

In the last three years, the stock market decline (the FTSE 100 is down from around 6,000 in January 1999 to 3,800 now) has driven annuity rates down, with the result that people are increasingly abandoning pension saving in favour of short-term consumer spending. If this is stock market decline is just cyclical like all the others then it probably won't be a big deal in the long term, but if not...

A cheerful thought to end the day, too!
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-17-2003, 02:48 PM:
 
Gentlemen, I am not making this up.

When I was reading the Local Rag while I was drinking my shot of coffee, I ran across an article that caught me in such a manner where the hot coffee came out of my nose during a spontanious laugh!

http://www.horsesass.org

Mr. Eyman is the state's leading initiave sponsor. Voters have approved at least one of his initiatives each year for the last four years, starting with $30 car license tabs in 1999. Mr. Eyman's initiatives are the ones that voters approved by a slaughter and sent Washington's legislatures into a tail spin.

Please set your coffee cup down before you click on the link. Otherwise, you might experience hot coffee coming through your nose like I did.

I don't think some people like Mr. Eyman....
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 01-17-2003, 05:15 PM:
 
Hmmmm lets see. 49 senators. 98 represenatives. The governor. That's 148 signatures right there.

Any idea who David Goldstein is?
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-17-2003, 05:49 PM:
 
He was just interviewed on KVI (570am). He sounds like he's about 20 years old or so. I can't figure out what his angle is. I've voted for all those initiatives in the last few years. Probably he has a connection to the Gov's office behind the scenes.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-17-2003, 06:01 PM:
 
Greg, according to the newspaper, he is a computer programmer and a technical writer. That's all it said about him.

Eyman said he thinks Goldstein's idea is hilarious, and should garner publicity for the latest initiative.

I also saw in the same paper on the next page -- the Washington State Ferries want to raise the ferry rates by 5% in May, and another 5% one year later.

I sent an Email to WSF today, saying to the effect that if the WSF would trim their $90 million annual payroll, they could eliminate the 5% fare increase.

This is a real zoo up here, and it is getting funnier as the days go by.
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 01-18-2003, 08:45 PM:
 

quote:

---

This is a real zoo up here, and it is getting funnier as the days go by.

---

I remember when some guy legally changed his name to "Absolutely Nobody" and ran for Lieutenant Governor in 1992. I voted for him just for the sheer hell of it.

1992 was another dark year in Washington State politics when Mike Lowry was elected govoner.

Yes it's a zoo, but our goverment is one of the few negatives of living here and we have them by the nuts right now. When I get frustrated with the they are trying to pull, I head for a nice high spot where I can see for miles and think about how fortunate we are to be living in one of the most beautifull places in the country.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-19-2003, 12:44 AM:
 
Ray said:

quote:

---

When I get frustrated with the they are trying to pull, I head for a nice high spot where I can see for miles and think about how fortunate we are to be living in one of the most beautifull places in the country.

---

Ray, I salute you for that statement.

Let's hope they don't slap a "View Tax" on those areas lke they tried to do in Seattle a couple of years ago.
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 01-19-2003, 09:54 AM:
 

quote:

---

Let's hope they don't slap a "View Tax" on those areas lke they tried to do in Seattle a couple of years ago.

---

That would cover the entire state! YIKES!
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-20-2003, 02:29 PM:
 
Ray said:

quote:

---

Yes it's a zoo, but our goverment is one of the few negatives of living here and we have them by the nuts right now.

---

quote:

---

I guess we'll have to start squeezing harder until they finally get the word that we had enough of their BS.

---

Maybe it's time to get the vice grips out.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-23-2003, 09:36 PM:
 
Oh, boy ... In tonight's paper, the legislators hope to drive home a message. I think they have that backwards.

I sent both of our area clowns an email about the $92,656,000 annual pay roll for FY 2002 of the Washington State Ferries.

I calculated that out to $253,852.05 daily payroll, based on 7 days a week. I don't know what they pay their staff, but one thing is if it was $50 per hour, that would indicate a staff of 5,077 people running about 20 boats!

Hmmm....50 bucks an hour for an 8-hour day at 5 days a week = $108.000.00 a year! Not bad....I think I will send them a resume.

I'll bet I don't get an answer...
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 01-23-2003, 10:44 PM:
 
I believe that most governments are very inefficient and incompetent at best and corrupt at worst. But having said that, there are basic services that have to be provided by government and once you start paying salaries and rents on office space, it really adds up. Just do the math.

Here in NYC, between the cops, firefighters, sanitation workers and teachers, there are something like 140,000 workers. If the average salary with benefits (and benefits constitute at least 30%) is $50K, that's already $7 billion. And that doesn't count the bureaucracy, health workers, costs of city property, bridge maintenance, etc. But just that $7 billion costs each man, woman and child over $1100. And that's just the City. But that's the reality of a modern life.

I happen to believe in progressive taxes. Since those at the lower end of the economic scale have to spend a higher percentage of their income on basics, such as food and housing, they should have to spend less on taxes. Those at the lower end of the economic scale also have less access to all of the deductions that higher income people can take and also less access to accountants who know how to work the system.

As far as your complaints about gas taxes go, I invite any of you to drive in Europe. Gas in the US, including all the taxes costs 1/3 to 1/4 of gas in Europe. And while we all complain about $1.80 a gallon gas, that is actually less, including inflation, than we paid in 1966, when gas was about 45 cents a gallon. The inflation rate between 1966 and 2002 is 5.6.

For those of you who think that road taxes, gas taxes and tolls should only go towards road improvement and mass transit should pay for itself, that is a ridiculous assumption. There is no mass transit system in the world that is self supporting. And that's aside from the issue of pollution, etc. Once again, the US spends less on mass transit than any other western country.

There was an interesting article in the NY Times the other day which shows the actual distribution of taxes across income groups. If you count all federal taxes and not just personal income taxes, it works out as follows. Note that the following percentages are NOT tax rates -- rather they're the percentage of taxes paid into the total pie. I suppose, based on this, there will be arguments on both sides. Some will feel that it demonstrates just how unfair the system is to those at the higher end of the income scale and others will decry how it should be much more progressive than it is.

The top 1% income group are those who earn $373,000 and higher. They pay 24% of all federal taxes paid.
The next 4% earns from $147K to $373K. They pay 17% of all federal taxes.
The next 15% earns from $72K to $147K. They pay 27% of all federal taxes.
The next 20% earns from $44K to $72K. They pay 18% of all federal taxes.
The next 20% earns from $27K to $44K. They pay 9% of all federal taxes.
The next 20% earns from $15K to $27K. They pay 4% of all federal taxes.
The lowest 20% earns less than $15K. They pay 1% of all federal taxes.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-23-2003, 10:52 PM:
 
Martin, correct me if I am wrong, but this country runs on oil. I think we depend on it more than any other country in the world. They have to keep the fuel prices down, otherwise we are in very deep grave shit!

The movie "3 Days of Condor" comes to mind.....
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-07-2003, 03:25 PM:
 
In today's local rag, I gues a senior senator said said something along the line that Washington State's popular initiave process should be banned.

It goes further to say that he said initiatives are damaging the state budget and underminding the basic precepts of representative government.

However, the chair if the Senate Governmental Operations committee said she had no plans to schedule a hearing on the measure. She stated, "I don't favor it. A majority doesn't favor it. The people don't favor it. Initiatives allow citizen participation in legislating.

Kudos for this lady....

And, to Senator Jacobsen of Seattle, the one who wants to ban initiatives. I wonder how some of these people get into office, and I wonder what they are smoking.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-07-2003, 04:14 PM:
 
I've been thinking lately that we should make the I-5 corridor a state at least as far north as Everett and down below Tacoma. We could call it "The Peoples Republic of I-5".
Everytime I watch an election, I see the entire state vote one way and the PRI-5 votes the other way and they win becaue they have the population density.
Who knows, maybe if we did that, they could become a suburb of Baghdad, and "Baghdad Jim" McDimwit would be happy.
All I'm really sure of is that I'm getting tired of being ruled by some morons over in Bellevue (via Olympia)
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 02-07-2003, 05:01 PM:
 

quote:

---

Everytime I watch an election, I see the entire state vote one way and the PRI-5 votes the other way and they win becaue they have the population density.

---

We have been saying that for years on this side of the Cascades. I wonder who King & Pierce counties have lined up to be our next gov?
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-07-2003, 08:51 PM:
 
I'm on Diesel Power generator right now, so I better make this quick. I forgot to order Diesel Fuel, so I don't know how much I have left. Some idiot smacked a power pole with his SUV (from what it looked like, anyway) and knocked out all the power out in the community I reside in.

Anyway, one thing the state is doing (or considering) is to turn the rest areas over to private enterprize. That might work, and that might fly. Many states do that on the turnpikes.

However, the way I took the article, what made me laugh when I read the name McDonalds....Yeah! (The hamburger people) was mentioned. Soooo...I wonder what they will call the rest stops? The paper mentioned something about McRest areas....
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 02-09-2003, 04:50 PM:
 
Funny you bring up rest stops, Paul. There's a rest area on I-295 in South Jersey that's named for Howard Stern. Sad to say, the funding for that rest area got zeroed out in the New Jersey state budget announced last week.

Also zeroed out from the New Jersey state budget was the State Council on the Arts -- the state agency that finances Snob Culture. (I included a reference to this in my review of Chicago.) There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the press over this. The council didn't get zeroed out for political or religious reasons; it got zeroed out because the state government does not have enough money, period!
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-09-2003, 07:04 PM:
 
And then, of course, there was a big flap about public outhouses. Seems Washington State built a 3-holer on top of some damn mountain where the mountain pass is closed for somethins greater than 7 months out of the year. It costed about $750,000 to build it!

If memory serves me correctly, that was about 10 years ago.
 

---

Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 02-11-2003, 06:10 AM:
 
Well, I was going to chip in but given that even the most moderate contributors so far make me look like a communist (which I'm not), I don't think I'll bother. Suffice to say though that the only people who argue against a welfare state are those who don't need it. Things can change guys...

David
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-11-2003, 09:08 AM:
 
Well once again the gov of the ST-O-WA has shown what they are made of. They are now challenging the latest succesful initiative (by the people) to have $30 car tabs. (Which number is this...#3?)
Maybe we should have an initiative that makes it illegal for the idiots in Olympia to challenge any initiative put forth and approved BY THE PEOPLE.
Is that socialist enough?
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-12-2003, 10:21 PM:
 
Initiative Would Declare Activist a 'Horse's Ass'

A "horse's ass" is no laughing matter to Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire. She is asking a judge to bar a collection of signatures on Initiative 831, which would declare anti-tax initiative guru Tim Eyman a "horse's ass." Gregoire claims the measure is frivolous and the state cannot be forced to use "vulgar terms." The initiative's sponsor, David Goldstein, says he filed it to point out how easy it is to abuse the process. Over the past six years, Eyman has introduced no fewer than eight statewide initiatives, several of which have been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. Neither Eyman nor Goldstein is an elected official, however, Eyman calls the measure "hilarious." He says it will only give him the positive publicity he needs to pursue other tax-cutting initiatives.

Greg, as you know, I-776 was just declared unconstitutional. So, you folks in King, Snohomish and some other county will continue to pay through the nose on car license renewal fees.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-15-2003, 01:26 AM:
 
Now the Thurston County Superior Court is hearing the case about the initiative about the "Horse's Ass.."

OLYMPIA -- It was a solemn judicial disquisition on the true meaning and intent of the term "horse's ass." As in whether Tim Eyman, the anti-tax initiative guru, is or is not one. Lawyers yesterday debated whether Washington voters should be confronted on the fall ballot with such indelicate language or with a more genteel if less descriptive phrase instead.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor heard arguments over the proper ballot summary for a proposed Initiative 831, proclaiming Eyman to be a horse's ass. The issue was whether the summary should contain that phrase, as the initiative does, or an almost comically bland substitute drafted by the state Attorney General's Office.

The judge ruled halfway in between. If I-831, filed by Donald Goldstein of Seattle, survives a further court challenge by the attorney general and qualifies for the ballot, it will be described to voters as "a resolution labeling (Eyman) using a vernacular term that denotes the back end of a horse."

Tabor said he chose that wording after toying briefly -- and tongue in cheek -- with a ballot summary saying, "This initiative refers to the south end of a northbound horse."

Goldstein, who was traveling yesterday, has said he filed the initiative to parody how Eyman has perverted the initiative process by submitting tax-limiting ballot measures that are passed but then found to be unconstitutional, and by secretly pocketing campaign donations and lying about it.

Tabor rejected the attorney general's vague language after closely quizzing John Widell, Goldstein's attorney, about exactly what the initiative was attempting to legislate.

"You're not indicating that Mr. Eyman would actually become part of a horse, are you?" Tabor asked.

"No . . . Mr. Eyman is to be proclaimed a horse's ass," Widell replied.

"You're not attempting to proclaim him something other than a human being, are you?" the judge persisted.

No, Widell assured him.

The Attorney General's Office, which is charged with writing initiative ballot titles, was sued by Goldstein after writing a ballot description that didn't even name Eyman, let alone mention "horse's ass." It would have called the initiative a resolution describing "a citizen . . . with a disparaging term that denotes a self-important, silly or stupid person."

Tabor asked assistant attorney general Jim Pharris from what legal citation he obtained that definition of "horse's ass."

"We got that out of some dictionary," said Pharris, who admitted it wasn't really a dictionary description of "horse's ass" but rather one of several definitions of "ass."

Pharris said it shouldn't be necessary to use language that some might find offensive, and added, "The question here is whether (Goldstein) can commandeer the Attorney General's Office and force us to use language that he has chosen."

"The attorney general is not supposed to play elementary school librarian here," retorted Widell, accusing the attorney general of censorship.

Tabor will hear arguments later this month on another challenge to I-831: the attorney general's contention that it is not a "bill or act" but a resolution and therefore doesn't qualify as an initiative under the state constitution.

Eyman, who has refused to act insulted by the initiative, said last night that the judge's language change "did (Goldstein) a favor because he ended up making the measure more popular because it's easier to vote for an initiative that's funny than an initiative that's crass."

Eyman said he intends to vote for it.

A footnote: In another article, Eyman filed another initiative that will bilge the Gov's $2 Billion (not including cost overruns) 21 mile light rail project. It will probably fly. Nobody will benefit from it except those who live in Seattle-Tacoma area.

Let's see.....$2 Billion???? For 21 miles of cheap railroad track?....hmmmmm....and our state is $2.4 Billion in the hole.....

OK...Once again, welcome to our Zoo.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-15-2003, 08:13 AM:
 
Paul
Thankfully I live in Kitsap county, so I don't get nailed for the over $30 extra taxes. I do have to pay extra for vanity plates, but that's my choice.
One thing that I find bizarre about Eyman's initiatives and the reaction to them is that these bills are continuously approved by the voters (which means the majority of us) yet the state government refuses to follow the wishes of the people. I thought our elected officials are supposed to be the facilitators of our wishes. Yet they continuously ignore what "we the people" want.
This guy and the rest of the government can call Eyman anything they want, but aren't they just choosing (once again) to ignore the real issue?
The voters have said repeatedly that they want $30 car tabs. When will the government understand that $30 means $30?

Maybe Eyman should introduce a bill that says that any initiative passed by the voters cannot be challenged by the greedos in Olympia
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-15-2003, 01:52 PM:
 
Greg, I guess the rules are changed to fit the needs.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 02-27-2003, 03:54 PM:
 
The campaign for I-831 began yesterday.

Now the world knows about Tim Eyman because The Obscure Store linked to the story in the Seattle P-I.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-27-2003, 07:43 PM:
 
Word really gets around, doesn't it?

Good 'Ole Washington State does it again....
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 02-28-2003, 12:50 AM:
 
If our senate gets it's way, it will take a 60% majority to pass.

I was reading in the Tri-City Herald earlier this week that one of the senators (can't remember her name now) was working on a bill where the initiatives will need a 60% approval to pass. Sneaky *$%#@#s!!
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-28-2003, 01:53 AM:
 
Yeah, Ray. The powers-to-be tried just the opposite approach with the 33 million dollar handout for the Mount Vernon School District. The voters said "Nuts to you" two times before the handout was approved. The tallys were about 50 to 55 percent for the handout, and it needed 60% to pass. Our "officials" wanted to get it changed from 60% to 50%.

If I actually lived in Mount Vernon, I would have shot it down the three times they tried. The Mount Vernon School District produces students that are dumber than a box of rocks and can't even hit the USA median in math, English, and reading.

The teachers there are nothing more than a whining bunch of fleabags teaching subjects they are not qualified to teach.
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 02-28-2003, 08:07 AM:
 
50% majority for taxing, 60% for initiatives. Works great for them.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-09-2003, 07:42 AM:
 
Yup!
 

---

Posted by Ray Brown (Member # 1449) on 03-09-2003, 10:16 AM:
 
Update: Looks like the 60% majority idea is already dead. The senator who had this brainstorm has already gave up on the idea.
 

---