The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010 by Charles Krauthammer

[bandycpa]

SnT,

What I mean is that, by demanding taxes to be lower and lower, we eventually are "purchasing" government services (infrastructure creation and maintenance, education, military and law enforcement, etc) at a price far below their worth. If a product or service is worth a definite price, and people refuse to pay that price, the shortfall has to be made up somewhere. In the government's case, we make up that shortfall by creating deficits.

I agree whole-heartedly that government spending must be curtailed. But, that alone won't do the entire job. I feel that we are far enough left on the Laffer Curve that an increase in tax rates (even back to Year 2000 levels) will increase tax revenue rather than decrease it. As Craigepo said, many don't have "skin in the game", but would if the tax rates were increased or the tax brackets were adjusted to include taxpayers with lower taxable income (in a lot of cases, it would simply meaning receiving less of a refund due to earned income credit or child tax credit).

If my utility bill is $400 / month (and, with AEP going wild on price increases, it's been a whopper lately), and I feel it's my right to only pay $200 / month, then I will still owe $200 on my bill. In the short-term, I'm stuck with the shortfall, and have to make up that shortfall in order to eliminate my debt, and more importantly, keep my lights on. In the long-term, however, AEP needs to become more affordable by either improving their product technology or simply trimming the fat in their organization so their prices (hopefully) will come down.

So, in my opinion, to clean up our current mess, we have to raise more tax revenue in the short-term. The government has to concurrently do its part by reducing it's spending as well.



Howard,

Texas has no income tax rate, but it does have a maximum sales tax rate of 8.25%. Could it be that they are helped out by the fact that more people pay taxes through sales tax than they would if they paid a state income tax?



Bandy

Originally Posted by bandycpa

Howard,

Texas has no income tax rate, but it does have a maximum sales tax rate of 8.25%. Could it be that they are helped out by the fact that more people pay taxes through sales tax than they would if they paid a state income tax?

Bandy

And you find this problematic because... ?

Actually, Texas state government has other sources of revenue as well.

One of the things about California that particularly infuriates me is that they spend themselves into a position of being in default without taking money from the rest of us through Federal subsidies. And they do this while refusing to sell assets to willing buyers. And refusing to permit drilling and refining of petroleum products for which the would receive billions in fees and licenses let alone taxes from operations.

What's with that!?!

[Dad]

Texas does well because we have oil, plenty of cheap land and plenty of cheap labor. We also have a government that never met a lobbyist it didn't like. Texas is strong in spite of our government.

When I ask oil men why they don't build more refineries they say because they aren't f@#$$ing stupid. They are retrofitting but no intention of building more.

[bandycpa]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

And you find this problematic because... ?

Actually, Texas state government has other sources of revenue as well.

No problem at all. I'm only making the point that revenue is being raised, and it's being raised via some form of tax. Why wouldn't the same idea of raising revenue (as one piece of the puzzle) hold true for us as a nation to help us get out of debt.


Dad,

Had never heard it put that way before. That makes a lot of sense. Pete Blaber was right, "always listen to the guy on the ground".


Bandy

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

"It hurts the Earth" as the greenies would say

That's fine with me. Just don't ask for my taxed dollars to pay for their religion.

Don't most liberals rail against government supported religion?

[TrapLine]

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

When the Congress (either Party) has significantly cut spending, then come talk to me about raising tax rates.SnT

I am pretty simple and probably out of my league here, but I have to agree with SnT. A chart of federal spending growth tells me that the rate of spending is growing beyond the rate of incoming revenue at a rate that can not be made up. It seems raising my taxes will do little to help the situation if spending is not slashed. The estimated revenue for 2009 will be 2.19 trillion with spending at about 3.94 trillion. Until those in D.C. are forced to make those numbers match I see no fix. I am not asking to pay a discounted rate for services; I would like a somewhat honest return on my "investment." As long as the government is able to spend millions flying the speaker and her family around while spending hundreds of thousands on booze and food, please do not ask for more from me.

My .02 worth.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

One reason Texas land is cheap (or California land so expensive) is they do not have such crazy zoning laws like Cali (done in the name of environmentalism)..

California zoning laws are not "done in the name of environmentalism."

If one were to spend time helping developers and land owners to navigate the process for getting building plans approved, one would soon find that economic, commercial, political (especially at the municipal level), bureaucratic, social, and cultural concerns drive zoning laws in California.

If environmentalism drove zoning laws:

• requirements for building materials would be more stringent,
• off-street parking requirements would be significantly reduced,
• public transportation would receive more funding,
• on-street parking spaces would be rare,
• public spaces (as in parks) would be more abundant,
• transportation demand management programs would have more incentives,
• "sprawl" would be less widespread,
• there would be fewer brownfields.

[Penn]

Sigaba, I want to thank whatever gene pool door you processed through, that it substituted encyclopedic recall in place of pitching skills, and meeting here you, no doubt you would have pitched for phuckin Boston....

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Penn

Sigaba, I want to thank whatever gene pool door you processed through, that it substituted encyclopedic recall in place of pitching skills, and meeting here you, no doubt you would have pitched for phuckin Boston....

Chef, now there's a nightmarish thought--I could throw in the Show but only for the Red Sox...

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

(although I forget the exact source)

Broadsword2004--

There are a number of urban planners, professional associations, environmental engineers, architects, architectural engineers, traffic engineers, structural engineers, project managers, analysts, and consultants who wish your broad assessment of zoning and building codes in the Golden State were correct--because many of them would still have jobs.

Mmm...don't know if I agree with that. I understand your opinion, but I don't think that means the zoning laws have nothing to do with environmentalism.

I do not think you understand my opinion. So let me be clear. Your argument is that "California's very restrictive zoning laws" are "done in the name of environmentalism." My argument is that such is not the case.

From my experiences that include:

• the professional training I've received,
• the contracts I have written and negotiated,
• the data I've collected,
• the reports I've written,
• the presentations I've delivered,
• the projects I have managed,
• the conversations I have had with clients, stakeholders, and government officials, and
• the research I have done (and I've got a several hundred sources--Google is a wonderful thing);

I have learned the following--

1. in California, zoning and building codes are established by municipal officials, not state officials;
2. these codes are generally borrowed from neighboring municipalities (regardless of their relevance);
3. economic and political concerns trump all others; and
4. variances and conditional use permits are often granted if certain aspects of building plans are altered or adjusted.

In regards to point #3, I have direct experience in projects where municipalities with extraordinarily restrictive zoning codes refused to approve plans or grant permits or variances until technical, political, social, and cultural concerns were addressed. During my numerous conversations with my clients, environmental issues were not mentioned although they well could have been used to delay/derail the projects entirely.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Remember, this is a state that was considering:

1) Banning SUVs
2) Banning the sale of flat-screen televisions
3) Centralize control over people's central air conditioning systems

What do any of these three examples have to do with zoning? You are changing your argument to say that environmentalism is important in California. Your initial argument was that California zoning laws are done in the name of environmentalism.

As for the L.A. freeway system. The 105, the 118, and ongoing expansion of the 405 between the 101 and the 10, and the California DMV's cessation of the clean air/HOV sticker program all call into question the influence of environmentalists.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

No, not changing the argument, what I meant was in California, environmental considerations are a big thing, so it would not be surprising that they spill over into things such as zoning laws as well.

A suggestion.

When you are developing your knowledge of a group, try to look at individual trees, groups of trees, and the whole forest simultaneously. Sometimes, putting a label on a group such as "environmentalists," "conservatives," or "hardliners" can get in the way of understanding the groups and their constituent members in their own terms.

Sometimes, "they" are not "they" but "those two guys, that guy over there, and that woman across the hall." (If you decide to intensify your study of the Cold War, this point will come increasingly evident.0

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

From what I understand, when they wanted to build more freeway to handle the additional traffic in LA, the environmental groups worked very hard to put a stop to this and succeeded a good degree, which is why there is so much gridlock on the LA freeway system each day.

The Institute of Transportation Research at the University of California at Berkeley has about 1,400 documents in its digital archive. While I am not intimately familiar with all of these publications, many of these studies indicate that the problem is not just about freeways. Some urban planners believe that if the number of cars on the road were reduced by just 5%, freeway traffic would ease greatly.

In any case, while environmentalists would like us to believe that they can influence transportation policy, my take is that policy is driven more by the old political standby: NIMBY. YMMV.

[Dad]

Harris County Texas has NO zoning laws. If you think that is so wonderful think again. Our politicians are just as corrupt and idiotic as anyones. It boils down to the fact that the PEOPLE hold them accountable every now and then. The 08 elections were a blood bath for Republicans in Harris Couty. They deserved it. If Perry had been in a two person race last time he ran we would very possibly have a Democratic governor. California? BBBPPPPPTTTTTTT

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dad

Harris County Texas has NO zoning laws. If you think that is so wonderful think again. Our politicians are just as corrupt and idiotic as anyones. It boils down to the fact that the PEOPLE hold them accountable every now and then. The 08 elections were a blood bath for Republicans in Harris Couty. They deserved it. If Perry had been in a two person race last time he ran we would very possibly have a Democratic governor. California? BBBPPPPPTTTTTTT

FWIW, the most restrictive zoning laws in terms of the environment I encountered were in Austin, Texas.

A client told me that it ended up costing in the low/mid figures by the time his company was done moving one damn tree. And it still died.

[Pete]

Zoning is to protect neighborhoods and allow for ordered growth while protecting sensitive areas.

Around here it is very political with the NIMBY crowd swinging a bit stick. Politicians at the city and county level flip back and forth on spot zoning issues depending on who's greasing their palm. The problem is the vast majority of voters pay no attention to this and come voting time "Zoning? What zoning."

Ever drive up to Cary, NC and try and find a small store you've never been to before? Without a GPS? The locals are very happy with their knee high signs. Hard to see if you're dodging traffic and peeking around shrubs though.

It is an old rule of politics.

When your opponent is in the process of destroying himself, don't get in his way.

[Dad]

Austin--a little bit of California nestled at the foot of the Hill Country.