U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-12-2009, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,540 posts, read 12,570,254 times
Reputation: 2952

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan View Post
It depends on the elasticity of demand as to whether the business entity's extra cost of taxes is paid for by the consumer or in reduced wages for the employees or by reduced profits for the owners of the business.
Things are no longer very elastic... small business owners usually get paid LAST regardless (even tho major-corp CEOs get theirs first) ... the point is, tax on business WILL be passed along to someone. Even if that's less income for the business owner -- it's that much less money they have to spend at other businesses, which in turn reduces their profit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2009, 05:18 AM
 
120 posts, read 327,992 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
That's exactly what I was talking about. CA and NY both have high sales tax (9 to 14% depending on where you are) and arseloads of regulations on everything from breathing on down. When heavily regulated industries get a sudden "deregulation" like happened with the power industry, consumers get screwed. So ... yes, we have already tried sales taxes and "deregulation" (in the usual way gov't implements it) and if business-friendly is your measure, the CA/NY experiment is a dismal failure. If your measure is huge money flow (tho no one can afford to save any of it) and an ungodly amount of waste, then both are flaming successes!
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I've never stated that CA or NY were anything but failures.

However, I don't think it's logically correct to say that CA and NY both have a sales tax, that CA and NY are failures, and that therefore the sales tax idea is a failure. CA and NY are also, as you pointed out, very heavily regulated. CA and NY also have a very high Income Tax. CA and NY also have insane welfare policies that simply cannot be sustained long-term. CA and NY are also both filled with uneducated, naive, and corrupt politicians at every level of government.

CA and NY are bleeding to death because of all of the above. Businesses and the people who pay the most taxes in those states are moving out. Looking at both of those states, what could they do to stop the exodus of business? Lower taxes, particularly the income tax. Deregulate as much as possible and as intelligently as possible. In short, give businesses a reason to want to move there or stay there.

The same goes for every other state. Give businesses a reason to want to move your state. Now, one may come back and say that you don't want to make it so attractive to move to your state that you get a sudden influx of out-of-staters who will ultimately change everything you love about your state. I completely understand this. In that case, get creative as North Carolina did in their deal with Apple Computer. Pick and choose the large businesses you want to come.

As far as deregulation goes, you will always have problems with that as long as you have corrupt and inept politicians in office. Even if the politician isn't corrupt, they're often inept and cannot think more than one step away from their bright idea to see the consequences down the road. That doesn't mean that the concept of deregulation is bad. It means that some politicians need to be fired and earn a real living for a change.

Like I said though, I don't really have a dog in this fight. Well...yes I do. I would rather that the situation in Montana not change so much that native Montanans are forced to leave the state because they can no longer afford to live here. Just trying to throw out ideas on how to make that happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2009, 06:44 AM
 
Location: In The Outland
6,023 posts, read 11,869,550 times
Reputation: 3535
Nobody has a crystal ball and even if these predictions of over 1 million Montanans were to become fact, there isn't anything anyone can do about it anyway. Most of the new arrivals settle in the livable areas of the already overcrowded valleys of western Montana. Many of the new transplants go back home or somewhere else after they get a taste of 30 below zero with sideways snow that you can't drive in. If that doesn't run them off the low pay scales will. I don't think the prediction will become fact, the predictors don't have a crystal ball either and many things can change between now and 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2009, 09:08 AM
 
Location: West Yellowstone, MT
239 posts, read 608,796 times
Reputation: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
There are some from other places too, but you would be surprised how many "pants to the ankles wearin', ebonic speaking, bass blasting, crooked hat wearing, " little bastards are running around in Gallatin County. I understand the parents trying to help their kids out by moving, but it really does cause problems in the schools here.
I know one of them. He is my nephew. He was born in Bozeman.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Washington
843 posts, read 1,130,856 times
Reputation: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fodderman View Post
Comparing dropout rates these days to 20 years ago isn't anywhere near valid. School administrators are under tremendous pressure to give anything that can walk on two legs a diploma these days. Go to any college and sit in on a remedial math or English class where they are -- literally -- teaching the kids how to do basic addition and subtraction. And then weep when you realize that YOU will have to support these dimwits for the rest of their sorry lives.
I wasnt making a 'hey we have it better' comparison, I was stating that there are various factors that contribute to the 'education problem' in america.

I dont know if I (or the taxpayer) will be supporting those kids, considering that remedial uneducated group represents roughly 1/2 of all American kids, and the last time I checked the welfare usage was not anywhere near that number in the country (according to the census, about 45 million).


Quote:
No, it doesn't have anything directly to do with how the kids dress. That's a symptom. But it is a real symptom of a real problem.

A HS diploma means nothing these days. A Bachelor's degree is the new HS diploma. I've seen this get worse and worse for the past 10 years at least. Our public schools are churning out a generation of illiterates.
I TOTALLY agree with you here.

Unfortunately, I think this is because high school education has dropped the ball overall so bad, that your average college graduate today has the skill level expected of a high school grad 30 years ago (accounting for differences of technology and job markets).

That and the fact that most skilled jobs have left the country, and most college (and higher...something I learn more of every day) educated people are entering a market where the only jobs available are low-skill level, at which they must compete with those very same drop outs and high school grads.


Quote:
Will these kids bring "change" with them? Absolutely they will. And none of that change will be for the better. These kids aren't qualified to do anything more manual labor, but most are too lazy to even do that. So then, what kind of change are they going to bring? What kind of change is so desperately needed in Montana that can only come from this generation of misfits?
I respectfully disagree. As you just said, the BA and BS is the new diploma. More kids are going to school and getting educated than ever before.

Unfortunately, it is not their fault (but rather the 'change-resistant' preceding generations) that the only markets they can get into are at BEST manual labor, on average service jobs.

The place where I currently work part time is filled with college graduates who cant find other work.

Quote:
All of the things you mention (xenophobia, race relations, religious differences, even accents according to a few studies) I have yet to see in Montana. The people here are genuinely nice people for the most part - FAR FAR FAR more so than any more "diverse" city I've been to, and I've been to a LOT. Are there certain individuals who have some of those bad traits? Of course there are. But you cannot go to anywhere in this world and not come across a jerk of one flavor or another. And I guarantee that a sizable percentage (about the size of the general population - where they come from) of these young wannabe gangsters has those very same traits.
Are you going to argue because you havent seen it it doesnt exist? Unless you are a member of a group that would be on the negative end of that, saying you dont see it is like a senior citizen saying "theres no child molesters in my neighborhood because no ones tried to molest me". Unless you are a victim, you probably wont see the crime.

All of the things I mentioned I have seen in montana. Not to the amount that your state is stereotyped as having, but definitely in existence. YOu dont have to go too far outside of bozeman or missoula to see it either.


Do larger cities have those very things? Of course. Why? Because there are more people. It would be silly to expect the percentage of such things to go down with a higher population.

However, because cities function socially, people are more reliant on others, and more exposed to different types. As a person who lived in Eastern WA and N. ID (briefly), and has been to MT numerous times, let me tell you, Montanans have VERY VERY VERY little exposure to different types. Most judgement of others who are different starts via second hand, stereotype or from television...all bad ways to learn of different folks.
Quote:
I don't mean to come down on you as much as everyone who harps and harps about Montana being some backwater state in desperate need of sort of "change". It gets frustrating.

Just to be clear, I am not at ALL claiming Montana is backwater. If you check back, Ive even defended MT and clarified that it has a lot to offer and MT itself suffers from plenty of negative social stereotypes.

I am merely saying

1. Economically, culturally and socially, Change (when its ADDING and not subtracting) is good.

2. Montana is a prime spot for young people of various backgrounds looking to plant their tree in life, or start their business. Its cheap, has plenty of outdoor livelihood and is a midway spot for other already industry packed places (Denver, the Twin Cities and Seattle).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2009, 05:14 PM
 
2,805 posts, read 4,222,003 times
Reputation: 2056
Quote:
Originally Posted by tindo80 View Post
My graduating class had the same about, in a school 3+ times larger, in poor city, so it had a much larger drop out rate. It had nothing to do with how the kids dressed. The 'wannabe cowboys' had as many dropouts at my high school as the 'wanna be gangsters' and the atheletes, popular kids, even (especially in my school) the Church kids had a few who did not graduate. Applying a general reasoning to various individual groups is an oversimplification of a problem, and never leads to a positive solution (abstinence programs and DARE are good statistical examples).

The description you just gave IS just being different. By the very literal definition. Its probably why its growing more popular in the first place.

How someone dresses or even the slang they use in friendly crowds does not determine whether they are an 'ignorant punk'.

How would you feel if you (I assume you are a native montanan) were in a city, and people looked at the way you dressed and how you spoke and assumed you were an 'ignorant hillbilly' or a 'violent racist/homophobic/aantisemite/whatever redneck (please note I am not calling you that, I am giving an example I have heard and seen...and yes when I see that example I make the same 'difference does not equal ignorance/dangerousness' argument to them as I am here) It doesnt follow. Again, applying a general precept to differing individuals will usually lead a person astray.


I see the argument you are making, but look in the big picture. I GUARANTEE your parents probably thought the same about your generation growing up, as theirs did to them. Older folks see younger folks doing things differently, living by different rules, and tend to judge on what those older folks did in that situation. Its natural for the young to rebel and seek out change. Just like its natural for the older to seek to hold on to the way they do things.


It may not seem like it, but the change in culture of modern young people is a good thing. Things older people cant get seem over (xenophobia, race relations, religious differences, even accents according to a few studies) younger generations are able to move past.

If Montana ever wants to compete economically, or even keep up at its current state and not become another louisiana or mississippi or (sorry Dakotans) North Dakota, change must happen. The old ways that didnt work or dont work for modern times must make way to new ideas, new people and new identities.

Sorry to rant. This just reminds me of a conversation Ive had with my uncles.
I have to disagree. It's what they represent: THUGLIFE. They have taken on the persona of a hoodlum, thug, killer, roughneck or bad guy or whatever. Even if they are not, that is what they are portraying. Therefore, if we all take on the same persona, we just might eventually begin to believe that we are that person and start a downward spiral for the worst. Which is what I think some of the other posters were alluding to.

What do you mean the "old ways didn't work?" The old ways had the USA as the envy or the world. Low crime, low unemployment, great economy, strong military, great educational system, and a high standard of living. Fast forward to 2009, we have more diversity, higher crime rates, overcrowding, lower standard of living, failing educational systems, weak military, bad economy, and high unemployment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2009, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Washington
843 posts, read 1,130,856 times
Reputation: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay
I have to disagree. It's what they represent: THUGLIFE. They have taken on the persona of a hoodlum, thug, killer, roughneck or bad guy or whatever. Even if they are not, that is what they are portraying. Therefore, if we all take on the same persona, we just might eventually begin to believe that we are that person and start a downward spiral for the worst. Which is what I think some of the other posters were alluding to.
Sounds like a big broad scope and paintbrush to paint a lot of people based on how they dress. I am sorry, but I disagree.

That would be the equivalent of saying (pointing it the other way) that all flannel wearing, country listening, beard having, rural living montanans are klan/aryan nations related monsters waiting in the rafters armed to the teeth to kill native americans, mexicans, blacks and jews.

You cant judge a book by its cover, and its ALWAYS better to judge a person by their individual actions and not their looks or some preconception of their background. Its how people want to be treated, and its how people should treat others...IMO at least.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jay
What do you mean the "old ways didn't work?" The old ways had the USA as the envy or the world. Low crime, low unemployment, great economy, strong military, great educational system, and a high standard of living. Fast forward to 2009, we have more diversity, higher crime rates, overcrowding, lower standard of living, failing educational systems, weak military, bad economy, and high unemployment.
They didnt work. If they did, we would still live in a nation where only white men over 21 could vote, where lynchings and beatings were common place. The old ways dont work, and the older generation was and has been unable to solve those simple problems.

Also, statistically, we have equal amounts of crime (the difference is, it ALL gets reported, rather than much of it for one group being swept under the rug). Overcrowding has been an issue for every city since the industrial revolution. The economy is bad because of things that have happened in the last 8 years. It was not bad 10 years ago. Education systems fail because no one wants to pay for education. Crime is bad because no one wants to pay for cops. De-vilify taxes and maybe youll see improvement. If we keep crying about 'our wasted tax money', we will soon watch our kids emmigrate to communist-taxing China to work for the significantly more educated and obviously higher taxes chinese. Further, the education system is bad for everyone now, wherein it was once bad for 'some peoples/genders' in the older days.

I have to honestly disagree with you on this as well. It seems like you may be casting rose colored generalized pictures on something wherein the fine print was far more scribbly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 05:34 AM
 
2,805 posts, read 4,222,003 times
Reputation: 2056
Quote:
Originally Posted by tindo80 View Post
Sounds like a big broad scope and paintbrush to paint a lot of people based on how they dress. I am sorry, but I disagree.

That would be the equivalent of saying (pointing it the other way) that all flannel wearing, country listening, beard having, rural living montanans are klan/aryan nations related monsters waiting in the rafters armed to the teeth to kill native americans, mexicans, blacks and jews.

You cant judge a book by its cover, and its ALWAYS better to judge a person by their individual actions and not their looks or some preconception of their background. Its how people want to be treated, and its how people should treat others...IMO at least.


They didnt work. If they did, we would still live in a nation where only white men over 21 could vote, where lynchings and beatings were common place. The old ways dont work, and the older generation was and has been unable to solve those simple problems.

Also, statistically, we have equal amounts of crime (the difference is, it ALL gets reported, rather than much of it for one group being swept under the rug). Overcrowding has been an issue for every city since the industrial revolution. The economy is bad because of things that have happened in the last 8 years. It was not bad 10 years ago. Education systems fail because no one wants to pay for education. Crime is bad because no one wants to pay for cops. De-vilify taxes and maybe youll see improvement. If we keep crying about 'our wasted tax money', we will soon watch our kids emmigrate to communist-taxing China to work for the significantly more educated and obviously higher taxes chinese. Further, the education system is bad for everyone now, wherein it was once bad for 'some peoples/genders' in the older days.

I have to honestly disagree with you on this as well. It seems like you may be casting rose colored generalized pictures on something wherein the fine print was far more scribbly.
Well in my experience, people do judge others based on looks. That is just the way it is. So if you're fat, people are going to think that you eat too much. If you dress like a bum, people aren't going to respect you. If you're a man, who acts like a woman, people are going to call you a f-g. If you dress like or take on the mannerisms of a jailbird, thug, convict, etc., people are going to react accordingly. If I start dressing like a thug and knock you out for dressing like a thug and some other thug comes and knocks me out, it will just continue into a downward spiral. Should all be common sense. Not about what should or should not be.

All lynchings, genocides, beatings, aside, because those things still occur all around the globe from Mexico, to Yugoslavia, to Colombia, to China, to Afghanistan, to the Sudan. For a long time, up until recent times where the country has been overrun by 3rd world people or 3rd world ideas, the USA has been the one of the strongest and most prosperous nations in the entire world. I don't have time to go into detail but anybody with some education, knows what I am talking about--but if you still don't then now is the time to look it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Montana
193 posts, read 407,250 times
Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by tindo80 View Post
The economy is bad because of things that have happened in the last 8 years. It was not bad 10 years ago.
Correct, infact it was not bad 3 years ago. Seems it all started to slide into the crapper toward the end of 2006. To be exact the first Tuesday of November...

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2009, 08:54 AM
 
Location: MT
155 posts, read 639,018 times
Reputation: 139
Doesn't MT have one of the best economies right now? Seems to me didn't we just show a surplus that made some national news?
Doesn't MT have one of the lowest unemployment rates right now in these tough economic times? Maybe I was mislead but I could have swore I read this somewhere or seen this on the news.

Yes I know we don't have the best paying jobs, or the best shopping centers, or the largest numbers of business'. But do we really need/want all this?

I like MT how it is. Small, friendly, and slow. I don't mind driving 1.5 hours to shop, waiting in line at a small store because there isn't 3 of them in the area, or sitting in a little traffic in Missoula, Bozeman, or Billings.

We don't really need "CHANGE" as I see it. I am fine with implementing a sales tax.... keep the income tax.... and reduce/cut/get rid of property tax how about that one?

Also what is wrong with "NOT" going to college! I know lots of people who make a decent living who never went to college. There is somehting wrong with the big push from all HS and counselor that YOU HAVE TO GO TO COLLEGE. This is what all school systems push. I am to the opinion that if you don't feel like you would fit into college or you can't pursue your dreams in college..... DON"T GO. But seems that is the norm today, so in turn with this push the HS diploma means nothing. The BA or BS means what the HS diploma used to, and you have college graduates working jobs that HS graduates should be doing. This starts a chain that will continue until the Masters will be the norm not the BA or BS. Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:47 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top