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.
Higher taxes will not help small business. There are many different figures - three out of five to nine out of ten small business fail in time periods from eighteen months to ten years. But, regardless, operating a small business is not easy; no matter what percentage you operate with. You can very easily end up working for the bank; just as hard as you would work for an employer.
Now, according to the Small Business Administration, small business makes up 99.7% of the employer firms in the US. So any change, in any tax law, could have a major impact on the biggest (small) US employers.
I built that business, the potential to grow the business is great, which could lead to hiring more people but I'm tired and I've realized that the government keep taking and taking making it less worth taking on more risk and more responsibility.
The people who scream the loudest would not work if after working (ex 60 hours /week) but the government takes 60%, so why would they expect anyone else to? Although not the same, I would have to risk my money in "hopes of a greater profit". But if that profit doesn't materialize, I'm poorer but if that profit does materialize the government takes a big chunk of it making it less worth risking my money, time and effort. No thanks.
Tom Wolf helping the middle class - take more of your money
The rate for all wage-earners would rise from 3.07 percent to 3.57 percent, effective Oct. 1, 2015. On an annual basis, that 16.3 percent increase would take the tax for a person making $50,000 from $1,535, to $1,785. He wants to raise the state sales tax from 6 percent to 6.6 percent.
Tom Wolf wants to prop up the spending establishment, and hurt the little guy. Republicans were united against Tom Wolf's tax increase (taking more of your hard earned money), nine Democrats broke ranks to join them. The proposal needed 102 votes to pass. Wolf's argument that an increase is needed in one of the state's broad-based taxes in order to right-size revenues with growing expenses.
But you, middle class Pennsylvanians don't have growing expenses right? You could do with a little less take home pay. It's taking Tom Wolf too long to get in touch with reality that we are tapped out. Try spending cuts instead.
When will these politicians see that the our pockets are picked
I am so tired of these politicians not working together to pass a budget. Every other non-profit board, including school boards must have their budgets approved by June. Those boards are filled with volunteers of different political parties who generally work full time jobs. Our legislators who are paid for full time jobs (second highest salaries in the US), work part time and cannot compromise and work out a budget? It's not all the governors fault. And no, I do not want higher taxes but if that's what it takes to pay the bills, so be it. My understanding is that we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul for several years and it's time to straighten things out. If we go from $1,535 to $1,785 a year, that's less than a dollar a day.
I am so tired of these politicians not working together to pass a budget. Every other non-profit board, including school boards must have their budgets approved by June. Those boards are filled with volunteers of different political parties who generally work full time jobs. Our legislators who are paid for full time jobs (second highest salaries in the US), work part time and cannot compromise and work out a budget? It's not all the governors fault. And no, I do not want higher taxes but if that's what it takes to pay the bills, so be it. My understanding is that we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul for several years and it's time to straighten things out. If we go from $1,535 to $1,785 a year, that's less than a dollar a day.
That's exactly what Wolf's complaint is. There is a deficit that needs to be plugged that's anywhere from 1.2 to 2 billion just to make up what's needed for CURRENT spending. The one time fixes that were used last budget year to patch the hole will not work this time, and the state has been repeatedly warned by financial agencies that relying on said one time fixes instead of recurring revenue to balance the budget will have a negative impact on the state's credit rating- which will drive up costs for taxpayers on state debt.
Making things worse, a VERY big chunk of cost cutting proposed by republicans relies on changes to pension payouts for current state workers- which the state supreme court has repeatedly ruled to be unconstitutional.
Quote:
Senate Bill 1, as adopted by the Republican-controlled Legislature and vetoed by Wolf in July,produced projected savings of about $11.1 billion.
Under the latest proposed changes, analysts for the state pension funds have now projected combined savings to taxpayers - when compared against current cost schedules - scale back to $7.9 billion over 30 years.
What's more, most of that comes from changes to current and future employees' ability to withdraw their own payroll contributions from the system upon retirement; it appears any long-term savings to taxpayers from the benefits changes for future employees would be barely noticeable.
Opponents say that's because a 2010 reform known as Act 120 was in fact the course correction that was needed for future workers.
The analogy they've used is someone wringing water out of a wet washcloth. The first squeeze was Act 120, which brought the cost of the future employees down to the point where that's really not a big part of the state's pension problem. Wring out that washcloth a second time, and there's far less water.
Actuaries say most of the bill's $18 billion in projected savings (edit: the projected savings were later pared down, see the above article) over 30 years arise from concessions it seeks from current employees. It would ask them to pay a bigger portion of their paycheck to keep a pension enhancement authorized in 2001. Those who elect not to pay more would see the pension benefit calculated on their future earnings reduced to the pre-2001 benefit level.
Democrats say courts have already ruled that such benefit reductions go against the state constitution's prohibition against laws that violate contractual obligations.
This budget would be struck down as soon as it was passed, leaving a gigantic deficit impossible to fill without tax increases. There is no way to balance the budget without tax increases here. The concept that there are somehow billions laying around that can just be cost cut is simply fiction- if there were, the assembly would have found it already and they have yet to do so.
Last edited by Burger Fan; 10-08-2015 at 08:55 AM..
The average annual pension paid to a retired rank-and-file state employee or teacher is about $25,000.
I always love this quote, now ask them what an employee/teacher with 20 to 30 years gets.
Quote:
....leaving a gigantic deficit impossible to fill without tax increases. There is no way to balance the budget without tax increases here. The concept that there are somehow billions laying around that can just be cost cut is simply fiction- if there were, the assembly would have found it already and they have yet to do so.
There is always room for cuts and Wolfe is not just looking to fill a deficit, he wants increased spending. As far as this pension issue goes we need to get handle on it ASAP as it will only get worse. Changing it for new hires is certainly something that should be done, it may not help short term but 20 or 30 years from now we'll be glad we did it. Government needs to stop operating like government and start operating like business, a business with a revenue like PA has looks decades into the future.
This budget would be struck down as soon as it was passed, leaving a gigantic deficit impossible to fill without tax increases. There is no way to balance the budget without tax increases here. The concept that there are somehow billions laying around that can just be cost cut is simply fiction- if there were, the assembly would have found it already and they have yet to do so.
I agree, but there is certainly some savings: prisons, legislative perks/waste, etc. Also, there are future savings by shifting future hires into a 401(k)-style retirement plan. And, we should be out of the liquor business. By bending a little on these two items, he should be able to sway the more moderate Republicans.
I agree, but there is certainly some savings: prisons, legislative perks/waste, etc. Also, there are future savings by shifting future hires into a 401(k)-style retirement plan. And, we should be out of the liquor business. By bending a little on these two items, he should be able to sway the more moderate Republicans.
There really aren't. I'm in the DOC and have actually seen the budget- line by line, department by department.
All institutions are at capacity, and all of them are understaffed- Medical in particular has a ridiculous problem with overtime because we do not have enough people to do the job. The only way to get that budget lower than it is, is to let tens of thousands of inmates out en masse- you COULD actually do this by allowing inmates with "life" sentences to qualify for parole in PA (they currently can't- life is life here unlike NY/NJ) but something tells me this isn't something the assembly is going to consider.
Again, the concept that there are hundreds of millions in "waste" that can simply be cut is fiction. Period.
Corbett had 4 years in office with a republican house and senate. If there were any significant savings to be had from cutting state services lower than they already are, it would have been done by now. PA is the 6th largest state in the union, but we're somewhere around 38th in terms of the ratio of state employees to population, and we don't spend anywhere near the money NJ and NY do per employee. Our infrastructure is at or very close to the worst in the country, with roads, bridges, waterways etc in critical need of repair.
I already posted an article that addresses the "future hires" claim. The savings from shifting new hires into a 401K style program is insignificant. That's not my word, that's the word of the actuaries who evaluated the republican budget proposal. Act 120 of 2010 Already adressed this problem. the huge costs are coming from the employees hired before 2011, and because the PA state constitution prohibits unilaterally altering a contract there is nothing you can do about the money owed to those who are already in the system from the pre-2011 agreement. You have to wait for them to age out of the system.
Getting out of the liquor business results in a short term cash influx with lower revenues over the long term. It's primarily an ideological argument, not a fiscal one since the state stores are VERY profitable. However, even the most optimistic estimates for a short term sale does not come anywhere near enough revenue to solve the budget crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPP1999
Right. I have seen clients (ex-teachers) who are collecting pensions of $75k per year from PSERS.
Getting 75K per year out of an investment you've been putting money INTO for 30 years is trivial.
$1,000,000 in an account by retirement would generate 75,000 in interest alone EASILY. 8K a year total (split between employer and employee) would get you there at 7.5%. SERS (I don't have data for PSERS easily at hand) has had an average return of 10.2% from 1986 to present INCLUDING 2008 when the fund took a dive by 29% , and would outperform that amount by a mile.
The issue isnt that the pension payout is somehow excessive, it's that most people don't bother investing in the market for 30 years straight, but state employees don't have a choice in the matter.
Last edited by Burger Fan; 10-08-2015 at 12:31 PM..
Again, the concept that there are hundreds of millions in "waste" that can simply be cut is fiction. Period.
The problem is appearance. If you drive through Tennessee and watch their road crews pave their roads; you will see crews that mill and pave five miles of asphalt in one ten hour work day. If you drive through New Jersey, late at night, you watch very efficient work crews mill and lay asphalt + they get out of the way before rush hour starts.
I have one section of State Route 314 that is only three miles long close to my house. It was shut down three times this year for different lengths of time. Our State closed the road for sewage line work and then closed it again for pavement and then closed it again for more pavement. The last time one mile of it was closed for one month to pave just one lane. Plus there were pothole unfilled two feet from where the new pavement stopped. This is why PA has a long ways to go to demonstrate State worker efficiency. We look like we are incompetent and none of these budgets ever address proficiency (our sacred cow).
Of course the answer to cutting back is always the we have to release criminals - scare the public into opening up their wallets! Nothing like intimidation. The answer is never that we will do more with less.
Last edited by fisheye; 10-08-2015 at 04:46 PM..
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.
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.
Tom Wolf helping the middle class - take more of your money
