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.
On that note, there's a question the anti-tax crowd can never seem to answer: why is it at a time that higher-ups have seen explosive growth in their own salaries and average workers have seen anemic growth, the answer is lower taxes? It seems to me the former will just line their own pockets more.
Well, it's obvious that higher taxes will be a strain on everybody: wealthy, middle, and poor. It's always baffled me how lower income people often support the more liberal politicians who are known to be in favor of higher taxes ... but the higher taxes are a further hardship on their budgets. Lower taxes tend to create higher spending & savings rates, both of which are good for the economy. People have more money in their pockets when taxes are reduced ... and if that translates to lining their own pockets more, more power to them. In reality, the wealthy business owners have more money to invest in their businesses, and the middle class & poor have more money to either save or spend on whatever they wish. All in all, lower tax burdens are beneficial to everyone except big government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvxhd
And I agree with you on what Phoenix needs to do, but it's going to need to work with the state or put pressure on it to start making changes, because what happens in the legislature is akin to Bible Belt states in that it doesn't have its priorities straight. I personally think the latest Census data has shown that Arizona may be about to lose its luster as Texas cities start to bypass Phoenix in population and likely economy. Also as I pointed out in another thread, historically it means that city will gradually get left behind while other cities excel.
Agree with the state Legislature perspective and their warped priorities. A good example of that is their recent abortion bills ... and that's an issue, which as far as I'm concerned, has no business in government or politics. But there again, the voters are to blame for putting these idiots in office who seem to be more concerned about what goes on in somebody's bedroom or doctor's office than real pressing matters. There's a big difference between being fiscally conservative and socially conservative. Fiscal conservatism is associated with prudency & responsibility, but social conservatism is often associated with meddling into private matters in the name of religion or "morality".
It's funny you bring up Texas being more desirable than Arizona regarding the economy because TX as a whole is more conservative than AZ. They have no state income tax, which is a big attraction for both residents and businesses. They also have a great deal of industry, and this is something which Arizona (specifically the Phoenix area) needs to have more of. We can't continue to plod along on ideas which might have worked 40+ years ago (climate, retirement, and seasonal tourism). If we don't become more competitive on a national & global scale, and attract the motivated & the highly skilled, we are going to lose out.
Location: The edge of the world and all of Western civilization
984 posts, read 1,194,739 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Well, it's obvious that higher taxes will be a strain on everybody: wealthy, middle, and poor. It's always baffled me how lower income people often support the more liberal politicians who are known to be in favor of higher taxes ... but the higher taxes are a further hardship on their budgets. Lower taxes tend to create higher spending & savings rates, both of which are good for the economy. People have more money in their pockets when taxes are reduced ... and if that translates to lining their own pockets more, more power to them. In reality, the wealthy business owners have more money to invest in their businesses, and the middle class & poor have more money to either save or spend on whatever they wish. All in all, lower tax burdens are beneficial to everyone except big government.
I was referring to corporate taxes. Let's say Arizona does something to save Company X $1 million per year just in state taxes. Assuming they have 100 employees and pay them about $30,000 per year, this means they could hire just over 30 more people. But... if fewer people are willing to do a wider variety of tasks and they can accomplish their goals with fewer employees, then that money won't be spent on hiring new people and doesn't really bring jobs to the state. Now Company X has 100 people, the CEO earns $1 million more per year, and nothing beneficial to the state was accomplished. $1 million is great, but investing it to make more money is even better! That extra money (along with whatever he's already making and investing) isn't all going to be spent in state. Quite in fact, investment opportunities all over the country and all over the world will probably get a chunk of that money. This Phoenix-based CEO is now investing in a real estate deal in California, a revolutionary start-up in New York, a third-party firm in China, and a luxury hotel in Dubai. How exactly is Arizona reaping the benefits? If you start lowering taxes, you need to figure out which services you're ready to either lose altogether or at least let sharply drop in quality. Education? Where you stand on the issue doesn't matter, lower quality here will certainly keep companies from moving in and will affect a family's decision to relocate here. Roads? Those well-maintained roads people love to boast about do require attention and maintenance, and eventually you'll be spending even more money on fixing your vehicle when the conditions deteriorate. Parks and recreation? Kiss hiking, hunting and boating goodbye as cities/the state close down recreation areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Agree with the state Legislature perspective and their warped priorities. A good example of that is their recent abortion bills ... and that's an issue, which as far as I'm concerned, has no business in government or politics. But there again, the voters are to blame for putting these idiots in office who seem to be more concerned about what goes on in somebody's bedroom or doctor's office than real pressing matters. There's a big difference between being fiscally conservative and socially conservative. Fiscal conservatism is associated with prudency & responsibility, but social conservatism is often associated with meddling into private matters in the name of religion or "morality".
I think it's worth repeating, as I've stated before: conservatives are at their most creative when it comes to finding legal loopholes to practically make federal laws illegal, should they disagree with them. I'm with you in that abortion shouldn't be an issue at all. It was decided in the 70s, but they can't let it go. Most people I've met in this state really don't seem to care what goes on in people's private lives, yet somehow they're voting in politicians that seem to think that's what their constituents want. The same people scream and cry patriotic buzzwords like "freedom", "liberty" and all that nonsense, but just love taking away the liberties of others while still wanting more for themselves. Unless the Republican Party leaves the religious right behind, it's never going to accomplish its "small government" claims, because it often supports the most invasive laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
It's funny you bring up Texas being more desirable than Arizona regarding the economy because TX as a whole is more conservative than AZ. They have no state income tax, which is a big attraction for both residents and businesses. They also have a great deal of industry, and this is something which Arizona (specifically the Phoenix area) needs to have more of. We can't continue to plod along on ideas which might have worked 40+ years ago (climate, retirement, and seasonal tourism). If we don't become more competitive on a national & global scale, and attract the motivated & the highly skilled, we are going to lose out.
I don't think it's funny. I have family in Texas and I get to hear about those hidden costs. Texas isn't doing just fine without taxes; it just slips them in elsewhere, such as high property taxes. And while Texas as a whole may be more conservative than Arizona, it has cities that are much more liberal than Phoenix... and strangely, those are the ones experiencing explosive growth. While Phoenix isn't faltering just yet, it has got to stop sleepwalking through this before trends change and the city struggles while focus is on other up-and-coming cities. In Texas there seems to be more pride about the state than there is in Arizona, probably because they have a greater percentage of their population actually born there. Maybe that helps them because they elect leaders who actually try to make the state successful, whereas generally elects incompetent losers who have little to no interest in making this state better. Fixating on more socially conservative issues and loosening gun restrictions even further aren't going to improve this state.
I have taken responsibility by not having children, but the system is seriously unbalanced in my disfavor because I'm still stuck with paying taxes to support everyone else's reproductive habits, and abiding by the fair housing laws which make it illegal to discriminate against families with children. For somebody who absolutely doesn't want to be around children, the only real option is to live in the Sun Cities, which were grandfathered (no pun intended) when the fair housing laws were passed.
You have taken "responsibility for not having children"? I wholeheartedly agree that many people should not have kids (because they are unstable or inept). Do you fall in one of these camps?
As a reminder, an educated population increases the standard of living for an entire society. My son is off to medical school and my daughter is in AZ for dental school. I grew up poor and FAFSA helped pay for my college education too. So my sucess as an electrical engineer only happened because society helped pay. I've paid that back over and over again in taxes. Part of my kids sucess was because of the exceptional K-12 system as well as the caliber of their (gasp) subsidized state college. They will quickly be paying back their debt to society and then some too. If I ever hear them b_tching like you, I'll remind them how lucky they are. Their K-12 and even their UG degree were 'subsidized" by their state (in this case MN) as well as the federal government (son is at one of the main 3 military academies). Even if you don't personally have children, by definition, you personally benefit greatly from having an educated population. You are blind if you cannot see the benefit. For that matter, I have never stepped foot in a library in over 30 years. Yet for those who need a library, their presence adds to their brainpower. Even if your house personally never starts on fire, the firefighters may contain the blaze so it doesn't spread. That's the concept. Is it perfect? No, not even close.
Yes, I still pay property taxes where a significant portion of those collected funds go to schools. In fact I pay for 2 homes which gives me the right to complain but I refuse to. Because I know well funded schools (most AZ K-12 in NOT well funded) help make a better society even though they no longer directly benefit me. We agree that too many students don't try and they waste precious resources! That drives me nuts. So families who don't lecture the importance of taking advantages of education are to blame. The most expensive public schools in the country are always the ones with the most problems. They spend 3X the money with dismal results. So it's pretty easy to prove with statistics how more money means no benefit. If you take out the problem areas where more money simply means better babysitting (that is basically the function of those problem areas), then more $$'s == better caliber teachers, better funded accelerated programs, lower class size, etc etc. But that would require someone understanding the concept of outliers and bimodal distribution. OF COURSE when you spend more $$'s responsibly on kids that are motivated you will get a better product. But if you want me to "prove" more money gets no better results, allow me to toss in the districts that spend $15K-$25K per year. Those outliers will show THE worst performance. With a little time and statistical manipulation, I can "prove" that spending more money actually hurts. These are known as statistical lies and after a while, people who are research-challenged parrot these "studies".
If you don't want 1st world problems like taxes that funds schools, then go to a place like Mexico where people with money get to keep it and therefore have a poorly fund education for the masses. The guys with the $$'s of course have fine private schools. The Mexican tax system is set-up for you to keep your money (minus the massive corruption of course). The result: societies who take on your suggested model have a lot of poorly educated people that drags down the society as a whole. I guess the good news for those with money in Mexico (for example) is that you have a lot of trapped people that work for cheap!
So in my world of becoming more "fair", I'd overturn those cheap b_astard Sun City communities where they dodge their obligation. Then your taxes can be reduced some because right now, they are not contributing. If it angers you how wasteful society is because you spend a lot of money on education and too many families are p_ssing away the opportunity, then we agree! Is their waste in the system? OF COURSE! That is part of the problem. But I'm not going to vote to overturn your obligation to society of educating students.
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 03-28-2016 at 06:59 AM..
Thank you for a reasonable post MN. I appreciate your concern for society as a whole.
The number one thing that correlates with student test scores more than anything else is parent income. I think two-parent households are another important factor, but statistically that kind of gets tangled up with parental income since two working parents will of course have a higher income as well.
City Manager Ed Zuercher is claiming that an increase in property taxes would amount to the cost of a cup of coffee (roughly $4.25 per month or $51 per year). It's not so much the monetary figures as much as it is the principle of the matter.
First of all, the city is reported to have a budget surplus, so there is no need to ask for more money with that statistic alone. Second, Phoenix voters approved a tax hike late last year to extend light rail and mass transit, so the city already has gotten more money from us. Third, Zuercher is basically saying that we would have great services from enthusiastic employees, and even "some new things and some important things that people have said we really need to have". What this translates to is: higher pay raises for city employees! This comes at a time when the majority of private sector workers barely see a 1% pay raise in their annual salaries (if they even get increases at all).
I'm hoping this measure will be defeated, but then they'll usually find other ways of getting more money out of us because they have before in the form of food taxes, higher sales taxes, and higher water bill rates. These are items that Zuercher cited as well, so admittedly, I agree with him on that.
Same old tired lines. It is so sad that there are people here who just expect free stuff. You don't get nice things without having to pay for them. You do realize that Prop 104 money is for transportation improvements, right? It's the anti-tax crowd who are always mindlessly yelling about tax revenues not going toward their originally intended purpose. So why do you now expect the city to spend future revenue from 104 money on non transportation related items?
Regardless of whether the city is in a surplus or not, there is still a need for a cushion. It also doesn't mean the current surplus is enough to cover future expenses. Our lovely governor touting Arizona's supposed surplus while the state STILL hasn't followed a federal court order to provide schools with a certain level of funding is a prime example. We're cut so lean in this state that we're actually breaking the law.
Why you feel city workers who have probably not seen a pay raise in years should be denied a raise is a mystery to me. It's a shame that you don't mention corporate big wigs giving themselves huge pay raises each year, while that lovely "trickle down" theory continues to be proven wrong. They laugh as people at the bottom (middle class workers) fight over the scraps they leave behind. These are hardworking people who have to keep up with the cost of living like everyone else. Locking people in to the same salary year after year creates a hardship on those workers. The city then begins losing the hardest and most qualified workers to places that do offer adequate pay raises, leaving behind only the most incompetent. I don't know about you, but I don't want a bunch of unqualified police officers and firefighters running around like Howdy Doody. This is a growing city that is trying to sustain and raise its reputation on a national scale. We don't need to retain this image of Arizona being full of a bunch of unprofessional yokels.
As anti-tax as Arizona is, it certainly leans on the federal government for A LOT. The money comes from somewhere. You seem fine with taxpayers from other states subsidizing some of the luxuries we have here in Arizona, but want to whine when you're told that it's time we now cover our own expenses. Suck it up. If you don't want to pay for nice things that a large city requires, maybe a move to some small anti-tax hole is in order.
I will be voting against tax increases. Phoenix should learn a lesson from the big neighbor to the west----high taxes will make things cost more.
Phoenix is always 1 of the fastest-growing cities because it's affordable. Most California cities now have very slow growth because of how high-priced it is over there.
That's a big reason we moved out of California.
Why you feel city workers who have probably not seen a pay raise in years should be denied a raise is a mystery to me. It's a shame that you don't mention corporate big wigs giving themselves huge pay raises each year, while that lovely "trickle down" theory continues to be proven wrong. They laugh as people at the bottom (middle class workers) fight over the scraps they leave behind. These are hardworking people who have to keep up with the cost of living like everyone else. Locking people in to the same salary year after year creates a hardship on those workers. The city then begins losing the hardest and most qualified workers to places that do offer adequate pay raises, leaving behind only the most incompetent..
What I think a lot of people may not realize about city employment is that when a person reaches the last "Pay Step" for your job position, that's it.....NO more raises unless the city adds a "cost-of-living increase". (Which hasn't been done for several years)
So it's ONLY the newer city employees who are getting raises, those of us who have been there for awhile have only gotten pay cuts.
The bottom line is: a tax base is necessary to maintain the basic needs of a city, such as transportation, police, etc. This doesn't mean it's necessary to raise taxes as a "cushion", especially when we've seen evidence many times how that "cushion" is meaningless ... such as when it's raided by politicians & bureaucrats for their own special interests, or to fix a budget shortfall thanks to their own incompetence. After a period of time, the "cushion" or "rainy day fund" is often non existent.
I often cite ADOT as a prime example of when more tax money is given to a government agency to perform a certain duty within a reasonable period of time and within a particular budget constraint. In 1985, voters approved the creation of a half cent tax to pay for a mass freeway system: 231 miles all together. In reality, only about half of those 231 miles have actually been completed. Along the way, ADOT & MAG made all kinds of excuses, such as rising construction costs, right of way costs, and even the weather, as reasons why freeways weren't completed as promised, and why some were scrapped. In 2004, voters once again approved an extension of the tax to build some of the freeways that were left out of the 1985 plan, as well as additional ones. As of 2016, how many of those have actually been completed? Very few.
Having the government decide what's best for us with our money is the same as socialism. All I'm going to say about schools at this point is that they don't benefit everybody ... only a certain segment of the population (those with school aged children). It shouldn't be everybody's obligation to subsidize something which essentially amounts to a personal choice. Nobody forced anybody to have kids: it's not a mandatory part of life. Children contribute nothing to society except being born. But since education is a huge part of a child's upbringing, that's where the financial responsibility should fall solely on the parents. The amount of money we spend as a society on public schools is astonishing, and anybody who believes we don't spend enough is seriously mistaken.
Wow, didn't realize taxes for schools was controversial until my time in Az. On a side note, I am interested to see how California's 15 p/h wage law plans out. I think the states should be doing the "bake offs" to see what can work nationally. The Az model is based almost entirely on climate and low taxes. Change the weather and it is Kansas
The 15/hour thing is just making California more California. It's always been a tough place to make a living and this will just make it harder for entry-level folks to get a job, although in theory they will be much better off if they can get one. Unemployment will go up, but those who do have jobs, will in theory be receiving less government support than they do currently. Examples being the workers in Seattle who asked their bosses for hours cuts to make less money and keep their subsidized housing, etc.
I guess in some sense it will spur increased automation and productivity gains, which may be the wave of the future, anyway. I think it may go over okay in the big cities, where it's common for entry level workers to make more than minimum wage already, but I think it will be most deleterious economically in the more rural parts of the state, where all of a sudden everyone working at a gas station or fast-food place in Blythe or Delano or where have you, is making much more money than the market would bear on its own. And those are the places where the increased unemployment will have the most negative effects, unfortunately. It's worth noting that New York state stepped down its wage increases significantly for upstate NY, where the cost of living is lower...there, they are currently only slated to eventually get up to 12.50, not 15. That at least is some modicum of reason because, again, in lower cost of living areas, it doesn't make sense to pay an entry level worker 15/hr.
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.
I wholeheartedly agree that many people should not have kids (because they are unstable or inept). Do you fall in one of these camps? 
