Phoenix's budget plan: tax more & spend more (school, prices)
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'm moving to Az. and as someone who has lived in tax hell for entire life, I feel I should jump in here. The truth is balance, and restraint is the name of the game.
When your city or town begins using Government as its stimulus for growth, and then begins hiring, just for the sake of hiring, using high salaries, and bloated pensions, basically purchasing "guaranteed votes" for eternity... that city or town is heading in a dangerous path. These city workers then unionize, and union leaders then infiltrate local Government, making the laws, causing terribly inflated home prices with high yearly property taxes. The Government sector then grows into a loud rebellious beast that needs to be continually fed. They need to feed their continually growing pension obligation. Welcome to the North Eastern part of the Country. (tax hell)
On the flip side of the coin, Government can't be so weak and ineffective that organization, and laws are ignored. There should be enough Government that infrastructure, public safety, and education are it's main concerns. Not social engineering. It's local Governments responsibility is to give it's citizens a solid canvas to paint on, and develop their own economy. Not paint in "competition" with it's citizens.
You don't want Arizona to turn into California, or many other North Eastern Cities. Local Government should be lean, efficient, honest, and muscular... nothing more.
City's need to get rid of their employee unions so people who work there have to perform to keep their job. Government unions cost tax payers money creates a system where you just can't get rid of poor performing employees. You can have someone who does a minimal job performance but he keeps getting raises because raises are not based on job performance. Private sectors have long gotten rid of their old style retirement programs where employee hangs around long enough even if he does a poor job ends up with 50% of his salary for life. These retirement programs end up costing tax payers lot of money when they end up being underfunded.
Good points. Not only have many private sector firms eliminated their antiquated retirement plans, many have axed bonuses (except for the high management positions). Many government jobs still operate as if it's still 1955: a fairly substantial union membership, lavish pension plans, and pretty much a secured job for life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosco917
When your city or town begins using Government as its stimulus for growth, and then begins hiring, just for the sake of hiring, using high salaries, and bloated pensions, basically purchasing "guaranteed votes" for eternity... that city or town is heading in a dangerous path. These city workers then unionize, and union leaders then infiltrate local Government, making the laws, causing terribly inflated home prices with high yearly property taxes. The Government sector then grows into a loud rebellious beast that needs to be continually fed. They need to feed their continually growing pension obligation. Welcome to the North Eastern part of the Country. (tax hell)
You're correct ... however, many large cities are this way, not just the ones in the NE. The cost for Phoenix police & firefighter pensions alone increased by $6 million this year, bringing the total cost to $143 million. That's absolutely ridiculous! 401K plans are less expensive than pension benefit plans, and many private sector employers have gone this route. They can also be more beneficial to employees, depending largely on the percentage of the contributions and choice of investments on the employees' part. There's no reason why government agencies couldn't hop on board the 401K train. Why should a government job have so many cushy benefits on the backs of taxpayers?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosco917
On the flip side of the coin, Government can't be so weak and ineffective that organization, and laws are ignored. There should be enough Government that infrastructure, public safety, and education are it's main concerns. Not social engineering. It's local Governments responsibility is to give it's citizens a solid canvas to paint on, and develop their own economy. Not paint in "competition" with it's citizens.
You don't want Arizona to turn into California, or many other North Eastern Cities. Local Government should be lean, efficient, honest, and muscular... nothing more.
I agree, except education should not be part of government. Not everybody has kids in school, so it doesn't benefit everybody, and therefore should be turned over to the private sector. Education is also an enormous expense (one of the greatest expenditures) which taxpayers are forced to subsidize. As for government being lean, efficient, honest, and muscular: I'd have to say it's pretty muscular at this point ... however, lean, efficient, and honest, it is anything but.
Last edited by Valley Native; 04-11-2016 at 02:31 AM..
I seemed to have missed your reasons for moving from Minnesota to Arizona. It seems to me that a person who is so attached to the political system of Minnesota (I was raised there.) would want to remain and continue to contribute to it's success.
A significant number of relatives and friends that are still living in the Twin Cities are looking to bail out of Minnesota.
It's not Lake Wobegon any longer where “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.” but you apparently noticed that.
BTW - I'm also an electrical engineer. Educated in parochial schools paid for by parents of modest means and I EARNED my education paid by the GI BILL and working weekends.
As a recent immigrant from MN and more lately from that "economic powerhouse" called Southern California, I am proud to have adopted Arizona as my new home. Some minor tweaking might be in order but for the most part, I like it the way it is.
You appear to be unhappy with Arizona. I hope you haven't sold your show shovel.
You inaccurately read my rant. I am unhappy when I hear people without kids talk about how unfair it is that they have to pay. It's not that they don't have some valid points (they do) but rather they are short sighted.
To the other post talking about my liberal leanings. To date, I have never voted for a democrat in my life so I am not exactly liberal. If Trump is on the ballot with an R next to his name, I will be voting for Bill (I mean Hillary).
You inaccurately read my rant. I am unhappy when I hear people without kids talk about how unfair it is that they have to pay. It's not that they don't have some valid points (they do) but rather they are short sighted.
To the other post talking about my liberal leanings. To date, I have never voted for a democrat in my life so I am not exactly liberal. If Trump is on the ballot with an R next to his name, I will be voting for Bill (I mean Hillary).
Very well-written.
Being staunchly opposed to public education isn't moderate or mainstream conservative, it's right-wing or extreme libertarian.
Thomas Jefferson once said it's imperative that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens, so this was very forward-thinking on his part for the United States to be an educated society and the envy of the world, not a third-world backwater.
I am unhappy when I hear people without kids talk about how unfair it is that they have to pay. It's not that they don't have some valid points (they do) but rather they are short sighted.
It's unfair because childless people have made the choice to not procreate, and therefore shouldn't be burdened with the cost of raising/educating everybody else's offspring. Those with children made the choice to procreate, so the cost burden should fall entirely on them. Should I expect taxpayers to subsidize my dog's obedience school, his food, or his vaccinations? Absolutely not. I made the choice to have a pet, so the financial responsibility entirely falls on me. It's really a very simple concept: you have it, you pay for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Java Jolt
Being staunchly opposed to public education isn't moderate or mainstream conservative, it's right-wing or extreme libertarian.
On the other hand, being a staunch advocate for continuous spending on public education, and expecting the public to subsidize personal lifestyle choices is left wing & socialist, and one baby step away from Communism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Java Jolt
Thomas Jefferson once said it's imperative that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens, so this was very forward-thinking on his part for the United States to be an educated society and the envy of the world, not a third-world backwater.
I'm aware of what Jefferson said ... however, he didn't actually say that the public should fund it. You also might be aware that education was not included in the Bill of Rights. I think we all can agree that education is important, and it should be available to all citizens, but the difference in viewpoints is: who pays for it? I believe it should be the parents, not the government.
It's unfair because childless people have made the choice to not procreate, and therefore shouldn't be burdened with the cost of raising/educating everybody else's offspring. Those with children made the choice to procreate, so the cost burden should fall entirely on them. Should I expect taxpayers to subsidize my dog's obedience school, his food, or his vaccinations? Absolutely not. I made the choice to have a pet, so the financial responsibility entirely falls on me. It's really a very simple concept: you have it, you pay for it!
On the other hand, being a staunch advocate for continuous spending on public education, and expecting the public to subsidize personal lifestyle choices is left wing & socialist, and one baby step away from Communism.
I'm aware of what Jefferson said ... however, he didn't actually say that the public should fund it. You also might be aware that education was not included in the Bill of Rights. I think we all can agree that education is important, and it should be available to all citizens, but the difference in viewpoints is: who pays for it? I believe it should be the parents, not the government.
You inaccurately read my rant. I am unhappy when I hear people without kids talk about how unfair it is that they have to pay. It's not that they don't have some valid points (they do) but rather they are short sighted.
To the other post talking about my liberal leanings. To date, I have never voted for a democrat in my life so I am not exactly liberal. If Trump is on the ballot with an R next to his name, I will be voting for Bill (I mean Hillary).
1- I'm not against public funding of education. I am against the way it is currently distributed.
Well - you didn't exactly misspeak. It's what you didn't say.
The Democrats merged with DFL in 1944. (Democratic-Farm-Labor Party)The democrats are DFL in Minnesota. There is no Democratic party in MINN.
So - technically - You didn't vote for a democrat. I noticed that you didn't say you voted straight Republican. /sarc
I was raised in Minn.and my whole family is active in DFL. Some were delegates in prior elections. One was even elected to public office. DFL - of course.
OOPS
Phoenix also "has" some Fortune 500/1000 companies which, as I've said before, aren't technically Arizona companies because they're registered in Delaware, which, again, is like an offshore account for many corporations who want to dodge taxes. They filter money to Delaware, cheat Arizona out of taxes, and keep the profits. But they still deserve more tax cuts?
You might want to learn more about why most corporations register in Delaware. It certainly isn't for their 8.7% corporate tax rate (Arizona's is 4.54%) or tax dodging purposes. It's because Delaware has very established and stable laws with regard to incorporation and the most experienced court in the country (Delaware Court of Chancery) when issues around them arise.
Back on topic... Being someone who migrated here from a high tax, high COL state, Arizona is a great place to be. Is it perfect? No. There are definite areas that could and should be improved that would really make Phoenix more desirable. But do we really want to be more like California? Sure, they have a bunch of high tech industries and millions of high income earners. But the income disparity is appalling. You pretty much only have people that are just holding on and multi-millionaires and billionaires. There is basically no middle class left in the state. Middle class families are migrating to CO, TX, and here because they can't afford housing in safe areas with decent schools. I'm shocked that those who claim to be for the middle and working classes seem to want to emulate this model elsewhere in the country. My wife works in an industry that has a large presence in CA. I'm sure she'd have no problems getting a job there making a bunch more. But there's no way I'd want to sacrifice and scrimp to live there. No place is worth that to me anymore. You can live a good life here on a middle class income. Home ownership is attainable for almost everyone. Property taxes are low. It's a good deal all around.
Back on topic... Being someone who migrated here from a high tax, high COL state, Arizona is a great place to be. Is it perfect? No. There are definite areas that could and should be improved that would really make Phoenix more desirable. But do we really want to be more like California? Sure, they have a bunch of high tech industries and millions of high income earners. But the income disparity is appalling. You pretty much only have people that are just holding on and multi-millionaires and billionaires. There is basically no middle class left in the state. Middle class families are migrating to CO, TX, and here because they can't afford housing in safe areas with decent schools. I'm shocked that those who claim to be for the middle and working classes seem to want to emulate this model elsewhere in the country. My wife works in an industry that has a large presence in CA. I'm sure she'd have no problems getting a job there making a bunch more. But there's no way I'd want to sacrifice and scrimp to live there. No place is worth that to me anymore. You can live a good life here on a middle class income. Home ownership is attainable for almost everyone. Property taxes are low. It's a good deal all around.
This is dead on and thanks for articulating the truth surrounding California. I grew up in the San Fernando Valley in the 70s and 80s and it has become a figment of my imagination. My folks started their successful consulting business in 1976 and it would be almost impossible to achieve the same success in the current California environment. I definitely do not want the California model to be emulated in AZ. However, I believe there is a current that is pushing the big government agenda in AZ.
This is dead on and thanks for articulating the truth surrounding California. I grew up in the San Fernando Valley in the 70s and 80s and it has become a figment of my imagination. My folks started their successful consulting business in 1976 and it would be almost impossible to achieve the same success in the current California environment. I definitely do not want the California model to be emulated in AZ. However, I believe there is a current that is pushing the big government agenda in AZ.
It's all about checks and balances, most people including me don't want Phoenix to be like California in the sense of prices being out of reach for the average person.
On the other hand there seems to be a little too much of a staunch conservative and libertarian sentiment here that results in Arizona being near the bottom in school funding, making us the laughingstock of the nation in that regard.
The resistance to bigger government is understandable but the legislature often takes this resistance too far when they cut and slash basic funding for education and healthcare down to the bare bones.
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 am unhappy when I hear people without kids talk about how unfair it is that they have to pay. It's not that they don't have some valid points (they do) but rather they are short sighted. 
