  TrainBuffThe New Haven RailroadPremium
join:2003-05-01
Buffalo, NY
kudos:4 | Taxes Either way, we are going to be paying for this through higher taxes. If the state cuts funding for local governments, they already have their budgets in place and counting on state funding, local property taxes will go up. If by chance, school aid is cut, school taxes will go up.
With the economy the way it is, the taxpayers just can't afford more taxes. I can see even more businesses and people leaving the state.
--
Train Yourself To Relax...Ride The New Haven Railroad! Weather or No...Go New Haven!
The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.:1872-1968. Serving New York and the Great Industrial States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. | |
|
 | | | Re: Taxes Either way they figure we got our tax rebate checks they will take advantage of our tax money. | |
|
|  NY TelPremium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3 | New Hampshire is looking better and better every day.....  | |
|
| | | No if schools budgets are cut, you'll end up like Mr Retardenator running California. A 4 billion dollar deficit where he decided the cuts come from education. All that does is increase class sizes, means teacher layoffs, and your children get a worse education. Anyone with common sense know education is the one way to reduce crime and poverty (except politicians). It seems we have AMPLE MONEY to blow everyone up or invade countries, but not enough to fund our cities and schools. Amazing how that works. I guess children are only the future in times of surplus. I hope for NY's sake you don't face cuts at the school level. However, my bets are on that as it's the typical slush fund account. | |
|
| |  halfbandPremium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
 ·Comcast
| Re: Taxes I don't think NY has blown up anyone or invaded any countries, at least not recently, so there is probably not much that can be saved there. But it would be interesting to know what "non-essentials" are getting the most tax dollars from the state.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
| | | | | Re: Taxes You are missing the point. NY suffers from what all other states are going through, a cutback in federal dollars. We've pissed away over 1 trillion in Iraq. Bush and his Republican Congress spent around 5 before the Democrats took office. Strange enough, if one looks at the history since our national debt, it's been those "Fiscally Conservative" Republicans who have basically wracked it up. Unfortunately, the losers are the states needing the money for better things. At this present time, those slush funds are going to fight this B.S. war on terror and whatever other crap this administration can fathom. Basically, NY only has so much money, as does the other 49 states. Therefore, when their federal dollars get cut, they are left with the options they face now. 1) Raise taxes and piss people off 2) Cut needed services and piss people off. Hopefully, there are some redundant programs somewhere so that these cuts will effect few people. | |
|
| | | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Taxes said by jc100:You are missing the point. NY suffers from what all other states are going through, a cutback in federal dollars. What cuts? The federal government has never cut spending in the past 230 years. Every year the federal government spends more than it did in the previous year.
said by jc100:We've pissed away over 1 trillion in Iraq. How does that relate to the fact that NYS has decided to spend $4.6 trillion more than it collects in taxes? The federal government plays no role in how states spend their tax money.
said by jc100: Strange enough, if one looks at the history since our national debt, it's been those "Fiscally Conservative" Republicans who have basically wracked it up. Agreed.
said by jc100:Therefore, when their federal dollars get cut, they are left with the options they face now. 1) Raise taxes and piss people off 2) Cut needed services and piss people off. Since federal dollars never get cut, there is a 3rd option. States should quit finding new ways to spend peoples' money.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| | | | |  amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: Taxes said by pnh102:What cuts? The federal government has never cut spending in the past 230 years. Every year the federal government spends more than it did in the previous year. Some people refer to reduced increases as "cuts". But you already knew that. | |
|
| | | | | | | PNH read this slowly. Your habit of reading and typing don't go hand in hand. Federal money is NOT CUT at the rate it is collected. THE RATE AT WHICH STATED RECEIVE IT GETS CUT. IE right now we're pissing MONEY AWAY in Iraq, 1 trillion to be frank. Therefore, states are GETTING LESS FEDERAL DOLLARS, even though they put in to the pot. Basically, money is going out the door into a general fund, and what they receive back is limited. Therefore, if X programs are funded by these dollars, they are forced to make cutbacks. Essentially, the issue NY is now facing. Understand? | |
|
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Taxes said by jc100:PNH read this slowly. Your habit of reading and typing don't go hand in hand. You ever wonder why so many of your posts end up in the holding queue?
said by jc100:THE RATE AT WHICH STATED RECEIVE IT GETS CUT. Completely wrong. The federal government literally has more money than God, and continues to receive more money each year than it had in the last year. Spending also always increases every year whether the feds have the money or not. And the federal government always finds new ways to spend money. Each state's slice of the federal pie also always increases every year.
This has been true for the past 230 years.
The same is true of most states and local governments. However, they seem more willing to reflexively raise taxes on everyone when they decide to spend more than what they happen to take in during a particular year.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Taxes PNH,
Sigh. You're wrong but hey let's for the sake of it just pretend you're right. You rarely if ever are, but since this will turn into another round robin, I concede. States haven't had funds cut as the Federal Government re-allocates their money. The Federal Government hasn't squandered money in record numbers either overseas. States haven't had to cut programs due to smaller budgets. It's all made up and a figment of our imaginations. Obviously, inflation and rising prices don't factor into the process either. Ten dollars now isn't the same as twenty years ago. But hey, I'm 100 percent wrong. Make you happy? Probably, since the truth and facts aren't in your vocabulary. Therefore, I'll just write what you want to hear. You wouldn't care to google anyway or read what I researched so I won't bother replying again. | |
|
| | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Taxes said by jc100:States haven't had to cut programs due to smaller budgets. It's all made up and a figment of our imaginations. Well let's look at Maryland as an example. When the new governor took office in 2007, the state was actually running a $500 million budget surplus. What does our governor decide to do? He submits a budget that contains nearly $2 billion in new spending and the legislature raises taxes bu $1.3 billion.
Was the new spending really needed? Maryland seemed to be getting along just fine without it. If times are so "tough" then why wasn't a more austere budget proposed instead? Perhaps Maryland could have cut its budget, as you claim many other states have had to do, to deal with the alleged "shortfall."
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Taxes Smiles and Nods over and over in a patronizing manner.... and of course one isolated state and their mismanagement speaks for the other 49, right? If you bothered to read my post, I believe the federal government should only tax 1-2 percent with it ONLY being allowed on defense, trade, and printing money. The rest of the money SHOULD stay within the state and if they mismanage it, tough luck. No one should bail them out. It's their citizens job to elect responsible people and hold bad officials accountable. I don't justify Maryland's bad actions but on the same breath, its only ONE state out of 49. With that said, look at my chart of WHO RECEIVES the MOST federal dollars. RED STATES (Republican) who claim to be the fiscally conservative, with the south being the MAJORITY. Thereby, they pay the least but receive the most!! My point stands, look at places like California and New York and compare their spending to dollars received. It's no wonder they have cutbacks. They get less than a dollar for every one they stick into the pot. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Taxes said by jc100:Smiles and Nods over and over in a patronizing manner.... and of course one isolated state and their mismanagement speaks for the other 49, right? Actually, yes. You can go find for yourself that state spending has increased at a rate opposite freefall in the past 15 years.
said by jc100: If you bothered to read my post ... I did, it was incorrect.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
2 edits | Re: Taxes Whether or not state spending has increased is a different matter. The question you FIRST POSED and now are backtracking on is whether or not states are in financial debt. You offered me ONE ISOLATED example. I then proceeded to explain how your stance is wrong. Now as for increased state spending, um YA, it will be more every year. It's called INFLATION. Prices rise and things go up in price. The same services that once cost x amount now cost Y. So 10 dollars five years ago might take 15 dollars now. It doesn't mean the states are being irresonsible, it just means they have two choices. 1) Make cut backs to afford the same service 2) raise taxes. It's called common sense. | |
|
| | | | | | said by jc100:Strange enough, if one looks at the history since our national debt, it's been those "Fiscally Conservative" Republicans who have basically wracked it up. It isn't really all that strange when you consider that the only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that a Democrat tax and spends whereas a Republican borrows and spends.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Taxes Pretty much summed up in a nutshell. | |
|
garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY | Cut welfare spending NYState is largely in this mess because it has decided to be a Welfare State rather than a Work State. Out of control retirement benefits costs are also breaking the bank.
The high taxes do not attract business investment and are encouraging the export of business and workers (Taxpayers?) to low cost states such as Texas.
Sadly NYState knows this but has decided it is easier tax the hell out of those who choose to remain. Tax them until the ship sinks.
One's only way out is to leave the state before they tax your pants off you! | |
|
| | | Re: Cut welfare spending Contrary to the southern states who then take money from the Northern one's and fund said entities from our pockets? I say to hell with federal taxes and let states handle their own. Federal taxes should be a minimal amount that can be only used for defense and NOTHING ELSE. States should be left with funding their OWN:
1) ROADS
2) SCHOOLS
3) EMERGENCY PERSONNEL
4) Hospitals
IE let states levy a fair tax and use the money accordingly. This way, no one has anyone else to blame when things go belly up. Read above to why NY and others are in this mess. Its simply because t hose federal dollars they typically receive go ELSEWHERE. A large portion of those federal dollars collected from the NORTH (HIGHEST PAYING STATES), go back to the SOUTH (LEAST PAYING STATES). Couple with with the massive trillions being pissed overseas and on pet projects (5 Trillion alone under Bush), and one can see why states are cringing. If it isn't obvious to you, then maybe you need to study a little economic and politics. | |
|
| | amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Cut welfare spending said by jc100:Contrary to the southern states who then take money from the Northern one's and fund said entities from our pockets? You have been spewing quite a bit of unsubstantiated BS above. For one, please explain how southern states are taking money from northern ones.
Property taxes are the primary source of funding for public schools. "Mr. Retardenator" as you obnoxiously referred to him has no control over the local tax burden. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: Cut welfare spending I posted a reply. Ill repost if it doesnt appear, not sure if it hit the moderated que. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Well apparently I didn't hit enter and it had nothing to do with moderating... Anyhow, some of us RESEARCH and spit the truth. The only crap flowing right now is from you who seems to be making unfounded allegations. Take a gander at this map. You'll so kindly notice that a LARGE MAJORITY of states receiving more than they pay are in the south. Furthermore, MOST are Republican states who advocate for "less government" HAH.. Funny.. Yes, there are SOME EXCEPTIONS. However, it's pretty much a 2:1 ratio for South to North though. I don't count better lobbyists as a huge windfall. Basically, the North gets stuck floating the freeloaders down south. If it were up to me you all would have to pay your own bills. Basically put:
Money would state within the state ALONE. Federal dollars would be a 1-2 percent tax that would ONLY be allowed for Defense issues and Facilitating Trade. Therefore, the majority of taxes collected STAY within the state and ONLY within the state. As a result, if that state screws its budget, there is no one to blame but the person /people in charge. Citizens then can hold him / her / them accountable. This way, dollars don't go to those who do not deserve.
See here:
»taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog···eed.html
»www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html | |
|
| | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA | Re: Cut welfare spending Your charts, aside from being outdated, are also virtually irrelevant. Those "freeloader" states as you put it have tiny populations. Tiny Massachusetts has over double the population of New Mexico. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Cut welfare spending They are a few years old, granted. However, resources when citing are relevant for up to 6 years as I was taught. While this might not be the MOST UP TO DATE, it is only 3.5 years old. Let's assume some has been adjusted, I bet it isn't that significant. Second, What the heck are you talking about? Population is insignificant. Money SHOULD BE GIVEN based upon need. Smaller populations NEED LESS MONEY. RIGHT? Therefore, that argument goes by the wayside. A matter of fact, you just brought up a good point. Why are places with less people DEMANDING more money that more heavily populated states? Seems a bit odd to me. While it might cost a drop more to service rural communities, I HIGHLY doubt it costs nearly double. Therefore, try again. It's quite clear Red states are the WORST offenders here with the SOUTH being the majority of the crooks. | |
|
| | | | | | amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Cut welfare spending said by jc100:Population is insignificant. Money SHOULD BE GIVEN based upon need. Smaller populations NEED LESS MONEY. RIGHT? I hope your obvious wish that my country become socialist/communist doesn't ever happen. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Cut welfare spending Actually am, that has NOTHING to do with socialism. If anything, that is the antithesis of it. More or less I believe money states collect should stay WITHIN the state ONLY. Meaning, why the hell are these small western states receiving SUCH HUGE SUMS of money from everyone else? That' IS SOCIALISM BUDDY. We are SOCIALIZING these states by giving them more taxes than everyone else. Better yet, OUR DOLLARS are directly funding ANOTHER STATES programs. My idea is each state uses WHAT IT TAKES IN. NO MORE NO LESS. By the way, since you hate socialism so much, DON'T send your kids to school. Tax payers SOCIALIZE that cost as t he state receives federal dollars currently. DON'T use hospitals (public). They receive federal dollars. DON'T EVER CALL 911, The Police, Firefighters, etc. They receive federal dollars. Best of all, DON'T drive on highways. They were paid for by federal dollars too. So I guess since you hate socialism you can pay AL LA CARTE for each service. Next time you need a doctor, ask the going rate for one to come to your house (pending one will). Build your own roads. Teach your own kids... Etc etc | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by jc100:Contrary to the southern states who then take money from the Northern one's and fund said entities from our pockets? I say to hell with federal taxes and let states handle their own. What do you say to states like NJ and NY who want the federal government to spend more on SCHIP so that 26 year old "children" in families making up to $82k a year can get taxpayer-provided health insurance? Isn't this unfair to the other states?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
jefny
join:2005-11-05
Manhasset, NY | NYS cutbacks As a native New Yorker we are taxed to death by what is probably the worst legislature in the country (as per an NYU study).
We have the highest taxes in the country but we sure don't get any bang for our bucks. The legislature is beholden to too many special interests including the health care industry (Medicare and Medicaid are out of control) and the teacher's unions where money is simply thrown at education with little follow up to determine how well it is spent.
We are in the middle of a serious school scandal on Long Island where lawyers are being both paid as consultants while being on the payroll and becoming eligible for retirement pensions. At least 5 schools are involved and the final tally is probably more. Our local superintendent is paid a quarter of a million dollars to supervise 4 schools and Long Island is also the home of the Roslyn school district where the superintendent ripped off the district for millions of dollars.
The huge deficit of $4.2 billion was predicted at least a year ago but our feckless state legislature up to now has done nothing.
John | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | useless And what was this broadband plan supposed to do? Pay for female lobbyists to sleep with Time Warner and Verizon execs? | |
|
|
|
