Local governments weigh major tax hikes to plug coronavirus-induced shortfalls

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Property tax rates in Nashville, Tenn., will be increasing by 34 percent in what Mayor John Cooper described as a “painful but necessary” move that will raise money for the city, which has taken a hit during the pandemic.

This November, Californians will vote on whether to strip decades-old protections from commercial and industrial properties.

 

Monello

Smarter than the average bear
PREMO Member
My mom's town in NJ sent a letter out last week notifying them of additional taxes because of the virus.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
So the restaurant you worked at, the job you had before the virus ,but got laid off of, is not paying you, but you are supposed to have money to pay more taxes.

Good plan.
 

PrchJrkr

Long Haired Country Boy
Ad Free Experience
Patron
So the restaurant you worked at, the job you had before the virus ,but got laid off of, is not paying you, but you are supposed to have money to pay more taxes.

Good plan.
Unemployment paying what it is, they are the ones that got the clean end of the stick. It's folks like me that continued to work part time throughout the pandemic that will be unequally punished for it.
 

DaSDGuy

Well-Known Member
I have a crazy plan that I've had to follow myself in the past. Here goes:

When revenue (income) goes down, reduce spending to not exceed revenue (income).

Crazy, right?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
But the libraries are closed, just like the schools.


it was a tongue in cheek dissertation on Dems

whenever local budgets need cutting, it is always Libraries, Police / Fire / EMS and Teachers

THEY Never take a pay cut
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I have a crazy plan that I've had to follow myself in the past. Here goes:

When revenue (income) goes down, reduce spending to not exceed revenue (income).

Crazy, right?

Having been unemployed for extended periods of time, here goes - what happens when spending cannot be reduced - but income is at or near zero?

Not going to quibble over examples where "yes you can" eliminate costs - some things you really can't, like loans. You have to pay them.
Some things you cannot - practically - not pay, like food and shelter. Some things you can't avoid, like caring for children.

Same goes for a business or government - there exists a minimum you must meet. It may well be you have overextended yourself and were unprepared for adversity. Sadly, I don't know of anything resembling "savings" in government.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Same goes for a business or government - there exists a minimum you must meet. It may well be you have overextended yourself and were unprepared for adversity. Sadly, I don't know of anything resembling "savings" in government.

They could begin by cutting congress salaries and ridiculous staffing level costs. Say 75%

Pay them for Jan-April only and then they have to go home and work for a living like everyone else.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
They could begin by cutting congress salaries and ridiculous staffing level costs. Say 75%

Pay them for Jan-April only and then they have to go home and work for a living like everyone else.

Ok, now are we talking federal, local, county, city, state government?

One expense that needs to be dealt with, and it may take a huge move - the House cannot take a vote from a member without them PHYSICALLY PRESENT. No phoning it in from the West Coast - or Texas - or Florida. They have to be there. Virtually ALL of MY work has been from this office since March - but Representatives HAVE to be in that chamber to cast a vote. That is an antiquated rule. It needs to be changed and in a way that it can't be abused.

Why? Because we have too much travel going on, where Representatives really don't live in their districts at all anymore. They live in Washington. They take breaks for long periods to "travel home". Well screw that. In this era - they can work from home most of the time.

Another is - too much of their agenda is handled by staff. They're figureheads adorned above a nearly permanently ensconced - and unelected - staff. THEY don't read or write their stuff - STAFF does that. When Nancy said you had to pass it to know what's in it - I'd bet the farm she hadn't read it either. They get paid huge salaries - and I don't think they earn it at all. They cast votes, usually along party lines - hence, representation is meaningless, we might as well have a Parliament - and they manage a staff.

All that - Senate, House - that needs to go. I am not sure, but it seems to me that financially, House members and Senators OUGHT to be paid and managed by their state, and not the federal government. Our governor is - why not the people we send to Washington?
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Why? Because we have too much travel going on, where Representatives really don't live in their districts at all anymore. They live in Washington. They take breaks for long periods to "travel home". Well screw that. In this era - they can work from home most of the time.

All that - Senate, House - that needs to go. I am not sure, but it seems to me that financially, House members and Senators OUGHT to be paid and managed by their state, and not the federal government. Our governor is - why not the people we send to Washington?
I'd go for that. Instead of washington for four months, they have an office in their state capital with VTC capability for participation in sessions.
 

Scat

Well-Known Member
I have a crazy plan that I've had to follow myself in the past. Here goes:

When revenue (income) goes down, reduce spending to not exceed revenue (income).

Crazy, right?
Absolutely idiotic. That only applies to the individual, not to the elected ones.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
They're figureheads adorned above a nearly permanently ensconced - and unelected - staff. THEY don't read or write their stuff - STAFF does that.


it has been said the staff is the real power in Washington, the STAFF tells the congress member how to vote on most routine legislation ......
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
it has been said the staff is the real power in Washington, the STAFF tells the congress member how to vote on most routine legislation ......

Which accounts for my BIGGEST fear regarding term limits - if the staff for each member REMAINS in Washington when a new member enters the office - assuming of course that the same party keeps electing the House member - the Representative will change, but the real power NEVER does.

While I think it's disgraceful that a House member can gain so much power they can remain in office for life - it's worse if the people REALLY making the decisions are never removed from power as long as the same party holds sway over a district.

It is the MAIN reason I oppose term limits.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
- the Representative will change, but the real power NEVER does.



I could see retaining ' some ' staff .... for institutional knowledge


but which positions are the power ones ?

Chief of Staff
Someone paid to read the bills and draw up a summery

:sshrug:
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Belive me anyone who get elected to Congress always has friends looking for a staff job. Maybe most of the old staffer do stay or get jobs with other Congress critters, but if that person elected had any integrity (And most of them don't) his ideas will be adapted by the old staff or they will be gone.
 
Top