Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but this
is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either for
political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction of
more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to support
more government.

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but this
is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either for
political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction of more
and more money from the citizens.

Tell us about the fees that you object to. For the most part, they're part
of the conservative agenda: Make the users pay for their use.

This is one of my pet peeves, too -- a case of malcontents talking out of
both sides of their mouths.

Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to support
more government.

Again, tell us about fees. I have data if you need it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:26:59 -0500, RBnDFW wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but this
is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either for
political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction of
more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to support
more government.


Ayup.

Notice Eddy boy trying to make that distinction?

Typical buffoonery from a Leftwinger.

And Ed..for all of his approval of guns (right..oh yes.)...is a
Leftwinger.

His very words prove it.


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:26:59 -0500, RBnDFW wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but this
is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either for
political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction of
more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to support
more government.


Ayup.

Notice Eddy boy trying to make that distinction?

You wouldn't get it, Gunner. It's over your head.


Typical buffoonery from a Leftwinger.

You don't even know what the numbers are, you phony buffoon.


And Ed..for all of his approval of guns (right..oh yes.)...is a
Leftwinger.

His very words prove it.

Supposedly, you don't even know what my words are, since you claim to have
me plonked. Phony.

--
Ed Huntress

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but this
is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either for
political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction of more
and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to support
more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the service,
they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the population to
subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty clear to me. The
value proposition of how much we pay versus how much we get from government
is a separate question, and I agree that fee increases without offsetting
tax decreases or additional services represents an increased cost of
government with no extra benefit.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered
"taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have
going, but this is a pet peeve. When the government
cannot increase taxes, either for political reasons or
because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is
extraction of more and more money from the citizens.

Tell us about the fees that you object to. For the most
part, they're part of the conservative agenda: Make the
users pay for their use.

This is one of my pet peeves, too -- a case of malcontents
talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more
money to support more government.

Again, tell us about fees. I have data if you need it.

--
Ed Huntress

Ok, how about federally mandated monthly payments by every
American citizen to a private for profit insurance company
cradle to grave or else get fined by the government if you
object. Call it what you want.....
phil kangas

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but this
is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either for
political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction of more
and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to support
more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the
service, they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the
population to subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty clear
to me. The value proposition of how much we pay versus how much we get
from government is a separate question, and I agree that fee increases
without offsetting tax decreases or additional services represents an
increased cost of government with no extra benefit.

Most fees are local. They amount to 22% of local revenue, which stands to
reason, because there are relatively few local taxes, except for ad-valorem
property taxes. They include building permits, water use, etc.

At the federal level, the most pessimistic view of "fees" places them at
less than 2% of revenue. More realistically, they amount to 0.5% of revenue.

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress

"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but this
is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either for
political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction of
more and more money from the citizens.

Tell us about the fees that you object to. For the most part, they're
part of the conservative agenda: Make the users pay for their use.

This is one of my pet peeves, too -- a case of malcontents talking out of
both sides of their mouths.

Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to support
more government.

Again, tell us about fees. I have data if you need it.

--
Ed Huntress

Ok, how about federally mandated monthly payments by every
American citizen to a private for profit insurance company
cradle to grave or else get fined by the government if you
object. Call it what you want.....
phil kangas

As I said, if the complaint is that "taxes" are being mislabelled as "fees,"
they amount to 0.5% of federal revenue in total.

As for the medical insurance you're talking about, we should have followed
the Swiss pattern: Make health insurance companies not-for-profit, and turn
the entire incentive structure around to our advantage.

That was a sop to conservatives. They demanded it, just like their giveaway
to big pharma in Medicare Part D.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but this
is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either for
political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction of
more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to support
more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the
service, they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the
population to subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty
clear to me. The value proposition of how much we pay versus how much we
get from government is a separate question, and I agree that fee
increases without offsetting tax decreases or additional services
represents an increased cost of government with no extra benefit.

Most fees are local. They amount to 22% of local revenue, which stands to
reason, because there are relatively few local taxes, except for
ad-valorem property taxes. They include building permits, water use, etc.

At the federal level, the most pessimistic view of "fees" places them at
less than 2% of revenue. More realistically, they amount to 0.5% of
revenue.

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number. If my local government starts
charging to use a previously free park, for example, I don't dispute that
the charge is a fee, but the government should still be accountable for what
they are doing with the extra revenue. Same goes for tuition increases at
state colleges. Fee increases on the local and state level in NY have been
significant in recent years. RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax
supported functions were converted to fee supported functions on a revenue
neutral basis, the government is taking more money from citizens.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:12:27 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but this
is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either for
political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then the
solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction of more
and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to support
more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the service,
they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the population to
subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty clear to me. The
value proposition of how much we pay versus how much we get from government
is a separate question, and I agree that fee increases without offsetting
tax decreases or additional services represents an increased cost of
government with no extra benefit.

Then of course..you support Parking meters with a 15 minute window.

Right?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but
this is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either
for political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it, then
the solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is extraction
of more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to
support more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the
service, they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the
population to subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty
clear to me. The value proposition of how much we pay versus how much we
get from government is a separate question, and I agree that fee
increases without offsetting tax decreases or additional services
represents an increased cost of government with no extra benefit.

Most fees are local. They amount to 22% of local revenue, which stands to
reason, because there are relatively few local taxes, except for
ad-valorem property taxes. They include building permits, water use, etc.

At the federal level, the most pessimistic view of "fees" places them at
less than 2% of revenue. More realistically, they amount to 0.5% of
revenue.

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number.

Look at what they are. Then tell us which ones you want to convert to taxes,
so they don't be "hidden." That was the original point of the discussion.

And when you get to building inspections, and municipal water, etc., tell us
how you would run these services without user fees. The whole country would
love to have answers to those things.

If my local government starts charging to use a previously free park, for
example, I don't dispute that the charge is a fee, but the government
should still be accountable for what they are doing with the extra
revenue.

Every state publishes its budget. It shows all revenues and expenses. Have
you looked at it?

Same goes for tuition increases at state colleges. Fee increases on the
local and state level in NY have been significant in recent years.

Of course they have. State colleges are tax-supported. States are running
out of tax money. So they raise tuition and fees -- still to something much
less than the true costs -- because they can't support them with taxes as
much as they used to.

Do you have a better solution?

RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax supported functions were converted
to fee supported functions on a revenue neutral basis, the government is
taking more money from citizens.

If you know of some that are being converted to fee-support, without a
commensurate reduction in the taxes dedicated to that purpose, it will be
interesting to compare them with those that are simply not being supported
as much as they used to be, regardless of the source. Our schools, including
colleges, in NJ fall into the latter category.

Take a look at the actual budgets. You're speculating about where the money
is coming from and going to. I can give you hard numbers about New Jersey.
Have you looked at hard numbers in New York?

While you're looking, keep in mind that taxes per capita in the US are now
at the lowest level they've been since 1954. Yes, I can give you hard
numbers about that, too.

The bottom line is that states and local governments have a revenue crisis,
and they've cut costs ruthlessly in some states (NJ being one of the most
brutal), and they've converted tax-support to fee-support in others.

But that's state and local governments, not the federal government. Aren't
conservatives in favor of state and local governments running their own
affairs anymore? That's how they've been forced to run them.

I don't think you'll find that the "fees" are actually hidden taxes in the
majority of cases. What you'll find is that tax money is running out, and
fees are being raised to users to try to keep those services afloat. If
there was any "hiding," it was the previous case of supporting services with
taxes that made it difficult to determine their true costs. That's happening
all over the country.

--
Ed Huntress

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number. If my local government starts
charging to use a previously free park, for example, I don't dispute that
the charge is a fee, but the government should still be accountable for what
they are doing with the extra revenue. Same goes for tuition increases at
state colleges. Fee increases on the local and state level in NY have been
significant in recent years. RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax
supported functions were converted to fee supported functions on a revenue
neutral basis, the government is taking more money from citizens.

It's understandable why government is taking more money from citizens.
It's taking less money from corporations. So you are making up the
difference. In the 1950s total revenue collected from corporations was
close to 35%. Today the total revenue taken in from corporations is 7%.
That 28% difference is now being picked up by the ordinary taxpayer. But
that shift in tax burden from corporations to average workers is exactly
what the conservatives/republicans wanted. My question is why do regular
working people like you want to pay more in taxes so that corporations
can pay less? I would think you would want it the other way around. But
then wanting things that are against their own interest is just what
most right wingers are for these days. Go figure.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but
this is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either
for political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it,
then the solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is
extraction of more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to
support more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the
service, they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the
population to subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty
clear to me. The value proposition of how much we pay versus how much
we get from government is a separate question, and I agree that fee
increases without offsetting tax decreases or additional services
represents an increased cost of government with no extra benefit.

Most fees are local. They amount to 22% of local revenue, which stands
to reason, because there are relatively few local taxes, except for
ad-valorem property taxes. They include building permits, water use,
etc.

At the federal level, the most pessimistic view of "fees" places them at
less than 2% of revenue. More realistically, they amount to 0.5% of
revenue.

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number.

Look at what they are. Then tell us which ones you want to convert to
taxes, so they don't be "hidden." That was the original point of the
discussion.

And when you get to building inspections, and municipal water, etc., tell
us how you would run these services without user fees. The whole country
would love to have answers to those things.

If my local government starts charging to use a previously free park, for
example, I don't dispute that the charge is a fee, but the government
should still be accountable for what they are doing with the extra
revenue.

Every state publishes its budget. It shows all revenues and expenses. Have
you looked at it?

Same goes for tuition increases at state colleges. Fee increases on the
local and state level in NY have been significant in recent years.

Of course they have. State colleges are tax-supported. States are running
out of tax money. So they raise tuition and fees -- still to something
much less than the true costs -- because they can't support them with
taxes as much as they used to.

Do you have a better solution?

RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax supported functions were
converted to fee supported functions on a revenue neutral basis, the
government is taking more money from citizens.

If you know of some that are being converted to fee-support, without a
commensurate reduction in the taxes dedicated to that purpose, it will be
interesting to compare them with those that are simply not being supported
as much as they used to be, regardless of the source. Our schools,
including colleges, in NJ fall into the latter category.

Take a look at the actual budgets. You're speculating about where the
money is coming from and going to. I can give you hard numbers about New
Jersey. Have you looked at hard numbers in New York?

While you're looking, keep in mind that taxes per capita in the US are now
at the lowest level they've been since 1954. Yes, I can give you hard
numbers about that, too.

The bottom line is that states and local governments have a revenue
crisis, and they've cut costs ruthlessly in some states (NJ being one of
the most brutal), and they've converted tax-support to fee-support in
others.

But that's state and local governments, not the federal government. Aren't
conservatives in favor of state and local governments running their own
affairs anymore? That's how they've been forced to run them.

I don't think you'll find that the "fees" are actually hidden taxes in the
majority of cases. What you'll find is that tax money is running out, and
fees are being raised to users to try to keep those services afloat. If
there was any "hiding," it was the previous case of supporting services
with taxes that made it difficult to determine their true costs. That's
happening all over the country.

--
Ed Huntress
I jumped in late and somewhat out of context. I don't disagree with most of
what you're stating, with the exception of the local tax level. I don't
think fees are hidden taxes, and it's usually pretty clear if you read the
news where the revenue in a budget is coming from. The only deception is
when a campaigning politician tells only part of the story by talking about
taxes and not fees, borrowing and revenue generating gimmicks.
As far as supporting services, revenues are rarely earmarked for specific
services or programs. SUNY tuition increases don't go directly to the
university system, lottery funds go to the general fund, not education as
originally promised, etc.. The money is going to increased expenses such as
the bloated public pension system, health care costs, etc.. We need to take
on the public unions starting with the teachers and the police. That won't
be as hard as freeing Congress from AIPAC, but will be a formidable task.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number. If my local government starts
charging to use a previously free park, for example, I don't dispute that
the charge is a fee, but the government should still be accountable for
what
they are doing with the extra revenue. Same goes for tuition increases at
state colleges. Fee increases on the local and state level in NY have
been
significant in recent years. RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax
supported functions were converted to fee supported functions on a
revenue
neutral basis, the government is taking more money from citizens.

It's understandable why government is taking more money from citizens.
It's taking less money from corporations. So you are making up the
difference. In the 1950s total revenue collected from corporations was
close to 35%. Today the total revenue taken in from corporations is 7%.
That 28% difference is now being picked up by the ordinary taxpayer. But
that shift in tax burden from corporations to average workers is exactly
what the conservatives/republicans wanted. My question is why do regular
working people like you want to pay more in taxes so that corporations can
pay less? I would think you would want it the other way around. But then
wanting things that are against their own interest is just what most right
wingers are for these days. Go figure.

Hawke

How did you come to the conclusion that I'm a right winger? I'm not talking
about tea parties or the great cull, just fiscal responsibility and
transparency. I'm more concerned about local taxes than federal. If you saw
our property taxes and NYS income tax, you'd know why.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:02:33 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number. If my local government starts
charging to use a previously free park, for example, I don't dispute that
the charge is a fee, but the government should still be accountable for
what
they are doing with the extra revenue. Same goes for tuition increases at
state colleges. Fee increases on the local and state level in NY have
been
significant in recent years. RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax
supported functions were converted to fee supported functions on a
revenue
neutral basis, the government is taking more money from citizens.

It's understandable why government is taking more money from citizens.
It's taking less money from corporations. So you are making up the
difference. In the 1950s total revenue collected from corporations was
close to 35%. Today the total revenue taken in from corporations is 7%.
That 28% difference is now being picked up by the ordinary taxpayer. But
that shift in tax burden from corporations to average workers is exactly
what the conservatives/republicans wanted. My question is why do regular
working people like you want to pay more in taxes so that corporations can
pay less? I would think you would want it the other way around. But then
wanting things that are against their own interest is just what most right
wingers are for these days. Go figure.

Hawke

How did you come to the conclusion that I'm a right winger? I'm not talking
about tea parties or the great cull, just fiscal responsibility and
transparency. I'm more concerned about local taxes than federal. If you saw
our property taxes and NYS income tax, you'd know why.


Odd how the Parakeet misses WHY the government needs all that green
stuff, where he doesnt gloss over it.....isnt it?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but
this is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes,
either for political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden
it, then the solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is
extraction of more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to
support more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the
service, they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the
population to subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty
clear to me. The value proposition of how much we pay versus how much
we get from government is a separate question, and I agree that fee
increases without offsetting tax decreases or additional services
represents an increased cost of government with no extra benefit.

Most fees are local. They amount to 22% of local revenue, which stands
to reason, because there are relatively few local taxes, except for
ad-valorem property taxes. They include building permits, water use,
etc.

At the federal level, the most pessimistic view of "fees" places them
at less than 2% of revenue. More realistically, they amount to 0.5% of
revenue.

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number.

Look at what they are. Then tell us which ones you want to convert to
taxes, so they don't be "hidden." That was the original point of the
discussion.

And when you get to building inspections, and municipal water, etc., tell
us how you would run these services without user fees. The whole country
would love to have answers to those things.

If my local government starts charging to use a previously free park,
for example, I don't dispute that the charge is a fee, but the
government should still be accountable for what they are doing with the
extra revenue.

Every state publishes its budget. It shows all revenues and expenses.
Have you looked at it?

Same goes for tuition increases at state colleges. Fee increases on the
local and state level in NY have been significant in recent years.

Of course they have. State colleges are tax-supported. States are running
out of tax money. So they raise tuition and fees -- still to something
much less than the true costs -- because they can't support them with
taxes as much as they used to.

Do you have a better solution?

RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax supported functions were
converted to fee supported functions on a revenue neutral basis, the
government is taking more money from citizens.

If you know of some that are being converted to fee-support, without a
commensurate reduction in the taxes dedicated to that purpose, it will be
interesting to compare them with those that are simply not being
supported as much as they used to be, regardless of the source. Our
schools, including colleges, in NJ fall into the latter category.

Take a look at the actual budgets. You're speculating about where the
money is coming from and going to. I can give you hard numbers about New
Jersey. Have you looked at hard numbers in New York?

While you're looking, keep in mind that taxes per capita in the US are
now at the lowest level they've been since 1954. Yes, I can give you hard
numbers about that, too.

The bottom line is that states and local governments have a revenue
crisis, and they've cut costs ruthlessly in some states (NJ being one of
the most brutal), and they've converted tax-support to fee-support in
others.

But that's state and local governments, not the federal government.
Aren't conservatives in favor of state and local governments running
their own affairs anymore? That's how they've been forced to run them.

I don't think you'll find that the "fees" are actually hidden taxes in
the majority of cases. What you'll find is that tax money is running out,
and fees are being raised to users to try to keep those services afloat.
If there was any "hiding," it was the previous case of supporting
services with taxes that made it difficult to determine their true costs.
That's happening all over the country.

--
Ed Huntress

I jumped in late and somewhat out of context. I don't disagree with most
of what you're stating, with the exception of the local tax level. I don't
think fees are hidden taxes, and it's usually pretty clear if you read the
news where the revenue in a budget is coming from. The only deception is
when a campaigning politician tells only part of the story by talking
about taxes and not fees, borrowing and revenue generating gimmicks.

Borrowing and mixing accounts, IMO, are the most deceptive practices. That's
how our NJ budget got to be in such bad shape. One account was borrowing
from another.


As far as supporting services, revenues are rarely earmarked for specific
services or programs. SUNY tuition increases don't go directly to the
university system, lottery funds go to the general fund, not education as
originally promised, etc.. The money is going to increased expenses such
as the bloated public pension system, health care costs, etc.. We need to
take on the public unions starting with the teachers and the police. That
won't be as hard as freeing Congress from AIPAC, but will be a formidable
task.

They're going to be tough. Our new governor in NJ, has done very well in
that department. You can tell he's doing a good job because he's getting
death threats. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 21, 7:25*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"ATP" wrote in message

...







"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but
this is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes,
either for political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden
it, then the solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is
extraction of more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to
support more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the
service, they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the
population to subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty
clear to me. The value proposition of how much we pay versus how much
we get from government is a separate question, and I agree that fee
increases without offsetting tax decreases or additional services
represents an increased cost of government with no extra benefit.

Most fees are local. They amount to 22% of local revenue, which stands
to reason, because there are relatively few local taxes, except for
ad-valorem property taxes. They include building permits, water use,
etc.

At the federal level, the most pessimistic view of "fees" places them
at less than 2% of revenue. More realistically, they amount to 0.5% of
revenue.

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish..

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number.

Look at what they are. Then tell us which ones you want to convert to
taxes, so they don't be "hidden." That was the original point of the
discussion.

And when you get to building inspections, and municipal water, etc., tell
us how you would run these services without user fees. The whole country
would love to have answers to those things.

If my local government starts charging to use a previously free park,
for example, I don't dispute that the charge is a fee, but the
government should still be accountable for what they are doing with the
extra revenue.

Every state publishes its budget. It shows all revenues and expenses.
Have you looked at it?

Same goes for tuition increases at state colleges. Fee increases on the
local and state level in NY have been significant in recent years.

Of course they have. State colleges are tax-supported. States are running
out of tax money. So they raise tuition and fees -- still to something
much less than the true costs -- because they can't support them with
taxes as much as they used to.

Do you have a better solution?

RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax supported *functions were
converted to fee supported functions on a revenue neutral basis, the
government is taking more money from citizens.

If you know of some that are being converted to fee-support, without a
commensurate reduction in the taxes dedicated to that purpose, it will be
interesting to compare them with those that are simply not being
supported as much as they used to be, regardless of the source. Our
schools, including colleges, in NJ fall into the latter category.

Take a look at the actual budgets. You're speculating about where the
money is coming from and going to. I can give you hard numbers about New
Jersey. Have you looked at hard numbers in New York?

While you're looking, keep in mind that taxes per capita in the US are
now at the lowest level they've been since 1954. Yes, I can give you hard
numbers about that, too.

The bottom line is that states and local governments have a revenue
crisis, and they've cut costs ruthlessly in some states (NJ being one of
the most brutal), and they've converted tax-support to fee-support in
others.

But that's state and local governments, not the federal government.
Aren't conservatives in favor of state and local governments running
their own affairs anymore? That's how they've been forced to run them.

I don't think you'll find that the "fees" are actually hidden taxes in
the majority of cases. What you'll find is that tax money is running out,
and fees are being raised to users to try to keep those services afloat.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 7:25 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"ATP" wrote in message

...







"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but
this is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes,
either for political reasons or because the legislature has
forbidden
it, then the solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is
extraction of more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to
support more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the
service, they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the
population to subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty
clear to me. The value proposition of how much we pay versus how
much
we get from government is a separate question, and I agree that fee
increases without offsetting tax decreases or additional services
represents an increased cost of government with no extra benefit.

Most fees are local. They amount to 22% of local revenue, which
stands
to reason, because there are relatively few local taxes, except for
ad-valorem property taxes. They include building permits, water use,
etc.

At the federal level, the most pessimistic view of "fees" places them
at less than 2% of revenue. More realistically, they amount to 0.5%
of
revenue.

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for
building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number.

Look at what they are. Then tell us which ones you want to convert to
taxes, so they don't be "hidden." That was the original point of the
discussion.

And when you get to building inspections, and municipal water, etc.,
tell
us how you would run these services without user fees. The whole
country
would love to have answers to those things.

If my local government starts charging to use a previously free park,
for example, I don't dispute that the charge is a fee, but the
government should still be accountable for what they are doing with
the
extra revenue.

Every state publishes its budget. It shows all revenues and expenses.
Have you looked at it?

Same goes for tuition increases at state colleges. Fee increases on
the
local and state level in NY have been significant in recent years.

Of course they have. State colleges are tax-supported. States are
running
out of tax money. So they raise tuition and fees -- still to something
much less than the true costs -- because they can't support them with
taxes as much as they used to.

Do you have a better solution?

RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax supported functions were
converted to fee supported functions on a revenue neutral basis, the
government is taking more money from citizens.

If you know of some that are being converted to fee-support, without a
commensurate reduction in the taxes dedicated to that purpose, it will
be
interesting to compare them with those that are simply not being
supported as much as they used to be, regardless of the source. Our
schools, including colleges, in NJ fall into the latter category.

Take a look at the actual budgets. You're speculating about where the
money is coming from and going to. I can give you hard numbers about
New
Jersey. Have you looked at hard numbers in New York?

While you're looking, keep in mind that taxes per capita in the US are
now at the lowest level they've been since 1954. Yes, I can give you
hard
numbers about that, too.

The bottom line is that states and local governments have a revenue
crisis, and they've cut costs ruthlessly in some states (NJ being one
of
the most brutal), and they've converted tax-support to fee-support in
others.

But that's state and local governments, not the federal government.
Aren't conservatives in favor of state and local governments running
their own affairs anymore? That's how they've been forced to run them.

I don't think you'll find that the "fees" are actually hidden taxes in
the majority of cases. What you'll find is that tax money is running
out,
and fees are being raised to users to try to keep those services
afloat.
If there was any "hiding," it was the previous case of supporting
services with taxes that made it difficult to determine their true
costs.
That's happening all over the country.

--
Ed Huntress
I jumped in late and somewhat out of context. I don't disagree with most
of what you're stating, with the exception of the local tax level. I
don't
think fees are hidden taxes, and it's usually pretty clear if you read
the
news where the revenue in a budget is coming from. The only deception is
when a campaigning politician tells only part of the story by talking
about taxes and not fees, borrowing and revenue generating gimmicks.

Borrowing and mixing accounts, IMO, are the most deceptive practices.
That's
how our NJ budget got to be in such bad shape. One account was borrowing
from another.

As far as supporting services, revenues are rarely earmarked for
specific
services or programs. SUNY tuition increases don't go directly to the
university system, lottery funds go to the general fund, not education
as
originally promised, etc.. The money is going to increased expenses such
as the bloated public pension system, health care costs, etc.. We need
to
take on the public unions starting with the teachers and the police.
That
won't be as hard as freeing Congress from AIPAC, but will be a
formidable
task.

They're going to be tough. Our new governor in NJ, has done very well in
that department. You can tell he's doing a good job because he's getting
death threats. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah our new governor in NJ is doing a pretty good job of decimating
the public school system. What a ****ing disaster he's been in only a
few short months.

We shall see. My wife is a teacher in the public schools and I've been very
involved with our Board of Ed over the last 15 years. I recognize the
problems that Christie is faced with, and being squeezed from both ends --
with enormous cuts in state funding and a mandated 2.5% cap on property tax
increases -- is making some blood flow in the schools. So far, none in my
house, but that could happen.

Whether it will be the students' blood is the question. And anyone who
thinks that teachers are getting too much salary here, or who have too many
benefits, doesn't know how to count. I'm paying over $8,000/year on health
care, mostly on insurance co-pays, and my wife has tenure.

It's a complex situation. I'm not ready to condemn anyone for it at this
point. Some economic growth will cure a lot of ills.

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/21/2010 4:02 PM, ATP wrote:
wrote in message
...

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number. If my local government starts
charging to use a previously free park, for example, I don't dispute that
the charge is a fee, but the government should still be accountable for
what
they are doing with the extra revenue. Same goes for tuition increases at
state colleges. Fee increases on the local and state level in NY have
been
significant in recent years. RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax
supported functions were converted to fee supported functions on a
revenue
neutral basis, the government is taking more money from citizens.

It's understandable why government is taking more money from citizens.
It's taking less money from corporations. So you are making up the
difference. In the 1950s total revenue collected from corporations was
close to 35%. Today the total revenue taken in from corporations is 7%.
That 28% difference is now being picked up by the ordinary taxpayer. But
that shift in tax burden from corporations to average workers is exactly
what the conservatives/republicans wanted. My question is why do regular
working people like you want to pay more in taxes so that corporations can
pay less? I would think you would want it the other way around. But then
wanting things that are against their own interest is just what most right
wingers are for these days. Go figure.

Hawke

How did you come to the conclusion that I'm a right winger? I'm not talking
about tea parties or the great cull, just fiscal responsibility and
transparency. I'm more concerned about local taxes than federal. If you saw
our property taxes and NYS income tax, you'd know why.


I didn't mean to label you personally as a right winger. I don't know
where you stand politically. I was just addressing the fact that so many
ordinary working people vote for republicans who support policies that
are directly contrary to the interests of working people. Like when you
hear republicans whining about the "death tax" and all kinds of ordinary
people get behind them and support that position. The supposed "death
tax" applies to exactly 1% of the population, the richest 1%. Which
means the estate tax has no application to the ordinary citizen. So why
would he support that? Because he wants the rich to be able to leave
more to their kids? Or take your case in NJ. If the new republican
governor takes a meat axe to the school system to balance the budget and
you have kids in school why would you support that? That would only hurt
your kids. I see this all the time from right wing folks. They have been
fooled into supporting right wing causes and politicians that work
directly to penalize them. If they go to the polls this November and
vote in a republican majority they're the ones who are going to get
hurt. But they will probably do it anyway. I think it's crazy, like Jews
voting for Hitler, crazy.

Hawke