Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Tipsycatlover View Post
    Here is how corporate subsidizing works.

    A couple of years ago, Los Angeles decided to put a city surtax on all new cars sold in the city. It was supposed to reduce the deficit and put 1,000 cops on the street. It was a tax on those rich enough to afford to buy a new car.

    The car dealers left. Los Angeles Lexus became Lexus of Beverly Hills. Ford moved to Culver City and GM hiked down to the South Bay.

    The loss in revenue was estimated to be 95 million dollars a year. Antonio Villagairosa announce a complete repeal of that tax to entice car dealerships back into the city.

    Tired of corporate welfare, Los Angeles county stopped incentives for film companies to film in the county. No more expedited permits at reduced rates. No more corporate welfare, so the companies pretty much moved to Canada. How much money do you think the county lost? How high do you think the unemployment rate is?

    Villarogosa--or as us locals call him, Tony Villar (Ragosa was his ex-wife's name)---is a piece of work. No one likes him here. He's an absentee mayor who once claimed to have filled a million potholes in LA! A million. Even a lib like Bill Maher took a jab, complaining that he can't get his car through all the potholes.

    To your larger point, a new city surtax was a stupid idea, especially when there were lots of localities close by without the tax. Eventually, explicit taxes like that drive small businesses (and that's what these dealerships are) out of the cities and into the suburbs. Ask Philadelphia what happened when their various and sundry taxes became so high; the answer is "King of Prussia", a suburban area of corporate centers.

    Small businesses need to be helped and given tax breaks. But these businesses that run on their own energy and the hard work of their owners and workers, are very different from huge multinational corporations which have a ton of representation in Washington and get tax breaks that small businesses could never dream of. Washington is giant whorehouse and it's pay to play. But paying a little gets you millions, or in the case of GE, billions. Legal "kickbacks" that come from padding defense expenditures, legal tax loopholes that insure that my 5-figure ass pays more in taxes that GE, and legal maneuvres on Wall Street that allow someone like Mitt Romney to buy good companies, strip them for parts, and fire their thousands of workers. (And Mitt still calls himself a businessman. He's a butcher, not a businessman, and my guess is that he couldn't grow a business with a million dollars and a team of pros helping him.)

    The rules are different for small and big business. Villaragosa can't tap into big business, so he goes after the small businesses that make the city economically vibrant. The Fed does the same thing, taxing small businesses to the hilt while dumping taxpayer money into the coffers of the big multinationals and their international shareholders. I would never start a business in LA where Villaragosa could tax it. However, if I were a huge multinational, the boys upstairs would have Villaragosa waive every little tax for me and even provide me with taxes from Angelinos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    950
    The major employers left long ago. I remember Farmer Johns, Filtrol Chemicals, dozens of major employers now gone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Destroyer of Worlds Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Locked in a Dungeon, being tortured and LOVING IT!
    Posts
    5,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Free education should be a given (at least on up to high school graduation and maybe some tech training). How else will people become successful?
    This is all I'll talk about here. As Public schools are the sacred cow of the left.

    For the left, its more money and don't dare try and reform it.

    For the right, we've thrown money at it, and its only gotten worse, lets try some thing else.

    In other industrialized nations, they continue to out preform us in math and science, yet they spend far less on education. Why is that?

    One hated piece of the left and often attacked is the Private school system. As being "Elitist". Yet when it comes to educating their children, the Clintons, Gores, Kennedys, Emanuel, and the Obama's all have decided that a private school is better for their children, while insisting that a voucher system that would allow children from failing schools a chance at attending a similar school is completely unacceptable.

    And look at there spending.

    In Wisconsin alone after the reforms.

    Wisconsin before saw a 3.3 Billion shortfall in revenue before Walker was even elected. Now the budget is balanced, and schools are finding them selves flush with cash. And keep in mind, Walker's budget reform actually reduced state contributions to schools. The district of Milwaukee alone is witnessing a 25 million dollar shift in their budget in their favor. None have had to lose a single teacher, almost half are hiring more teachers, and almost all have witnessed a surplus in funds, where before they were in the red.

    How did this happen, by changing how the money could be spent, not by throwing more at the problem.

    More teachers, smaller class sizes, and less money spent on education then before. Odd how changing how the money is spent has that big of an effect.

    Then you have Charter Schools. The evil bane of the Public education system according to the left. Why, they don't allow tenure, so a under preforming teacher can be fired at any time. They are exempt collective bargaining laws. And are accussed of taking money away from Public schools.

    But look at New Orleans. It is now almost a full Charter school system. Thanks to Katrina.

    Before the storm that ravaged the city, New Orleans had only a 40 percent literacy rate and 50 percent of black students did not graduate under a public school system. Now with an almost full charter school system, scores have risen almost 30% in the few years, and drop out rate has fallen by almost 50%.

    Yet the left will not support charter schools.
    Rest In Peace America
    July 4, 1776 - January 20, 2009
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    I'm putting it in the OWS forum because it is related to what these idiots want. So here is the question:

    OK, some of the demands from these dopes are that they want free healthcare, free education, free housing etc. My question is a simple one; if you agree with these demands do you honestly believe that these things would be a) really free
    No not free, but subsidized so people don't have to pay out of pocket or take on personal debt in order to have access to them.

    and b) if you're at least smart enough to know that nothing is free, how do you intend to pay for it?
    Changing tax revenue, changing how spending is appropriated, and having some self-sustaining systems. The post office is able to support itself based on the revenue it brings in, and it has looming problems, but the mail still always arrives on time, rain or shine.

    Reality is, you can seize every bit of wealth from the so called 1% and you still won't have enough to fund every piece of idiocy these people want. Not even for a year let alone forever. So, how do you intend on funding these programs?
    Not even for a year?

    If you got all the wealth from the top 25%, you'd have over $47 Trillion. If you only got all the wealth from the top 5%, you'd have over $33 Trillion. Build in self-sustaining provisions into programs like with the post office, and you can easily fund these programs long into the future.

    Of course, we aren't talking about seizing all wealth, but you can always raise taxes, bring less right now, let the rich still stay rich, and just bring in regular tax revenue over time.

    It isn't that complicated, these programs exist in most industrialized countries, they outscore us in education, they have better and universal access to healthcare, and so on. The systems are not perfect, but for the regular person, being able to see a doctor or send their kids to university is worth an imperfect system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    This is all I'll talk about here. As Public schools are the sacred cow of the left.

    For the left, its more money and don't dare try and reform it.

    For the right, we've thrown money at it, and its only gotten worse, lets try some thing else.
    I'm not opposed to reforming the system, and I think there how money is spent is more important than how much, but that doesn't mean education doesn't need more money.



    In other industrialized nations, they continue to out preform us in math and science, yet they spend far less on education. Why is that?
    This is a golden question right here.

    The nations that outperform us have certain characteristics in common:

    1. They generally offer subsidized or partially subsidized access to universities or trade schools, so it is expected that every child is going to pursue higher education, so they are all prepared at that level.

    2. They have more progressive tax structures to fund education properly.

    and most importantly:

    3. They have incredibly low levels (compared to us) of inequality, high amounts of workers programs, and strong social safety nets, plus universal healthcare. The result of this is clear as day, the gap between the rich and the poor shrinks, and even for the economically disadvantaged in their countries, they are still able to get access to education and health care and unemployment benefits as much as anyone else.

    This has an enormous impact on education. The data is widely available online: http://www.greatschools.org/

    you can look up any school in the nation, and find information regarding their standardized test scores, parent ratings, student ethnic demographics, the number of students who are English Language Learners, the amount of money spent per pupil, the number of students with classified disabilities, and the number of students from economically disadvantaged households.

    Compare the scores, the grades, the ratings, all of the measures of success to the percent of students who are economically disadvantaged. You will find the strongest correlation of any two data points.

    The problems in education are a direct reflection and intimately tied with the economic social problems.

    A bright kid with loads of potential, but with parents who work 2 jobs, who have to take care of their younger siblings because they cannot afford babysitters, who lacks an educationally rich home environment, or with other economically related setbacks, 9 times out of 10 will not do as well as a student with the same potential but with a middle class home, parents who are home after school, parents who are educated enough to help their kids with homework, the ability to buy books and go to museums, ect. ect.

    In the neediest of classrooms, you will hear every day the problems that kids are dealing with at home that can be directly traced back to economic issues.


    Every nation that is doing better at us in terms of education is also doing better than us in terms of income equality, social mobility, and access to social programs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I'm not opposed to reforming the system, and I think there how money is spent is more important than how much, but that doesn't mean education doesn't need more money.





    This is a golden question right here.

    The nations that outperform us have certain characteristics in common:

    1. They generally offer subsidized or partially subsidized access to universities or trade schools, so it is expected that every child is going to pursue higher education, so they are all prepared at that level.

    2. They have more progressive tax structures to fund education properly.

    and most importantly:

    3. They have incredibly low levels (compared to us) of inequality, high amounts of workers programs, and strong social safety nets, plus universal healthcare. The result of this is clear as day, the gap between the rich and the poor shrinks, and even for the economically disadvantaged in their countries, they are still able to get access to education and health care and unemployment benefits as much as anyone else.

    This has an enormous impact on education. The data is widely available online: http://www.greatschools.org/

    you can look up any school in the nation, and find information regarding their standardized test scores, parent ratings, student ethnic demographics, the number of students who are English Language Learners, the amount of money spent per pupil, the number of students with classified disabilities, and the number of students from economically disadvantaged households.

    Compare the scores, the grades, the ratings, all of the measures of success to the percent of students who are economically disadvantaged. You will find the strongest correlation of any two data points.

    The problems in education are a direct reflection and intimately tied with the economic social problems.

    A bright kid with loads of potential, but with parents who work 2 jobs, who have to take care of their younger siblings because they cannot afford babysitters, who lacks an educationally rich home environment, or with other economically related setbacks, 9 times out of 10 will not do as well as a student with the same potential but with a middle class home, parents who are home after school, parents who are educated enough to help their kids with homework, the ability to buy books and go to museums, ect. ect.

    In the neediest of classrooms, you will hear every day the problems that kids are dealing with at home that can be directly traced back to economic issues.


    Every nation that is doing better at us in terms of education is also doing better than us in terms of income equality, social mobility, and access to social programs.
    Of course more taxes will solve the problem!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    Of course more taxes will solve the problem!!!
    More taxes won't solve the problem, the problem is bigger than that, but that doesn't mean they won't help.

    Example:
    If you are trying to create a new invention, more funding isn't going to produce a prototype, but a lack of funding will certainty prevent it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,309
    Then some of you libs need to explain why billions are thrown at the public school system every year and yet, kids are getting stupider. If there was ever a true definition of a boondoggle look no further than the education system.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    I already explained that the biggest problem with education isn't the amount of funding (but funding is important), but economic issues. Poverty is tied to educational success.

    Kids cannot do well in school if they don't have a secure home to sleep, if they cannot get nutritious meals to eat, if they have adult responsibilities to tend to because their parents work late hours or multiple jobs, ect. ect.

    Education doesn't occur in a vacuum, and children don't leave their personal baggage at the door when they enter a classroom. If a child is having problems related to economics in their home, they bring those issues into the classroom and they affect their ability to do well.

    I could give dozens of specific examples if you want them, but the point is that academic success is very strongly correlated to one's economic situation.

    Trying to address education without addressing economic issues is doomed to fail. We ask what other countries are doing right, well compare income equality or social programs or health care access in the top educated nations to ours.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,309
    Oh bullshit wee and you know it. Unbelievable. Money does not have a stake in how to read you idiot.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •