Merry Christmish

[JayB]

"here sir, here are some more tax breaks so you can help us common-folk with larger private equity fund investments LOL.

 

ahh the naivetee of the middle-class republican.

 

How is overpaying ferry workers by millions of dollars per year beneficial to the common folk? Particularly in an environment where the said millions could be used to fund public defenders, social services, etc, etc, etc?

 

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Investigators-10-million-spent-on-extras-for-group-of-state-employees-97113379.html

 

look at my quote box above. your question is a non-sequiter.

 

Hmm - not sure why that is but here's another question or two.

 

What level of tax-revenue funded compensation above what's necessary to fill a given position with someone capable of doing the job would be required for you to object to it in today's budget climate? Would paying them a million each be okay? If not - why not?

 

If the benefit of paying more than necessary to have people sit in booths and sell tickets is to redistribute wealth and promote the consumption of consumer staples - why not automate the process as much as possible, divide the total annual savings by 5000, and send the 5,000 poorest families in the state a check funded by the savings each year?

[Kimmo]

i would argue that we all contribute to ceo pay packages, as surely as we contribute to the terribly overpaid ticket taker's pay package, through things like cost of services, inflationary pressures, lack of equitable taxation etc etc and many other externalities (ie percentage of income spent on necessities).

 

Not a good analogy. I don't use Verizon. I have no choice in paying taxes.

 

heh, it doesn't matter much whether you use verizon specifically or not. no matter who you use, you are contributing.

[Jim]

How is overpaying ferry workers by millions of dollars per year beneficial to the common folk? Particularly in an environment where the said millions could be used to fund public defenders, social services, etc, etc, etc?

 

There is no reason to think that layoffs and wage and benefit cuts would necessarily lead to the continuation, much less the expansion, of social services. This is particularly so since the most vocal advocates for busting public sector unions are also opposed to the public provision of social services. At least Fairweather has the intellectual honesty not to go here.

 

This answer is just as ignorant of the realties as FW's, however. Look at the ferry link posted by JayB. No matter what your political stripe that kinda of pay, $500k above base pay over 10 years, that doesn't need changing? I agree that there is a need for a more federal and state progressive tax sturcture, but the argument you provide above is, well, a non-starter. What I keep hearing is this "Everything else is tipped to the rich folks so there is no need to pay attention to financial responsibility ont the state or local level". Huh?

[JayB]

How is overpaying ferry workers by millions of dollars per year beneficial to the common folk? Particularly in an environment where the said millions could be used to fund public defenders, social services, etc, etc, etc?

 

There is no reason to think that layoffs and wage and benefit cuts would necessarily lead to the continuation, much less the expansion, of social services. This is particularly so since the most vocal advocates for busting public sector unions are also opposed to the public provision of social services. At least Fairweather has the intellectual honesty not to go here.

 

That's certainly interesting speculation - particularly given the minimalist libertarian conception of government that prevails both inside all state government institutions, the legislature, and the voting public's mind here in Washington - but the reality is that social programs for the poorest and most vulnerable are actively being cut in order to maintain funding for things like $50K a year ticket-booth attendants.

[Peter_Puget]

i also know that rich folks are just as likely to park their huge fortunes in savings for generations on end

 

Ivan what do oyu mean by this and why is it important?

i'd be quick to point out again i had shit grades in econ, and only 2 classes in it at that - i did actually like macro-economics, which this thread seems to concern more at the moment?

 

my primitive understanding is, for folks to be happy in our economy, that money must keep pumping around, not unlike blood through a body, and that when money collects in the hands of a few, it tends to get put into various forms of savings, many of which won't have the effect of pumping the money back into the lowerclasses hands, and can even have the lovely effect of fueling speculation bubbles that bust the overall economy, causing disproportional suffering to the poor

 

I am confused as to why money dissappears when the rich save. Just hwere does it go? (I am assuming savings doesn't mean hidden under their bed)

[Kimmo]

I am confused as to why money dissappears when the rich save. Just hwere does it go? (I am assuming savings doesn't mean hidden under their bed)

 

pay attention: it helps the poor by pumping up commodity prices through wise investments in hot private equity funds.

[JayB]

How is overpaying ferry workers by millions of dollars per year beneficial to the common folk? Particularly in an environment where the said millions could be used to fund public defenders, social services, etc, etc, etc?

 

There is no reason to think that layoffs and wage and benefit cuts would necessarily lead to the continuation, much less the expansion, of social services. This is particularly so since the most vocal advocates for busting public sector unions are also opposed to the public provision of social services. At least Fairweather has the intellectual honesty not to go here.

 

This answer is just as ignorant of the realties as FW's, however. Look at the ferry link posted by JayB. No matter what your political stripe that kinda of pay, $500k above base pay over 10 years, that doesn't need changing? I agree that there is a need for a more federal and state progressive tax sturcture, but the argument you provide above is, well, a non-starter. What I keep hearing is this "Everything else is tipped to the rich folks so there is no need to pay attention to financial responsibility ont the state or local level". Huh?

 

Do you encounter this kind of reasoning amongst your progressive peers?

 

I do - but as a regressive-libertarian-neocon-war/hatemongering corporate stooge I sort of wrote it off as something akin to an allergic reaction to the ideas I was putting forward, seeing as they're so seldom encountered in personal interactions in these parts - and figured once I left they'd regain their senses and think "Gee - now that I can let my guard down I can admit that I *don't* really think that's the most beneficial use of public money!"

 

Since your convictions seem to be much more in tune with the progressive zeitgeist, and you can engage progressives in a candid dialogue without them turning peuce and looking like they're going to crush their Riedel Grand Cru wine glass in their hand - perhaps you can tell me if the defenses put forth for the kind of spending/budgeting we've been discussing here are indeed typical of what the average Seattle progressive thinks in their heart of hearts.

 

 

[Kimmo]

"thanks to the tax breaks, I have 2 million more to invest in the Renminbi! just think of all the jobs that'll create!"

[prole]

My statement above isn't an argument, it's an observation that an argument that the continuation or expansion of social services is a given, if we could just cut government workers' jobs, pay, and benefits, is a fallacy. Doubly more so coming from people who've a reputation for wanting such services cut. I know there's room for reform in pay and benefits but I'm not under any illusion that it would lead to better or more delivery of social services in the current political climate. More likely, just more calls for dumbass taxcuts.

[JayB]

I am confused as to why money dissappears when the rich save. Just hwere does it go? (I am assuming savings doesn't mean hidden under their bed)

 

pay attention: it helps the poor by pumping up commodity prices through wise investments in hot private equity funds.

 

Any idea what percentage of all real savings generated in the US each year are invested in leveraged commodity funds vs, say - government bond issues? Corporate bond issues? Loanable bank deposits, etc?

 

How much is the fund manager's personal wealth vs money that pension funds, foundations, etc have given the fund managers in the hopes of generating a return with which to satisfy their pension obligations, fund grants, etc?

[Peter_Puget]

I am confused as to why money dissappears when the rich save. Just hwere does it go? (I am assuming savings doesn't mean hidden under their bed)

 

pay attention: it helps the poor by pumping up commodity prices through wise investments in hot private equity funds.

 

Like real estate! there's that damned misallocation again! Thanks Kimmo

 

but seriously help me out here Ivan

[Kimmo]

you're back to some kinda babbling about "real estate" and "misallocation" again!

 

 

the "rich" do more investing than saving, btw.

[Fairweather]

 

look at my quote box above. your question is a non-sequiter.

 

j_b ALERT!! OCD-sequenced posts, similar verbiage, misspells, and lax punctuation. Where is our libtard friend while "Kimmo" is holding up the fort?

[JayB]

My statement above isn't an argument, it's an observation that an argument that the continuation or expansion of social services is a given, if we could just cut government workers' jobs, pay, and benefits, is a fallacy. Doubly more so coming from people who've a reputation for wanting such services cut. I know there's room for reform in pay and benefits but I'm not under any illusion that it would lead to better or more delivery of social services in the current political climate. More likely, just more calls for dumbass taxcuts.

 

Like I said - it's an interesting speculation and if the entire population of the state were vaporized by a magical wizard and replaced with clones bred in the Cato institute's basement - then perhaps the political consensus you are dreading would emerge here in Washington.

 

In reality - what actually has, and will continue to lead to cuts in social services is a set of public sector union engineered political constraints on spending that prioritize the protection of public sector worker compensation above all other budget priorities. Which is why we're seeing....massive cuts in social services while leaving public sector worker pay and benefits largely untouched.

 

Jim has touched on this before - but the above reality is a large part of the reason why the public has become resistant to supporting additional tax increases. The best way to gain public support for higher taxes is to demonstrate that they'll be used as efficiently as possible on behalf of legitimate public priorities.

[ivan]

If the benefit of paying more than necessary to have people sit in booths and sell tickets is to redistribute wealth and promote the consumption of consumer staples - why not automate the process as much as possible, divide the total annual savings by 5000, and send the 5,000 poorest families in the state a check funded by the savings each year?

on paper that may be the best solution, but the people being taxed would bitch endlessly about the deadbeats not doing anything, and the people getting the checks do in fact need something to be doing to feel a sense of fulfilment and out of the streets stirring up shit.

[prole]

In reality - what actually has, and will continue to lead to cuts in social services is a set of public sector union engineered political constraints on spending that prioritize the protection of public sector worker compensation above all other budget priorities. Which is why we're seeing....massive cuts in social services while leaving public sector worker pay and benefits largely untouched.

 

So the social services you say are being massively cut are still being staffed and compensated at the same rate? How does that work?

[prole]

on paper that may be the best solution, but the people being taxed would bitch endlessly about the deadbeats not doing anything...

 

Poppycock! Where would you possibly get such a notion? Conservatives are only concerned with providing deadbeats with the most necessary services as efficiently as possible.

[ivan]

I am confused as to why money dissappears when the rich save. Just hwere does it go? (I am assuming savings doesn't mean hidden under their bed)

 

pay attention: it helps the poor by pumping up commodity prices through wise investments in hot private equity funds.

 

Like real estate! there's that damned misallocation again! Thanks Kimmo

 

but seriously help me out here Ivan

donald trump takes his tax cut and buys a $2 million diamond ring - how much of that money ends up anywhere where it helping a brother out, beyond the s african miner who got 5 cents for his troubles?

[prole]

My statement above isn't an argument, it's an observation that an argument that the continuation or expansion of social services is a given, if we could just cut government workers' jobs, pay, and benefits, is a fallacy. Doubly more so coming from people who've a reputation for wanting such services cut. I know there's room for reform in pay and benefits but I'm not under any illusion that it would lead to better or more delivery of social services in the current political climate. More likely, just more calls for dumbass taxcuts.

 

Like I said - it's an interesting speculation and if the entire population of the state were vaporized by a magical wizard and replaced with clones bred in the Cato institute's basement - then perhaps the political consensus you are dreading would emerge here in Washington.

 

Been there, done that!

[Jim]

Do you encounter this kind of reasoning amongst your progressive peers?

 

I do - but as a regressive-libertarian-neocon-war/hatemongering corporate stooge I sort of wrote it off as something akin to an allergic reaction to the ideas I was putting forward, seeing as they're so seldom encountered in personal interactions in these parts - and figured once I left they'd regain their senses and think "Gee - now that I can let my guard down I can admit that I *don't* really think that's the most beneficial use of public money!"

 

Since your convictions seem to be much more in tune with the progressive zeitgeist, and you can engage progressives in a candid dialogue without them turning peuce and looking like they're going to crush their Riedel Grand Cru wine glass in their hand - perhaps you can tell me if the defenses put forth for the kind of spending/budgeting we've been discussing here are indeed typical of what the average Seattle progressive thinks in their heart of hearts.

 

 

I hear similar views from folks I consider pretty liberal and conservative. There is a need to more responsibly manage public money. There's quite a number of items that government can supply better and more fairly (yes, subjective) than the private industry. I'm even ok with public service jobs paying a little more, having more security, and limiting to a 40 hr week. But some of the other perks - non-funded pensions, minimal contribution to health plans, and crazy overtime pay - well that is not just equitable.

 

But, and this is where the left does have a justified beef, the uber-rich in the country are not being put on similar scrutiny. Exhibit A is the recent tax "compromise" giving another huge tax break to the rich and deepening our debt hole.

 

That said - pointing fingers to the federal issues and not working on sustainable practices on the state and local level does not endear trust in the voters. Including me.

[j_b]

While I agree that no one is worth what the CEO of Verizon gets - he isn't getting paid with my tax dollars.

 

He is in part and the rest comes from the consumer. Verizon does get quite a bit of subsidy from the government. So does the rest of corporate America that got bailed out or got huge interest free loans over the last 2 years. These bloated corporate wages are coming out of the taxpayers' pockets anyway you want to look at it.

 

AT&T, Verizon get most federal aid for phone service

 

AT&T and Verizon Communications were the biggest recipients of federal support from an $8 billion phone subsidy program, according to data released Thursday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

 

Over the past three years, AT&T received $1.3 billion in funds to deploy phone lines to rural areas. Verizon got $1.27 billion in the same 2007-09 period.

 

Lawmakers and public interest groups are questioning the use of those federal funds, much of which appears to go to wireless services areas where telecom companies would be even without support. And they say the fund needs to be overhauled to focus on expanding broadband connections.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/07/att_verizon_get_most_federal_a.html

[j_b]

You're such a capitalist pig Jim.

 

This is just simple redistribution of wealth.

You can wait for it to trickle down, or you can tax and give it to the ticket taker!

 

because the upward transfer of wealth that occurred over the 30+ years isn't wealth redistribution?

[olyclimber]

You need sell this shit harder. Always Be Closing.

[j_b]

If anyone has any doubt where these CEO's wages and bonuses are coming from:

 

"What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.

 

We also learned that the Fed's multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota and Verizon."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/a-real-jaw-dropper-at-the_b_791091.html

[JayB]

In reality - what actually has, and will continue to lead to cuts in social services is a set of public sector union engineered political constraints on spending that prioritize the protection of public sector worker compensation above all other budget priorities. Which is why we're seeing....massive cuts in social services while leaving public sector worker pay and benefits largely untouched.

 

So the social services you say are being massively cut are still being staffed and compensated at the same rate? How does that work?

 

By cutting funding for programs that are paid for by the state, but not delivered directly by state employees - like Medicaid, etc.

 

There will be pay cuts and layoffs, but their impact will be minimal relative to cuts elsewhere.