JoshK Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Greg, I've held the same good job for about 7 years now. I'm not in school, nor have I have I ever taken government money or a loan. So you can throw that theory out. I live in a society (as you do) and I believe that the society as a whole should share the costs of some things. This every-man-for-himself bullshit is idiotic, go live in a third world country if that's what you want. Hell, you'd probably like it...lots of great assault weapons to be had in the 3rd world. Personally, I'm against the war in Iraq, so why the fuck should my taxes go to pay that? Seems awfully similar, doesn't it? In fact, by your rational, I don't use the part of my street going east from my house, just the section going west. Why the hell should I be paying for that part of the road I don't use? I can't believe my fucking money grubbing neighbors want me to pay for them to use that part of the street! Thanks, but I'll choose to live in a place where everybody has a set of equal services that they can count on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 How bout the "morons" who live around seattle and congested areas pay for it and not have the rest of the state pay for your traffic woes. Now who is showing that they are a moron on this issue? Everybody knows that Seattle area tax revenues in fact pay for services throughout the state and NOT the other way around. If we kept all taxes paid from the Seattle area in the Seattle area, the rest of the state would have much less budget for roadway maintenance and counties like Ferry County would have nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I am better than you because I live in *****. This is an endless argument that chases it's own tail. If everyone that lived in seattle stayed put the roads would be better. Especially the traffic caused by their dumb drivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 How bout the "morons" who live around seattle and congested areas pay for it and not have the rest of the state pay for your traffic woes. Now who is showing that they are a moron on this issue? Everybody knows that Seattle area tax revenues in fact pay for services throughout the state and NOT the other way around. If we kept all taxes paid from the Seattle area in the Seattle area, the rest of the state would have much less budget for roadway maintenance and counties like Ferry County would have nothing. FOILED AGAIN! (and so effortlessly too!) So what's the answer mr. perkins? Please don't say more taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/2508608p-2562582c.html whoa! stunning proposal! About darn time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I LIKED THIS PART: "Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander urged the commission to grant small increases to judges' salaries this year and give a large increase in the future. "We've appreciated that in the past, and it's helped us keep good justices," Alexander said." so are they like not going to do their jobs if they dont get OUR money?? hmmmm that sounds like back door black mail to this kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 That sounds like if they can't offer money that will attract good judges to stay, they will go where the money is. Just like everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 That's right, Greg: that's the idea. However, I am not sure that high wage earners necessarily make the best judges. Yes, experienced trial lawyers might be better able to control their peers and properly oversee an important trial, but on the other hand those same experienced trial lawyers may have their own axe to grind. A Superior Court judge earned 96,000 a year as of about ten years ago, and I bet they can get qualified candidates with that though I may be wrong. The biggest single problem, I think, is in how we elect our judges. Bronco - I haven't studied the State budget and I don't know much about economics so I can't give you an answer that would be meaningful except to say that I'd gladly pay an extra $100 a year -- or even $1000 -- if that meant that things that I view as important (examples include public schools and public transit) were going to receive what I view as adequate funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 You're right that this is a fact, but it goes too far to say that everyone knows this. I'd guess that a significant number of rural residents assume that Seattle sucks up more than its share of the state budget. Without the surrounding rural areas, and their easy accessibility, life in Seattle would be a lot less appealing to many residents. Anyway, as a rural resident, let me be the first to say, "Thanks," Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 You are right, Off. I was speaking rhetorically when I said "everybody knows it." We constantly hear legislators from rural areas haranguing Seattle for hogging more than its share of the budget and they frequently complain about sending all their money to Seattle -- even though THEY know the truth. But they make points with their constituents by deliberately feeding a common mis-perception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.