Southern York County Life

Invisible User - 17 April 2010 07:31 AM

Although I am very intrigued with the idea of eliminating property taxes, Gambling is definitely NOT where we should trust our tax base on. Gambling is a tax on the poor. Rich people don’t gamble, at least not enough to effect the total revenue. It’s the poor who play slots and the lottery. What do we do when the poor are too poor to gamble?

The problem is, there is not a solid alternative to property taxes. To be honest my feeling currently is not that we should eliminate the property tax. Rather we should eliminate the NEED for so much taxes. We should curb spending and drop the size of government by half or more. That is a whole issue within itself though.

Don’t worry about that.  It will never happen.  There is not enough $$$ in gambling to even put a dent in what is required to make up for property taxes.  Doesn’t even come close.

Jason - 16 April 2010 08:44 PM

Marge - 11 March 2010 01:22 AM

The problem is, who’s going to buy the houses when they see what the taxes are?

I would then expect one or both of the following to occur:

1. Housing and real estate prices would go down.  (They may still be way over valued for this area).

2. Eventually you would get less people moving into the district thus stabilizing the growth of the district.

It seems that both or at least number 2 would help make financial life easier for folks already in the district.  Isn’t this social and free market driven response to the conditions you all are describing a logical correction?  Resources are plentiful so there is more demand until the cost goes up then demand drops to some steady state.  Perhaps I am wrong but could we be in the middle of a scenario “we” created and the system is just repairing itself?

What growth?  Did you not see the stats about the number of kids in the schools?  The only thing going up is the budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/your-money/07money.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=pensions colorado&st=cse

How much will we see really in efforts for the children when SEIU and the teachers Union hold us all hostage?  BIG TAXES NOW!  When ever has your job been really secured?  Especially in this economic climate? Next, we’ll see that teachers will be billed out of their pay for a stadium .  And, so little of the population care about a stadium than staying alive.  It won’t happen, because that nobody - who pays attention - beleives that the government has the money.  DUH.  AND to Invisible user - are you willing to laeve your estate and your efforts at selling $1000 cupcakes for a stadium?

markG - 18 April 2010 12:57 PM

Jason - 16 April 2010 08:44 PM

Marge - 11 March 2010 01:22 AM

The problem is, who’s going to buy the houses when they see what the taxes are?

I would then expect one or both of the following to occur:

1. Housing and real estate prices would go down.  (They may still be way over valued for this area).

2. Eventually you would get less people moving into the district thus stabilizing the growth of the district.

It seems that both or at least number 2 would help make financial life easier for folks already in the district.  Isn’t this social and free market driven response to the conditions you all are describing a logical correction?  Resources are plentiful so there is more demand until the cost goes up then demand drops to some steady state.  Perhaps I am wrong but could we be in the middle of a scenario “we” created and the system is just repairing itself?

What growth?  Did you not see the stats about the number of kids in the schools?  The only thing going up is the budget.

Wouldn’t you agree that the long term trends are up (i.e. 10+years out)?

No.  Dang it all, wouldn’t you want to see our lives reflected by our efforts, not by entitlements?  Want a stadium?  Does your child play sports?  DO YOU HAVE A CHILD IN THE TAX DISTRICT?  PAY TAXES? PISSED OFF ABOUT IT IF YOU DON’T - and your kids are private schooled or home schooled at your own expense?

Jason - 13 August 2010 12:41 PM

markG - 18 April 2010 12:57 PM

Jason - 16 April 2010 08:44 PM

Marge - 11 March 2010 01:22 AM

The problem is, who’s going to buy the houses when they see what the taxes are?

I would then expect one or both of the following to occur:

1. Housing and real estate prices would go down.  (They may still be way over valued for this area).

2. Eventually you would get less people moving into the district thus stabilizing the growth of the district.

It seems that both or at least number 2 would help make financial life easier for folks already in the district.  Isn’t this social and free market driven response to the conditions you all are describing a logical correction?  Resources are plentiful so there is more demand until the cost goes up then demand drops to some steady state.  Perhaps I am wrong but could we be in the middle of a scenario “we” created and the system is just repairing itself?

What growth?  Did you not see the stats about the number of kids in the schools?  The only thing going up is the budget.

Wouldn’t you agree that the long term trends are up (i.e. 10+years out)?

Nope, wouldn’t agree with that at all.  The 11 year trend says that growth has been static (actually declining based on the trend line) while the estimates were that growth would be on the rise, so statistically speaking I have no reason to believe that there is going to be a spurt in growth in the school population. 

Based on property prices here, property taxes and the lack of industry to supply good local jobs, I do not see a ton of additional growth coming to this area (Delta, Fawn Grove, New Park) anytime soon.  People are not as inclined to commute the long distances that they were 10 years ago when gas prices were lower either.  The anticipated growth from the BRAC project at Aberdeen, MD that was expected is no longer expected according to their own reports, so that is another thing that was factored into the growth projections that never happened either.

Ahh Caroline....

First of all, the Teacher’s Union and SEIU are made up of real, live, actual human beings. Many of those people actually care about our kids. While I don’t agree with much of that they do there is no reason to demonize them. They aren’t holding anyone hostage. You are building a straw man to attack.

Second, there isn’t a single teacher in the district who will lose a dime over that stadium. I’ve talked to board members, boosters, and teachers alike extensively. I’ve been to just about every meeting concerning the stadium and I currently hold plans in my hand. Every single one of those groups is largely in favor of a new stadium. In fact, most of the community members I talk to are in favor as long as taxes are not effected. It’s uninformed people like you who make the folks who care about our kids look bad. If you don’t believe me, go to the meeting on Wednesday this week at 7pm. You can ask the architects and everyone involved how they plan to fund it.

Why do you insist on being so negative? I hate taxes as much as anyone else. I disapprove of unions more than most as well. However, I refuse to stoop to insinuating that these people are so selfish as to hold us hostage, using our kids’ education as a bargaining chip, or even worse, as ransom. Really, is it stadium or life here? No, and calling it otherwise shows how what a lack of thinking can do to people.

Marge - 04 November 2009 08:15 PM

Keep in mind, the increases noted above are ONLY for educators’ pensions.  This is in addition to the “normal” school budget increases. 

From what I could find, not counting educators, there are over 80,000 State employees.  The taxpayer is also going to have to foot the bill for their pension increases.

Educators pensions are outrageous! Everyone has heard about employees who worked for a company 25 to 30+ years thinking they would have a nice pension when they retired, got the short end of the stick. A foreign company came in purchased the company and were not bound by the original companies contract with the employees regarding pensions. Those employees having worked for the original company for decades had a rude awakening when they discovered that pension they looked so forward to collecting was not there.

Example: Bethlehem Steel employees were told when they first started working for the company after graduating from high school, their pension was fully vested and they would receive a nice lump sum upon retirement. When they went to collect the lump sum, the lump sum wasn’t there. Why? A British Company purchased the company and were not bound by law to honor the original company’s agreement with the employees.

Example: Bethlehem Steel employees were told when they first started working for the company that they would have medical coverage when they retired. When the employees retired, it wasn’t long afterwards when the British Company took over Bethlehem Steel announced that they weren’t going to provide medical coverage to retirees any more. Within 2 weeks, the company announced they would provide medical coverage only for those retirees that resided in MD. Many retired Bethlehem Steel employees resided in PA. The PA retirees were up in arms so the British Company then changed their position and provided medical coverage for the retirees up to a period of one year. After the year was up, the retirees were forced to purchase their own medical coverage.

Example: A chap worked for another company retiring at age 55 with a pension they earned working for another employer. After they retired they decided to continue to work and were hired by Bethlehem Steel. Shortly after the chap was hired a British company purchased Bethlehem Steel. One year after the British Company purchased Bethlehem Steel, management told the employees they would have to work a couple of hundred hours overtime without pay because the stockholders did not receive the 12% return on their investment they expected. The chap quit working for British owned Bethlehm Steel asap. They weren’t going to work 200 hours overtime without pay. No one in their right mind would do that!

If employees in the private sector are not guaranteed a pension or medical coverage, then why should homeowners be required to pay pensions and medical coverage for educators? After all if it is okay for a private company to renege on their employees pension and medical coverage, then it should be perfectly okay for homeowners to renege on paying for educators pensions and medical coverage!

caroline - 13 August 2010 12:52 PM

No.  Dang it all, wouldn’t you want to see our lives reflected by our efforts, not by entitlements?  Want a stadium?  Does your child play sports?  DO YOU HAVE A CHILD IN THE TAX DISTRICT?  PAY TAXES? PISSED OFF ABOUT IT IF YOU DON’T - and your kids are private schooled or home schooled at your own expense?

I agree.

Yeah two wrongs always make a right. That’s some good logic.