Illinois govenor wants to jack taxes

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
I wonder if the people who believe that business taxes are consumer taxes also believe that government spending is consumer spending?

How can a govt entity be considered consumer spending? Business taxes are consumer taxes because the taxes are often pushed along in the cost of the sale.

You raise taxes on McDonalds and who pays? People see their value meals raised by 5 cents.

Government spends money on the people too.

Well thank you for pointing out the obvious. That doesnt mean it is "consumer" spending.

Just like business taxes are not consumer taxes.

What economics courses did you take in college?

 

[feralkid]

Illinois govenor wants to jack taxes


........................................................




Funds needed to purchase the letter "R".

😛

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Genx87

Mass Transit - A money losing venture in nearly every city is has been deployed. People who pay for the systems dont even use it.

No mass transit system in the nation can cover it's costs by the fares they take in. The benefit to the city is in cars off the road, less pollution, more attractive environments for business, and the ability to move people into and out of event venues more efficiently. While I don't think large mass transit systems are appropriate for every city, the Chicago metro area probably saves billions per year by having it's commuter rail and mass transit systems in place.

They could if they charged a non-subsidized rate and made the users pay the full cost of the system.

Lots of road construction/repair is subsidized using non-fuel tax revenue...

Lots of that would go away when fuel taxes stopped being sucked by mass transit.

 

[piasabird]

I live in Illinois.

Illinois has one of the highest Tax rates for gasoline.

Most of the money ends up being spent on large cities like Chicago, and it the ultra large school districts, wasting money on hiring secretaries and security guards and administrators instead of teachers. Large cities are a giant money drain.

Illinois is also a state that is mostly Democratic, especially in the area of Chicago, so if the state raises taxes, it is the Democrats who are raising the taxes.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
I wonder if the people who believe that business taxes are consumer taxes also believe that government spending is consumer spending?

How can a govt entity be considered consumer spending? Business taxes are consumer taxes because the taxes are often pushed along in the cost of the sale.

You raise taxes on McDonalds and who pays? People see their value meals raised by 5 cents.

Government spends money on the people too.

Well thank you for pointing out the obvious. That doesnt mean it is "consumer" spending.

Just like business taxes are not consumer taxes.

What economics courses did you take in college?

I'm more interested in what kind of economics you and Shivetya took in college, since you're missing something really big here, though it's not quite what senseamp thinks it is.

 

[DerekP]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Mass Transit - A money losing venture in nearly every city is has been deployed. People who pay for the systems dont even use it.

But a quite necessary one. I grew up just outside Washington, DC. You don't drive unless you absolutely have to. The traffic is terrible, there's nowhere to park, and I doubt there is much anything that could be done about it without knocking down a whole bunch of stuff. And that is with the Metro system in place moving around close to 600,000 people per day to and from work and wherever else. I would hate to imagine what kind of tangled mess the capital would become without mass transit.

I don't think a private company could handle things like this that the government can at a workable price for everyone involved. It would become another limited access system with cost keeping out those who couldn't afford it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DerekP

Originally posted by: Genx87

Mass Transit - A money losing venture in nearly every city is has been deployed. People who pay for the systems dont even use it.

But a quite necessary one. I grew up just outside Washington, DC. You don't drive unless you absolutely have to. The traffic is terrible, there's nowhere to park, and I doubt there is much anything that could be done about it without knocking down a whole bunch of stuff. And that is with the Metro system in place moving around close to 600,000 people per day to and from work and wherever else. I would hate to imagine what kind of tangled mess the capital would become without mass transit.

I don't think a private company could handle things like this that the government can at a workable price for everyone involved. It would become another limited access system with cost keeping out those who couldn't afford it.

A little hint, the govt cant operate it at a workable cost either. Hence the reason why everybody pays for it but only a small % of the population uses it.

The hidden costs of mass transit on a per mile basis are pretty high. Not only for the actual cost of building it compared to roads and highways. But the constant money drain from the ridership who dont pay anything near the actual cost of the service. In MN our mass transit consumes about 400,000,000 a year from gax taxes or other subsidies. For that 82,000,000 unique rides are purchased each year through the entire system.

That puts the cost right at 4.88 per unique ride. I dont know what the rates they are charging the users. But I am willing to bet no where near the 5 bucks it costs.

 

[DerekP]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DerekP

Originally posted by: Genx87

Mass Transit - A money losing venture in nearly every city is has been deployed. People who pay for the systems dont even use it.

But a quite necessary one. I grew up just outside Washington, DC. You don't drive unless you absolutely have to. The traffic is terrible, there's nowhere to park, and I doubt there is much anything that could be done about it without knocking down a whole bunch of stuff. And that is with the Metro system in place moving around close to 600,000 people per day to and from work and wherever else. I would hate to imagine what kind of tangled mess the capital would become without mass transit.

I don't think a private company could handle things like this that the government can at a workable price for everyone involved. It would become another limited access system with cost keeping out those who couldn't afford it.

A little hint, the govt cant operate it at a workable cost either. Hence the reason why everybody pays for it but only a small % of the population uses it.

The hidden costs of mass transit on a per mile basis are pretty high. Not only for the actual cost of building it compared to roads and highways. But the constant money drain from the ridership who dont pay anything near the actual cost of the service. In MN our mass transit consumes about 400,000,000 a year from gax taxes or other subsidies. For that 82,000,000 unique rides are purchased each year through the entire system.

That puts the cost right at 4.88 per unique ride. I dont know what the rates they are charging the users. But I am willing to bet no where near the 5 bucks it costs.

Yeah I understand how it works, I suppose I should have been more specific, in that I was referring to the ticket price. It seems to me that private ownership would create a deadly spiral. Higher ticket price, less riders, less revenue, raise ticket prices again, continue until bankruptcy.

I guess this just highlights one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. I believe that's exactly what government should be doing, providing necessary services for everyone (whether they choose to use them or not) and spread the damages around a bit. I may not have used the Metro every day, but it was great that it was there as needed.

Which I suppose can further be boiled down in that liberals mistrust business while conservatives mistrust government. I look at government, see a far from perfect entity, but think that maybe it can be made better and someday might be. I look at business, and see pure human greed, which is immutable.

Although I have to admit, government isn't looking so great anymore.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DerekP

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DerekP

Originally posted by: Genx87

Mass Transit - A money losing venture in nearly every city is has been deployed. People who pay for the systems dont even use it.

But a quite necessary one. I grew up just outside Washington, DC. You don't drive unless you absolutely have to. The traffic is terrible, there's nowhere to park, and I doubt there is much anything that could be done about it without knocking down a whole bunch of stuff. And that is with the Metro system in place moving around close to 600,000 people per day to and from work and wherever else. I would hate to imagine what kind of tangled mess the capital would become without mass transit.

I don't think a private company could handle things like this that the government can at a workable price for everyone involved. It would become another limited access system with cost keeping out those who couldn't afford it.

A little hint, the govt cant operate it at a workable cost either. Hence the reason why everybody pays for it but only a small % of the population uses it.

The hidden costs of mass transit on a per mile basis are pretty high. Not only for the actual cost of building it compared to roads and highways. But the constant money drain from the ridership who dont pay anything near the actual cost of the service. In MN our mass transit consumes about 400,000,000 a year from gax taxes or other subsidies. For that 82,000,000 unique rides are purchased each year through the entire system.

That puts the cost right at 4.88 per unique ride. I dont know what the rates they are charging the users. But I am willing to bet no where near the 5 bucks it costs.

Yeah I understand how it works, I suppose I should have been more specific, in that I was referring to the ticket price. It seems to me that private ownership would create a deadly spiral. Higher ticket price, less riders, less revenue, raise ticket prices again, continue until bankruptcy.

I guess this just highlights one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. I believe that's exactly what government should be doing, providing necessary services for everyone (whether they choose to use them or not) and spread the damages around a bit. I may not have used the Metro every day, but it was great that it was there as needed.

Which I suppose can further be boiled down in that liberals mistrust business while conservatives mistrust government. I look at government, see a far from perfect entity, but think that maybe it can be made better and someday might be. I look at business, and see pure human greed, which is immutable.

Although I have to admit, government isn't looking so great anymore.

I guess the question I pose to you is, do you believe the govt should run the airline industry? Your theory is private business would be incapable of providing such a service. Yet the airline industry does the exact same thing and survives and ticket prices have gone down ever since deregulation.

You are right about where we mistrust. However I will say that most true conservatives of this day mistrust big business just as much as govt. Mainly because big business and big govt go hand in hand.

Business abuses are far less than big govt abuses. Govt is absolute, business goes out of business or is shut down by govt.

 

[DerekP]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DerekP

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DerekP

Originally posted by: Genx87

Mass Transit - A money losing venture in nearly every city is has been deployed. People who pay for the systems dont even use it.

But a quite necessary one. I grew up just outside Washington, DC. You don't drive unless you absolutely have to. The traffic is terrible, there's nowhere to park, and I doubt there is much anything that could be done about it without knocking down a whole bunch of stuff. And that is with the Metro system in place moving around close to 600,000 people per day to and from work and wherever else. I would hate to imagine what kind of tangled mess the capital would become without mass transit.

I don't think a private company could handle things like this that the government can at a workable price for everyone involved. It would become another limited access system with cost keeping out those who couldn't afford it.

A little hint, the govt cant operate it at a workable cost either. Hence the reason why everybody pays for it but only a small % of the population uses it.

The hidden costs of mass transit on a per mile basis are pretty high. Not only for the actual cost of building it compared to roads and highways. But the constant money drain from the ridership who dont pay anything near the actual cost of the service. In MN our mass transit consumes about 400,000,000 a year from gax taxes or other subsidies. For that 82,000,000 unique rides are purchased each year through the entire system.

That puts the cost right at 4.88 per unique ride. I dont know what the rates they are charging the users. But I am willing to bet no where near the 5 bucks it costs.

Yeah I understand how it works, I suppose I should have been more specific, in that I was referring to the ticket price. It seems to me that private ownership would create a deadly spiral. Higher ticket price, less riders, less revenue, raise ticket prices again, continue until bankruptcy.

I guess this just highlights one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. I believe that's exactly what government should be doing, providing necessary services for everyone (whether they choose to use them or not) and spread the damages around a bit. I may not have used the Metro every day, but it was great that it was there as needed.

Which I suppose can further be boiled down in that liberals mistrust business while conservatives mistrust government. I look at government, see a far from perfect entity, but think that maybe it can be made better and someday might be. I look at business, and see pure human greed, which is immutable.

Although I have to admit, government isn't looking so great anymore.

I guess the question I pose to you is, do you believe the govt should run the airline industry? Your theory is private business would be incapable of providing such a service. Yet the airline industry does the exact same thing and survives and ticket prices have gone down ever since deregulation.

You are right about where we mistrust. However I will say that most true conservatives of this day mistrust big business just as much as govt. Mainly because big business and big govt go hand in hand.

Business abuses are far less than big govt abuses. Govt is absolute, business goes out of business or is shut down by govt.

I think the key to the airline industry is that more than one airline can run out of an airport. That gives you all of the benefits and workings of capitalism (competition, choice, etc..). Things like subways, there can by their nature be only one. But I see your point.

The true conservative.. a dying breed it seems to me. I hope that can get straightened out, because I think it would help with the balance I referred to earlier in this thread.

Much to think over, but it's time for me to be getting back to work. I wanted to move on to the healthcare topic, but I'll leave that can of worms for another day. It's been good to have a conversation that doesn't degenerate into flames, even if there were flames around us :laugh:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DerekP

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DerekP

Originally posted by: Genx87

Mass Transit - A money losing venture in nearly every city is has been deployed. People who pay for the systems dont even use it.

But a quite necessary one. I grew up just outside Washington, DC. You don't drive unless you absolutely have to. The traffic is terrible, there's nowhere to park, and I doubt there is much anything that could be done about it without knocking down a whole bunch of stuff. And that is with the Metro system in place moving around close to 600,000 people per day to and from work and wherever else. I would hate to imagine what kind of tangled mess the capital would become without mass transit.

I don't think a private company could handle things like this that the government can at a workable price for everyone involved. It would become another limited access system with cost keeping out those who couldn't afford it.

A little hint, the govt cant operate it at a workable cost either. Hence the reason why everybody pays for it but only a small % of the population uses it.

The hidden costs of mass transit on a per mile basis are pretty high. Not only for the actual cost of building it compared to roads and highways. But the constant money drain from the ridership who dont pay anything near the actual cost of the service. In MN our mass transit consumes about 400,000,000 a year from gax taxes or other subsidies. For that 82,000,000 unique rides are purchased each year through the entire system.

That puts the cost right at 4.88 per unique ride. I dont know what the rates they are charging the users. But I am willing to bet no where near the 5 bucks it costs.

Yeah I understand how it works, I suppose I should have been more specific, in that I was referring to the ticket price. It seems to me that private ownership would create a deadly spiral. Higher ticket price, less riders, less revenue, raise ticket prices again, continue until bankruptcy.

I guess this just highlights one of the differences between liberals and conservatives. I believe that's exactly what government should be doing, providing necessary services for everyone (whether they choose to use them or not) and spread the damages around a bit. I may not have used the Metro every day, but it was great that it was there as needed.

Which I suppose can further be boiled down in that liberals mistrust business while conservatives mistrust government. I look at government, see a far from perfect entity, but think that maybe it can be made better and someday might be. I look at business, and see pure human greed, which is immutable.

Although I have to admit, government isn't looking so great anymore.

I guess the question I pose to you is, do you believe the govt should run the airline industry? Your theory is private business would be incapable of providing such a service. Yet the airline industry does the exact same thing and survives and ticket prices have gone down ever since deregulation.

You are right about where we mistrust. However I will say that most true conservatives of this day mistrust big business just as much as govt. Mainly because big business and big govt go hand in hand.

Business abuses are far less than big govt abuses. Govt is absolute, business goes out of business or is shut down by govt.

While your identification of the hidden costs of transit are worthwhile, you haven't included the hidden savings of 'it is impossible to build enough roads to send everyone to work in cars'.

The government shouldn't run the airline industry, because it is not economically feasible to congest the skies to the point that you can't fit in another trip. I should point out, however, that public money tends to subsidize the costs of building airports - it's a matter of providing the infrastructure that allows the economy to grow, and it's why government is the only business that can operate at a net loss (i.e. projects that do not generate a positive net return in taxes) as long as the external benefits are greater than the cost.

A simple thought experiment: Would a private company build a road from A to B with a negative return in terms of potential toll traffic? No. Can a government justify doing it if the total economic benefit of the road is positive? Yes. The difference between the two cases is the area under the demand curve (consumer surplus). A private company, even a monopoly cannot realistically access all of that surplus, and therefore projects can be 'profitable to society' but not 'good business' at the same time.

Should the road be built? That depends on your opinion of social projects, but that fact that the road would be beneficial in a societal sense does not depend on anyone's opinion.

BTW my opinion of taxing raw materials (especially without massively lowering the basic tax rate) is just as negative as yours. This particular plan sounds like bad business to me.

I would also really like someone to address the very real difference between consumer and business taxation that I already outlined, as so far no one has😉

 

[daveymark]

this is what will happen if taxes get raised

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DerekP
I have a question. In the two days I've been reading these forums, I've seen all kinds of taxes bashed. So is it the belief of everyone here that they've never seen a tax they've liked? The good old less government is better, and less funding is less government? Or is it just dislike of anything that comes out of your pocket? What would be a good method of the government gaining revenue to make up the current fiscal spreadsheet imbalances?

... ok more like 4 questions.

Right now nearly a third of all income in the US goes to some kind of tax.
Out of every dollar you make about 32 cents of it will end up in the hands of the government one way or another.

That means more of your money goes to taxes than to housing, food or transportation.

And yet some people think we need to send more money to the government?
Those of us on the right would rather see government cut back on its spending in order to balance its budgets, as opposed to raising taxes.

As for your second post

However, I also believe that there are things that the government needs to address that only the government can address, such as social programs that truly benefit everyone, with no strings of religion or affiliation attached. And this makes tax a necessary burden.

Do you know that the Department of Health and Human services is already the largest in the goverment? Over 600 billion last year, nearly a 100 billion more than the defense department.
How much more should we spend on these social programs?

God forbid more is spent on healing than killing!! hahahaha... my goodness.

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DerekP

Originally posted by: Genx87

Mass Transit - A money losing venture in nearly every city is has been deployed. People who pay for the systems dont even use it.

But a quite necessary one. I grew up just outside Washington, DC. You don't drive unless you absolutely have to. The traffic is terrible, there's nowhere to park, and I doubt there is much anything that could be done about it without knocking down a whole bunch of stuff. And that is with the Metro system in place moving around close to 600,000 people per day to and from work and wherever else. I would hate to imagine what kind of tangled mess the capital would become without mass transit.

I don't think a private company could handle things like this that the government can at a workable price for everyone involved. It would become another limited access system with cost keeping out those who couldn't afford it.

A little hint, the govt cant operate it at a workable cost either. Hence the reason why everybody pays for it but only a small % of the population uses it.

The hidden costs of mass transit on a per mile basis are pretty high. Not only for the actual cost of building it compared to roads and highways. But the constant money drain from the ridership who dont pay anything near the actual cost of the service. In MN our mass transit consumes about 400,000,000 a year from gax taxes or other subsidies. For that 82,000,000 unique rides are purchased each year through the entire system.

That puts the cost right at 4.88 per unique ride. I dont know what the rates they are charging the users. But I am willing to bet no where near the 5 bucks it costs.

Still a hell of a lot less than a drive around the block.