Every article you publish is about more tax and spend government. You've got to go back before the 60s to even find examples you want to use, as if the last fifty years didn't happen.
NY spends $40k/kid/year on schools. Do you really think REVENUE is the problem the school system is facing.
Total government spending (fed, state, local) was under 30% of GDP in 1960. Today it's around 40%. And that's with the military budget dropping from like 10% to 3%. That's a lot of extra social spending, including at the state and local level. What do we have to show for it? Not much. It gets plowed into the same Eds/Meds rackets and urban spoils systems that eat revenue and shit out no positive impacts.
Most seniors have their property taxes capped. They aren't the ones that benefit most from property tax relief. Young families with modern assessments that are paying 2-3x as much benefit the most.
Florida has a budget surplus despite no income taxes.
Tax and spend blue states are all broke despite massive taxes and have huge unfunded liabilities. Do not fucking sit there and tell me that NY and CA's problems are that they don't tax enough! The Northeast and IL have the highest absolute and by % rate property taxes in the country. They also have some of the highest income taxes. Yet their budgets are a mess and their services suck.
"Do not fucking sit there and tell me that NY and CA's problems are that they don't tax enough!"
I don't think this is at all what the article argues for. In fact improving services to put more trust in the government is exactly what the article wants governments to do instead.
There is also no agenda here to blindly increase taxes (the criticism is about replacing property taxes with sales tax)... this was in the start of the article so I am starting to doubt you read the whole thing. Or maybe you think that being against tax cuts = raising taxes. Based on the grievances you shared I think if you read the whole article you would actually agree with it.
Tony's right, and he's being too generous conceding anything there. La Guardia cut a lot of patronage jobs before spending a dime. That's not "improving services = spend more money."
Every article you publish is about more tax and spend government. You've got to go back before the 60s to even find examples you want to use, as if the last fifty years didn't happen.
NY spends $40k/kid/year on schools. Do you really think REVENUE is the problem the school system is facing.
Total government spending (fed, state, local) was under 30% of GDP in 1960. Today it's around 40%. And that's with the military budget dropping from like 10% to 3%. That's a lot of extra social spending, including at the state and local level. What do we have to show for it? Not much. It gets plowed into the same Eds/Meds rackets and urban spoils systems that eat revenue and shit out no positive impacts.
Most seniors have their property taxes capped. They aren't the ones that benefit most from property tax relief. Young families with modern assessments that are paying 2-3x as much benefit the most.
Florida has a budget surplus despite no income taxes.
Tax and spend blue states are all broke despite massive taxes and have huge unfunded liabilities. Do not fucking sit there and tell me that NY and CA's problems are that they don't tax enough! The Northeast and IL have the highest absolute and by % rate property taxes in the country. They also have some of the highest income taxes. Yet their budgets are a mess and their services suck.
"Do not fucking sit there and tell me that NY and CA's problems are that they don't tax enough!"
I don't think this is at all what the article argues for. In fact improving services to put more trust in the government is exactly what the article wants governments to do instead.
There is also no agenda here to blindly increase taxes (the criticism is about replacing property taxes with sales tax)... this was in the start of the article so I am starting to doubt you read the whole thing. Or maybe you think that being against tax cuts = raising taxes. Based on the grievances you shared I think if you read the whole article you would actually agree with it.
I'm talking about the totality of this article and the authors body of work.
"Improving services" = spend more money (and ultimately tax more money).
" Improving services = spend more money (and ultimately tax more money)"
I guess this is where we disagree. I could be that I am a little too optimistic.
Also I was also talking about the totality of the article, so maybe we have different glasses on.
Tony's right, and he's being too generous conceding anything there. La Guardia cut a lot of patronage jobs before spending a dime. That's not "improving services = spend more money."
Tony has it right. Read the La Guardia section