|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
repdan 
justdan
Group: Members
Posts: 649
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 26 2004,11:06 pm |
|
   |
Also, there is another plan in place for the metro called fiscal disparities which property tax $$$ in the metro area. Both this and the LGA program are redistribution programs that is what they are designed to do.
--------------
carpe ductem.....remember we're all in this together..I'm pull'n for you.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
iowegian
Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 27 2004,9:56 am |
|
 |
Wow--I sure was wrong. Now I get it.
LGA isn't welfare, it's a handout for cities with poor tax bases to use for basic services so there is other budget money to waste as those poor cities see fit. Without LGA they'd need to use their own budget money for basic services. Like city A in your county.
And the cities that budget their property tax money well don't need or get much LGA, like smaller cities G and H in your county.
What incentive is there for cities like A to get off the LGA rolls?
I'm glad I have property in city N--------Iowa just seems to have more common sense sometimes.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
repdan
justdan
Group: Members
Posts: 649
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 27 2004,1:17 pm |
|
|
To each there own my friend. My guess is that you pay a much higher home tax rate in Iowa. As much as you would like to paint it otherwise, the program reduces property tax rates. The additional money in 2001 had to come from the levy resulting is property taxes going down and cities could only levy back 60% of the lost aid.
--------------
carpe ductem.....remember we're all in this together..I'm pull'n for you.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
cwolff
Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 27 2004,2:39 pm |
|
|
Rep. Dan Dorman, you state that the percentage of cut should be the same. If city A receives $1.5 million and has a population of only 10,000 and city B only receives half this amount but has 75,000 people, you would rather have the cuts the same even though city A is receiving more LGA with less people? If a city has less people they should have to pay more! A city with more people has more competition for these basic services and in essence the people with more populated cities would have poorer service. More populated cities have less open space, more traffic, and more murders among other fringe benefits, so I say if you cannot pay for your own basic services, then you need to cut back elsewhere. Don't blame your mismanagement on unfavorable wealth redistribution.
The same thing is going on with the Federal budget and future entitlements. I have heard that future promised entitlements for social security, medicare, medicade, federal retirement pensions and insurance, survivor benefits, and ect.. total around 65-70 trillion dollars, but we have no chance in he!! to pay for it. We need to start setting examples at the local level by showing fiscal responsibility, and to take responsibility for your own services. If you cannot afford all of your basic services, then you start to share some of your basic services with other near by cities.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
minnow fan
Group: Members
Posts: 198
Joined: Nov. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 27 2004,4:11 pm |
|
|
| Quote (iowegian @ Feb. 27 2004,9:56:am) | | Iowa just seems to have more common sense sometimes. |
Keep posting that, I think you are the only one who believes it. 
Even if there was a shread of truth to it, that is the absolute only thing Iowa has going for it. You say keep coming to Iowa to spend our money in your state? Are you kidding me? I can't say I know of anyone who goes to Iowa to vacation or do any serious shopping. I think it is quite the opposite. Check out Apache or River Hills Mall during back to school or Christmas, it is full of Iowa plates. Check out Brainerd or Duluth, plenty of Iowegians vacationing there as well.
Can you tell me, where can I buy a computer or plasma TV in Northwood? Or maybe visit the Northwood Red Lobster, or is it Mason, nope, sorry, niether could come close to supporting one.
--------------
Even if you think the ALEDC is a good idea, do you really want to put Sparks and Bishop in charge of all the economic development in Albert Lea?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 27 2004,10:09 pm |
|
|
Maybe a 60" plasma, but I'd rather have a nice projector and do almost a whole wall on a nice screen. I've got a 40" Sony flatscreen hooked to Dish and a $15K audio system. I can even run my computer songs through it like the theme song for the Jeffersons TV show. Movin' on up...to da east side...to a deluxe apartment in da sky yi yi...movin on up...
...I finally got a piece of da pie...
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
MrTarzan
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 29 2004,12:30 am |
|
|
I really makes no sense to drive to Mankato to make a major purchase when you will pay less in Mason City. I would rather buy local, but if it is not here, I don't look north, I look south. When purchasing large end items like commercial lazer printers, the best buy in Des Moines was able to offer them 15% lower than the one in Burnsville because of lower workers compensation and other expenses.
But none of that has anything to do with LGA. I find it a weird concept, and strange that a Republican would support a plan that is clearly wealth redistribution. Of course I realize that if you opposed giving your voting public money that they can get, you would be lynched, so maybe it is not so strange. Got to pick your battles carefully don't you?
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 01 2004,3:53 pm |
|
|
I basically got this argument-
cwolff is a resident of the suburbs, and is tired of paying property taxes to ‘subsidize’ smaller communities. Only problem is that he is not looking at the entire picture here. In any suburb, you are going to have thousands of high-dollar property and home owners paying in taxes based upon the value, while in the rural areas, you have fewer people paying in on lower valued property and homes. What cwolff would only like anyone to see is the perceived wealth distribution and wasteful spending (another discussion entirely) and not the fact that what he would like to see is that more people paying taxes means less tax for them, while fewer people paying taxes means more tax for them. LGA is sort of a leg-up for rural cities who otherwise would not have the necessary tax base to draw the money necessary to cover all the expenditures of local government.
Now while I know the questions were not directed at me personally, I would still like to take a crack at them.
| Quote | | If city A receives $1.5 million and has a population of only 10,000 and city B only receives half this amount but has 75,000 people, you would rather have the cuts the same even though city A is receiving more LGA with less people? |
You are not looking at the entire picture here. In this example, city B with the higher population also has a bigger property tax base on top of being a higher valued one, thus already pulling in plenty more tax money than city A.
| Quote | | If a city has less people they should have to pay more! |
So what you are saying is that a person who has a home valued at $100,000 in city A should be paying a larger total dollar amount than a person who has a $500,000 home in city B? Talk about wealth redistribution…
| Quote | | A city with more people has more competition for these basic services and in essence the people with more populated cities would have poorer service. |
Bullsh!t! At any give time there are more fire, police, ambulance, and medial facilities per capita in the metro than in outstate. If you feel that the service is poorer than take it up with your local officials and stop trying to lay the blame on LGA.
| Quote | | More populated cities have less open space, more traffic, and more murders among other fringe benefits |
So you feel that more populated cities should have to pay less in taxes because they have less space, more traffic, and more murders? You do realize that no one if forcing you to live there right? Besides, a lions share of the state’s spending goes to the metro area over greater MN already, so what you are essentially saying is that somehow you deserve more?
| Quote | | The same thing is going on with the Federal budget and future entitlements. I have heard that future promised entitlements for social security, medicare, medicade, federal retirement pensions and insurance, survivor benefits, and ect.. total around 65-70 trillion dollars, but we have no chance in he!! to pay for it. |
While not really on topic, the Social Security scare is nothing but smoke and mirrors done so that there will be support to move money out of the Social Security Fund into the stock market. You have to look deeper than the 10 second news bite from your favorite talking head and see that the scare is not as real as they make it seem. There is an agenda to all this, you just need to look. Anyhow, back on topic-
| Quote | | If you cannot afford all of your basic services, then you start to share some of your basic services with other near by cities. |
So here you are saying that cities like Albert Lea should have to share basic services like police, fire, etc. with other communities? Great, next time there is a major fire we can all call over to Austin to have their fire dept come over and put it out. Now imagine the insurance rate increase now that all the major services are now more than 30 minutes away…
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Jesus Juice
Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: Jan. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 01 2004,5:16 pm |
|
|
| Quote (MrTarzan @ Feb. 29 2004,12:30:am) | | I really makes no sense to drive to Mankato to make a major purchase when you will pay less in Mason City. I would rather buy local, but if it is not here, I don't look north, I look south. When purchasing large end items like commercial lazer printers, the best buy in Des Moines was able to offer them 15% lower than the one in Burnsville because of lower workers compensation and other expenses. |
To each their own but I would disagree. Never been impressed with Mason City shopping. I believe anything you can find in Mason, you can find it and much more in Rochester or Mankato and I don't think things are more expensive, plus no sales tax on clothes. Also, no Best Buy in Mason, enough said right there. And afterall, I would prefer to keep my money in Minnesota all other things being equal.
Just my opinion...thanks for reading.
-JJ
--------------
http://www.mankatochat.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
The Advocate
Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 01 2004,5:31 pm |
|
|
Thank-you, Dan Dorman for answering questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
