- This topic has 20 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
cr.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 20, 2008 at 8:19 AM #12193March 20, 2008 at 10:22 AM #173757
cr
ParticipantLooks like the “no spillover effects” mumbo jumbo is gone.
And the Million Dollar priced homes are getting hit too.
March 20, 2008 at 10:22 AM #174203cr
ParticipantLooks like the “no spillover effects” mumbo jumbo is gone.
And the Million Dollar priced homes are getting hit too.
March 20, 2008 at 10:22 AM #174099cr
ParticipantLooks like the “no spillover effects” mumbo jumbo is gone.
And the Million Dollar priced homes are getting hit too.
March 20, 2008 at 10:22 AM #174117cr
ParticipantLooks like the “no spillover effects” mumbo jumbo is gone.
And the Million Dollar priced homes are getting hit too.
March 20, 2008 at 10:22 AM #174107cr
ParticipantLooks like the “no spillover effects” mumbo jumbo is gone.
And the Million Dollar priced homes are getting hit too.
March 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM #174121sd-maybe
ParticipantQuote of the article:
“Everything would have been fine if the bubble didn’t pop,” Subers said.
I’m sure he said this with a straight face.
March 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM #174208sd-maybe
ParticipantQuote of the article:
“Everything would have been fine if the bubble didn’t pop,” Subers said.
I’m sure he said this with a straight face.
March 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM #174112sd-maybe
ParticipantQuote of the article:
“Everything would have been fine if the bubble didn’t pop,” Subers said.
I’m sure he said this with a straight face.
March 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM #174104sd-maybe
ParticipantQuote of the article:
“Everything would have been fine if the bubble didn’t pop,” Subers said.
I’m sure he said this with a straight face.
March 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM #173762sd-maybe
ParticipantQuote of the article:
“Everything would have been fine if the bubble didn’t pop,” Subers said.
I’m sure he said this with a straight face.
March 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM #174175EconProf
ParticipantBobS
Look closely at some of the numbers this article brings out…it shows government officials panicking merely because tax revenues are increasing at a slowing rate.
For example, Sacramento is seeing its property tax revenues going up only 2% this year, so they respond by cutting department budgets by 20%. Where is this money going? Are these scare tactics working?
In another section, the article points out how elsewhere in the rest of California, property tax revenues are going to INCREASE only 6% this year and 3% next year. So…where is the hardship? Governments are so used to tax revenues gushing in at a double digit pace year after year that they have put all their spending on automatic pilot to increase similarly. Apparently they can ratchet up at a double digit pace but not slow down to single digits.
Note the breathless reporting that shows the author of the piece contributes to the atmosphere of panic and gloom and doom. The journalist’s very numbers contridict his/her theme. Yet there is no questioning of why the public sector cannot economize in an intelligent manner, like the taxpayer is forced to do in any downturn. Geez guys, just hold expenditures to last year’s outrageous amount. Do that for two years and we’d have a budget surplus.March 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM #174182EconProf
ParticipantBobS
Look closely at some of the numbers this article brings out…it shows government officials panicking merely because tax revenues are increasing at a slowing rate.
For example, Sacramento is seeing its property tax revenues going up only 2% this year, so they respond by cutting department budgets by 20%. Where is this money going? Are these scare tactics working?
In another section, the article points out how elsewhere in the rest of California, property tax revenues are going to INCREASE only 6% this year and 3% next year. So…where is the hardship? Governments are so used to tax revenues gushing in at a double digit pace year after year that they have put all their spending on automatic pilot to increase similarly. Apparently they can ratchet up at a double digit pace but not slow down to single digits.
Note the breathless reporting that shows the author of the piece contributes to the atmosphere of panic and gloom and doom. The journalist’s very numbers contridict his/her theme. Yet there is no questioning of why the public sector cannot economize in an intelligent manner, like the taxpayer is forced to do in any downturn. Geez guys, just hold expenditures to last year’s outrageous amount. Do that for two years and we’d have a budget surplus.March 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM #174191EconProf
ParticipantBobS
Look closely at some of the numbers this article brings out…it shows government officials panicking merely because tax revenues are increasing at a slowing rate.
For example, Sacramento is seeing its property tax revenues going up only 2% this year, so they respond by cutting department budgets by 20%. Where is this money going? Are these scare tactics working?
In another section, the article points out how elsewhere in the rest of California, property tax revenues are going to INCREASE only 6% this year and 3% next year. So…where is the hardship? Governments are so used to tax revenues gushing in at a double digit pace year after year that they have put all their spending on automatic pilot to increase similarly. Apparently they can ratchet up at a double digit pace but not slow down to single digits.
Note the breathless reporting that shows the author of the piece contributes to the atmosphere of panic and gloom and doom. The journalist’s very numbers contridict his/her theme. Yet there is no questioning of why the public sector cannot economize in an intelligent manner, like the taxpayer is forced to do in any downturn. Geez guys, just hold expenditures to last year’s outrageous amount. Do that for two years and we’d have a budget surplus.March 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM #173831EconProf
ParticipantBobS
Look closely at some of the numbers this article brings out…it shows government officials panicking merely because tax revenues are increasing at a slowing rate.
For example, Sacramento is seeing its property tax revenues going up only 2% this year, so they respond by cutting department budgets by 20%. Where is this money going? Are these scare tactics working?
In another section, the article points out how elsewhere in the rest of California, property tax revenues are going to INCREASE only 6% this year and 3% next year. So…where is the hardship? Governments are so used to tax revenues gushing in at a double digit pace year after year that they have put all their spending on automatic pilot to increase similarly. Apparently they can ratchet up at a double digit pace but not slow down to single digits.
Note the breathless reporting that shows the author of the piece contributes to the atmosphere of panic and gloom and doom. The journalist’s very numbers contridict his/her theme. Yet there is no questioning of why the public sector cannot economize in an intelligent manner, like the taxpayer is forced to do in any downturn. Geez guys, just hold expenditures to last year’s outrageous amount. Do that for two years and we’d have a budget surplus. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.