State Budgets: Day of Reckoning

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][quote=briansd1]Not to say that there wasn’t waste, but at least government spending on salaries and pensions went to millions of ordinary people so their lives could be more enjoyable. [/quote]

Is this a sarcastic comment? All that spending on salaries and pensions has to come from somewhere.

And I’ll tell you where it comes from: people who produce.

For their lives to become more enjoyable someone else’s had to become inordinately less enjoyable.[/quote]

All of the wealth amassed by the very rich comes from somewhere as well — it comes from workers, customers, and others who are captive to the financial system that is created by and for those with tremendous wealth.

At least if the money goes to the many, it will be cycled back through the economy without any debt offset; whereas when it goes to the very wealthy who tend to “invest” this money rather than spend it into the economy (no guarantee these “investments” are spent here, or that they benefit our society in any way), they not only expect to get that money back, then intend to get it back *with interest* that also comes from productive people.

There is no way you can argue that putting money into the hands of a concentrated few is better than putting it into the hands of the many — who tend to be far more productive than the very wealthy.

There is no correlation between great wealth and productivity. The very wealthy tend to insert themselves in the middle of other, legitimate transactions and skim a portion from each of those transactions.

[CA renter]

[quote=Hobie][quote=pri_dk]
Wow! So we can maximize revenue by reducing the rate to zero!?!?
[/quote]

Suppose you are looking at the Sunday ads. Your favorite store is offering a 40% off coupon. Are you going to take the discount? You bet.

Now ask yourself: Why is the shop offering the deal? Simple: to gain more traffic. Higher volume=higher profit.

He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit.

It is really a no brainer. Same concept with taxes. C=mon Pri_dk

The problem with libs is that very few actually have to produce something somebody will pay for to earn a paycheck. Once you do, you will see the light;)[/quote]

They would see higher revenues, not necessarily higher profits. They could easily see losses.

Forgive me if your post was meant to be sarcastic, and I just didn’t get it.

[CA renter]

[quote=Hobie][quote=pri_dk]
Wow! So we can maximize revenue by reducing the rate to zero!?!?
[/quote]

Suppose you are looking at the Sunday ads. Your favorite store is offering a 40% off coupon. Are you going to take the discount? You bet.

Now ask yourself: Why is the shop offering the deal? Simple: to gain more traffic. Higher volume=higher profit.

He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit.

It is really a no brainer. Same concept with taxes. C=mon Pri_dk

The problem with libs is that very few actually have to produce something somebody will pay for to earn a paycheck. Once you do, you will see the light;)[/quote]

They would see higher revenues, not necessarily higher profits. They could easily see losses.

Forgive me if your post was meant to be sarcastic, and I just didn’t get it.

[CA renter]

[quote=Hobie][quote=pri_dk]
Wow! So we can maximize revenue by reducing the rate to zero!?!?
[/quote]

Suppose you are looking at the Sunday ads. Your favorite store is offering a 40% off coupon. Are you going to take the discount? You bet.

Now ask yourself: Why is the shop offering the deal? Simple: to gain more traffic. Higher volume=higher profit.

He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit.

It is really a no brainer. Same concept with taxes. C=mon Pri_dk

The problem with libs is that very few actually have to produce something somebody will pay for to earn a paycheck. Once you do, you will see the light;)[/quote]

They would see higher revenues, not necessarily higher profits. They could easily see losses.

Forgive me if your post was meant to be sarcastic, and I just didn’t get it.

[CA renter]

[quote=Hobie][quote=pri_dk]
Wow! So we can maximize revenue by reducing the rate to zero!?!?
[/quote]

Suppose you are looking at the Sunday ads. Your favorite store is offering a 40% off coupon. Are you going to take the discount? You bet.

Now ask yourself: Why is the shop offering the deal? Simple: to gain more traffic. Higher volume=higher profit.

He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit.

It is really a no brainer. Same concept with taxes. C=mon Pri_dk

The problem with libs is that very few actually have to produce something somebody will pay for to earn a paycheck. Once you do, you will see the light;)[/quote]

They would see higher revenues, not necessarily higher profits. They could easily see losses.

Forgive me if your post was meant to be sarcastic, and I just didn’t get it.

[CA renter]

[quote=Hobie][quote=pri_dk]
Wow! So we can maximize revenue by reducing the rate to zero!?!?
[/quote]

Suppose you are looking at the Sunday ads. Your favorite store is offering a 40% off coupon. Are you going to take the discount? You bet.

Now ask yourself: Why is the shop offering the deal? Simple: to gain more traffic. Higher volume=higher profit.

He is not going to give away his product, but at a discount, he will gain volume thus more profit.

It is really a no brainer. Same concept with taxes. C=mon Pri_dk

The problem with libs is that very few actually have to produce something somebody will pay for to earn a paycheck. Once you do, you will see the light;)[/quote]

They would see higher revenues, not necessarily higher profits. They could easily see losses.

Forgive me if your post was meant to be sarcastic, and I just didn’t get it.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[surveyor]

[quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor][quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.[/quote]

Okay, that’s true about assuming you weren’t maintaining at all, or only maintaining at a mimimum level.

Like brian (IIRC) said above, there’s an assumption that just because someone works *directly* for a govt entity — as opposed to contracting with the govt — that the govt is overpaying. I’ve seen just as often a private party (company or individual) being overcompensated for things, varying from labor to real estate, to goods received, etc.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that govt employees are automatically less efficient or more expensive (especially when one considers the quality of the work involved) than those in the private market.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor][quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.[/quote]

Okay, that’s true about assuming you weren’t maintaining at all, or only maintaining at a mimimum level.

Like brian (IIRC) said above, there’s an assumption that just because someone works *directly* for a govt entity — as opposed to contracting with the govt — that the govt is overpaying. I’ve seen just as often a private party (company or individual) being overcompensated for things, varying from labor to real estate, to goods received, etc.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that govt employees are automatically less efficient or more expensive (especially when one considers the quality of the work involved) than those in the private market.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor][quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.[/quote]

Okay, that’s true about assuming you weren’t maintaining at all, or only maintaining at a mimimum level.

Like brian (IIRC) said above, there’s an assumption that just because someone works *directly* for a govt entity — as opposed to contracting with the govt — that the govt is overpaying. I’ve seen just as often a private party (company or individual) being overcompensated for things, varying from labor to real estate, to goods received, etc.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that govt employees are automatically less efficient or more expensive (especially when one considers the quality of the work involved) than those in the private market.

[CA renter]

[quote=surveyor][quote=CA renter]
If you own an apartment building or a mall, by maintaining it, you’ll be able to charge higher rents. Also, if you (and other owners/investors) maintain these properties, you’re more likely to realize capital gains as the properties will hold their value better vs. properties that have lots of deferred maintenance and create a bad environment…causing local property values to go down as well.

Now, there is a point at which the benefit of each maintenance dollar diminishes, but to suggest that paying for decent, quality maintenance doesn’t benefit your bottom line…well, that just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Oooooh, swing and a miss.

See, the key word is “choose.” What happens when an investor “chooses” to pay more in maintenance and repair costs?

In this example, you are assuming that the price that I am paying for those maintenance costs is low and that I am somehow getting low quality in return. That is not necessarily the case.

Yes, of course you need to maintain the property but what if you are already maintaining it properly and the service is already at its highest quality? Is it financially responsible for pay more? Paying more doesn’t make any more sense.

See, government “chooses” to pay more in these maintenance and repair costs.

I mean, we’ve seen this happen. There are many capital projects and even maintenance projects that the City of San Diego could not afford because it was paying so much into its debt and its pension. There are parts of San Diego that the City couldn’t fix the potholes on the roads.[/quote]

Okay, that’s true about assuming you weren’t maintaining at all, or only maintaining at a mimimum level.

Like brian (IIRC) said above, there’s an assumption that just because someone works *directly* for a govt entity — as opposed to contracting with the govt — that the govt is overpaying. I’ve seen just as often a private party (company or individual) being overcompensated for things, varying from labor to real estate, to goods received, etc.

I think it’s a stretch to assume that govt employees are automatically less efficient or more expensive (especially when one considers the quality of the work involved) than those in the private market.

[Author]

Posts