[ocrenter]

[quote=The-Shoveler]aahh,

BG, you did see the part about there being an even bigger bill due in “San diego unified school district” right ?[/quote]

did you attend a wedding in San Diego in the 70’s? If not I don’t think you’re qualified to make any comments on the state of affairs in SDUSD.

[ocrenter]

[quote=harvey][quote=ocrenter]
would be true IF PUSD territory was the way it was back 20 years ago, in 1992.

[…]

Harvey, are you just the smartest guy in the world and everyone else are just retarded?[/quote]

Relax dude, I’m basically in agreement with the idea that this bond isn’t prudent, I just think the reaction here is overdone.

I honestly don’t know enough about PUSD and the development potential, I don’t know exactly where the borders are and believed Poway to have some remaining rural sections. But I haven’t studied a city planning map so if you say there’s nothing left to build, then you are probably correct.

As far as how smart I am, I am sometimes smart enough to ask the important questions, and the key question when making any decision is the following:

What are the alternatives and what are the expected outcomes?

So before we can label anything as a terrible choice, it has to put in the context of the alternatives. I don’t know what other choices the city had in this situation but I have noticed that nobody else here has even mentioned a better solution. (From what I can tell from the articles the city had do to something.)

Anyway, I really don’t care that much, as I live in Temecula and our city appears to be managed much better than Poway.

(BTW: My point about making choices amongst the real-world alternatives applies to elections as well. Political discussions here would be far more productive if more people realized that.)[/quote]

you don’t need a city planning map, just some common sense and google maps will do. personal suggestion is next time you assume a city’s tax base can increase by 5x within 20 years, just take a minute of thinking time before you make the comment.

[ocrenter]

[quote=harvey]

If the city’s tax receipts grow only at the rate of inflation, then they would be in trouble in 20 years time, but it is very unlikely that Poway will not grow and see property tax revenue increase at a much higher rate than inflation. Do you really think Poway will not see population growth, property improvements, and have effectively zero real estate appreciation over the next 20 years? That $11 million in tax revenue could easily be 5x bigger in 20 years.

I’m not arguing that this plan is wise, and I agree may not be an example of effective negotiation by the city. But the terms and expectations are not nearly as outrageous as they are being presented.[/quote]

This would be true IF PUSD territory was the way it was back 20 years ago, in 1992. At that time 4S, Santaluz, half of PQ, Torrey Highland, Del Sur, Santa Fe Valley, and Stonebridge were all empty. PUSD already did its massive growth. It is done.

Does PUSD have any other large plots of empty land out there? if so, where? I’m sure Bill Davidson would love to know about it. The guy is making plans to go into building custom homes because there is no more land for large scale development around the county. Do you know more than a veteran local builder?

The key here is after sucking up millions of MR from all of the above developments, the district still needed more cash. Unfortunately, there is no additional land for large scale housing developments within PUSD. so how do you get 5x bigger tax revenue?

Harvey, are you just the smartest guy in the world and everyone else are just retarded?

[ocrenter]

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000107811

this story is gaining traction. now on CNBC.

[ocrenter]

the amazing thing is PUSD blew $150 million on Del Norte. How in the world do you waste that much money on just a high school???

[ocrenter]

This is essentially setting up the district for almost certain BK.

so sdr or SDR, what’s the property value implication on homes in a school district planning on filing for BK in 20 years?

[ocrenter]

I think we can all agree just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.

And to defend prior tax sheltering strategies as simply they were legal doesn’t make it any more right. All it does is highlight the point that ultimately, the elite make and play by their own rules.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu]

Lol… So you’re adopting my mantra that if you put equal number of republitards and democraps in office, they can’t agree on how to waste your money? Yeah, that’s my party line…

Question is. Who’s gonna control house and senate in upcoming elections. If it turns out to be a GOP thing, wouldn’t it make sense to keep ineffective-no-obamator in office, so we don’t get Bush era craziness again?[/quote]

Yup. I’m of the position that you get Romney in there, that’s akin to letting the fox in to guard the hen house. More spending programs for the very rich (disguised as tax cut).

biggest reason for Obama’s ineffectiveness is the GOP congress. But again, would rather see paralysis by the GOP rather than the Dems continue to spend like water.

I’m looking forward to additional impass which will allow the $1.2 trillion budget cut to actually take place.

[ocrenter]

back to the OP.

I hope you realize from the ongoing discussion that the 5% is not “the rich”, rather, we are pawns in a tug of war fought between two groups owing their patronage to people that do not work (be it the entitlement underclass or the entitlement 1%). btw, the non-workers ultimately have more voice because, guess what, they have time to kill! (interesting how the mediapiece of the 1%, WSJ, wanted you to think you are “the rich” by graphing you in with them.)

both groups want you to think you are “the rich” because it ultimately help their own cause. the 1% hide behind our struggles as proof that taxes are still too high for them. meanwhile, the entitlement underclass continue to look to us for handouts because obviously they’re not going to get it from “the rich.”

ultimately the strategy may simply to split the ticket once again. for me, the thought that an entrenched lifetime member of the oligarchy now as the president? I’m going to have to go with the lesser evil. as for the congress, keep the GOP in so the paralysis can continue. what a hard pill to swallow.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

OCR: Oh, hell yeah, I have a problem with that. I have a problem with corporate welfare, too, and agribusiness subsidies and how the Pentagon is now a finishing school for the Military-Industrial Complex.

Like I said earlier: We (meaning us proles who aren’t in the oligarchy) have NO advocates in the professional political class and, yes, Brian, that includes BOTH the Dems and the GOP.

They don’t call the Senate the “Millionaire’s Club” for no reason.

Obama is about “authentically” black as Al Jolson. He’s as much a member of the 1% as Romney, given his background, which includes private prep, the Ivy League and law school. Okay, so he doesn’t have a bajillion dollars like Romney, but, believe you me, his net worth is considerable.

We need sweeping reform and we aren’t likely to get it. And I’d ask why. None of the problems we face as a nation are insoluble, nor are they insurmountable. To me, it looks like Simpson-Bowles came up with some good solutions. Why weren’t they implemented? I’m no expert on securities law, but it seems patently obvious that some seriously shady shit went down on Wall Street. Yet, no prosecutions. Hmmm, odd. We’re sitting idly by, while our government performs targeted assassinations of American citizens, intrudes into every aspect of our lives and blithely conducts wars without so much as a how-do-you-do.

We, as a nation, have been subjected to two generations of outright bullshit from our supposed “leaders” and now have fewer rights, less money and less freedom, while we’re busy fighting each other over stupid shit like gay marriage. And, no, Brian, I don’t mean gay marriage is stupid, I mean it’s a contrived “issue” that is sufficiently divisive to keep our focus off what’s really happening.

End rant.[/quote]

Well said Allan. Completely agree. And yes, I had to google Al Jolson. Took me a while but LOL on that one.

I would put abortion in with gay marriage as another contrived issue as well.

Absolutely right about the “proles” having no voice (and yes, had to google that too). And sorry to say, but I would have to put doctors, engineers, and lawyers in this working class group as that is the reality these days. The GOP is completely beholden to the 1%, while the Dems completely beholden to the unions and their welfare base. The end result is the lower class gets more hand outs and tax breaks, while the top 1% and the corporations also end up with more hand outs and tax breaks. The W2 working class bees end up footing the bill for everyone.

To use Brian’s dinner analogy. The guy ordering lobster and wine somehow do not need to pay because somehow making “job creators” pay would make them stop creating jobs. Then you have 50% of the table entitled to their meal. Leaving the middle class to pay for everyone.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Tax evasion is a crime.

Tax avoidance is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.[/quote]

And successfully lobbying to lower one’s own tax rate is the American Dream.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Tax evasion is a crime.

Tax avoidance is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.[/quote]

Yes, and as long as romney followed the rules, I don’t see a problem with it at all.[/quote]

You don’t have a problem that Bain capital as well as other private equity firms spent millions to lobby for carried interest tax break that allow Romney to essentially follow his own rules on taxes?

[ocrenter]

Reading the comments, it appears the bond was financed at over 8%. Plus the bond can not be refi’d.

Someone need to initiate a recall movement on the members of the PUSD board.

[ocrenter]

We can see from the 3rd graph that all group have seen a decline in their tax rate over the last 30 years.

At the same time, the top 5% have seen their share of total income expand from 30% to 40% of the economy.

The most impressive number is what is not included in the article. In which the top 1% saw their total income expand from roughly 10% to 20% of the economy within the past 30 years.

What this really means is that all of the income expansion within the top 5% essentially went to the top 1%. Put in another way, the 99% either seen flat growth in income or had falling income.

How come the WSJ missed this important and crucial piece of information???

Back to the top 1% tax rate, which was included in the article, that average rate fell from 35% down to less than 30%. So while the top 1% increased their share of the total income, their tax rate declined.

Is that right?

The reason you as a top 2-5% earner is feeling p*ssed is because you are falling behind just like everyone else, while the top 1% continue to push their weight around.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

OCR: I read that Op/Ed piece about the Romney landslide in the UT. Wow. I’m surprised that Obama is struggling with a candidate as weak as Mittens, but I doubt very much it’s gonna be a landslide. It should prove to be a very tight race, right to the finish. I think Obama is pursuing a very canny strategy in trying to deliver a knockout blow early, but I’d also be very nervous (if I were him) at this point. He’s expended gobs of cash and still hasn’t achieved any meaningful separation in the polls.

Given that polls tend to oversample Dems, he hasn’t been looking at a lot of good news lately, especially when you look at Romney’s developing edge in the fundraising race.

Gonna be interesting.[/quote]

The general public is typically very simple minded when it comes to the economy. The president gets the credit or the blame on the economy regardless of whether he was a factor. Given how bad the economy is, it really does show how weak Romney is for him to still be trailing Obama.

[Author]

Posts