Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Interesting mail from the City of Minneapolis

jdege wrote:

chunkstyle wrote:

America has more than 1,000,000 more people in prisons today than it did in 1970, yet crime is just as bad.

Actually, that's misleading.

Crime rates increased dramatically, from 1960 to 1980, and stayed high until 1991. They've been declining rapidly since then.

Dick Unger wrote:

We cannot afford to administer all the tough on crime laws we pass without more taxes. We need to make administrative penalties, and eliminate the possiblity of jail for small crimes, or be realistic about taxes. (The conservatives want to cut government programs, so this is part of the cuts. Kick em out of jail and let them feed themselves.)

The other option would be to legalize drugs, they we'd have the resouces to continue to be righteous with everything else.

Scott Hughes wrote:

Some may argue we need more taxation; I'd argue we need to spend our existing tax revenues far more wisely.

Q_Continuum wrote:

Scott Hughes wrote:

Some may argue we need more taxation; I'd argue we need to spend our existing tax revenues far more wisely.

Hear hear! If I have to tighten my financial belt and be more 'efficient' - so should the government, who is supposed to provide the best service for the most efficient cost, anything less and they're not meeting their obligations to the stakeholders and taxpayers.

Dick Unger wrote:

I agree with that. Unfortunately, no one seems to be working on the dtails of efficient spending, just "cutting taxes". We've got a long way to go before it will be prudent to cut taxes.

princewally wrote:

I dunno. We've had year after year of irresponsibly raising taxes, and digging a deeper hole. If it doesn't work, "do it again, only harder" isn't a solution. Maybe we could try a bit less seizing of wealth, combined with a bit more responsible spending and see where it gets us. Couldn't possibly be worse than the status quo.

Alternatively, all of the people who want the commie programs and fight cutting taxes could voluntarily send in some extra cash, instead of insisting everybody else needs to be forced to do so.

DeanC wrote:

Funny how when they say they need to cut spending, one of the first things they threaten to do is cut police and fire service.

princewally wrote:

Dick Unger wrote:

I agree with that. Unfortunately, no one seems to be working on the dtails of efficient spending, just "cutting taxes". We've got a long way to go before it will be prudent to cut taxes.

Dick Unger wrote:

And Pawlenty wouldn't RAISE taxes or have NEW taxes.

Quote:

The property tax "increases" are based on the valuations, the RATES have not increased dramtically.

Quote:

I'm not so sure taxes actually RAISED every year.

Quote:

We've got a lot of radio jocks telling us what we want to hear, with no concept of the real situation, I think.

Quote:

I don't like taxes either.

Author:	princewally [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:
jdege wrote: chunkstyle wrote: America has more than 1,000,000 more people in prisons today than it did in 1970, yet crime is just as bad. Actually, that's misleading. Crime rates increased dramatically, from 1960 to 1980, and stayed high until 1991. They've been declining rapidly since then. Straight numbers don't mean much, either. In 1970, the population of the US was 203,302,031. There has been a 50% increase in total population since then. I can't find any hard numbers on the 1970s prison population, so I can't compare the rate. The only numbers I see are unsourced reports from advocacy organizations. A good share of any increase in prison population is going to be directly due to the war on (some) drugs targetting people who would never have believed they'd get 3 life terms for growing some pot....until it was too late. For a direct comparison of crime rate to prison population, then and now to matter, you'd have to take the same classes of crimes and compare them to the classes of criminals in the prison, then and now. There's also no good way to compare all of the things that have been outlawed in the last 50 years. They contribute to the crime rate, but, if the rate of incidents hasn't risen, that number doesn't mean anything either.

Author:	Scott Hughes [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:49 pm ]
Post subject:
Dick Unger wrote: We cannot afford to administer all the tough on crime laws we pass without more taxes. We need to make administrative penalties, and eliminate the possiblity of jail for small crimes, or be realistic about taxes. (The conservatives want to cut government programs, so this is part of the cuts. Kick em out of jail and let them feed themselves.) The other option would be to legalize drugs, they we'd have the resouces to continue to be righteous with everything else. I'm thinking about getting a T-shirt made that says: "I needed a new prison and all I got instead were these spankin new baseball and football stadiums" Some may argue we need more taxation; I'd argue we need to spend our existing tax revenues far more wisely.

Author:	Q_Continuum [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:
Scott Hughes wrote: Some may argue we need more taxation; I'd argue we need to spend our existing tax revenues far more wisely. Hear hear! If I have to tighten my financial belt and be more 'efficient' - so should the government, who is supposed to provide the best service for the most efficient cost, anything less and they're not meeting their obligations to the stakeholders and taxpayers.

Author:	MostlyHarmless [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:21 pm ]
Post subject:
I think that on the whole this is actually a good bill. It needs adjustment in particular areas, and as proposed probably deliberately goes too far to leave room for compromise. I believe that, as much as DUI is truly a public safety problem, enforcement occupies an excessive amount of LE and court resources. There are other public safety problems, like basic traffic violations, that also lead to death on the highways. Redefining some offenses as no longer felonies will encourage more people to plead out and reduce the overall load. DUI cases are complicated and expensive to prosecute. The reclassification of petty crimes in essence is placing a greater share of the burden on business owners and property owners to maintain secure premises themselves. In large cities in Europe and elsewhere, there is a mindset that businesses and homeowners who fail to take reasonable measures to secure their property are contributing to the crime problem. While to some extent this is blaming the victim, there is a certain point where deterrence doesn't work as well as asking businesses to lock up their warehouse and yard. I understand they are also throwing out TROs for domestic disputes. Another expenditure of court resources disproportionate to the public safety value they create (which is near zero). Good riddance.

Author:	Dick Unger [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:36 am ]
Post subject:
Q_Continuum wrote: Scott Hughes wrote: Some may argue we need more taxation; I'd argue we need to spend our existing tax revenues far more wisely. Hear hear! If I have to tighten my financial belt and be more 'efficient' - so should the government, who is supposed to provide the best service for the most efficient cost, anything less and they're not meeting their obligations to the stakeholders and taxpayers. I agree with that. Unfortunately, no one seems to be working on the dtails of efficient spending, just "cutting taxes". We've got a long way to go before it will be prudent to cut taxes. The dumbing of America.

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Interesting mail from the City of Minneapolis http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12253	Page 2 of 2

Author:	princewally [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:49 am ]
Post subject:
Dick Unger wrote: I agree with that. Unfortunately, no one seems to be working on the dtails of efficient spending, just "cutting taxes". We've got a long way to go before it will be prudent to cut taxes. I dunno. We've had year after year of irresponsibly raising taxes, and digging a deeper hole. If it doesn't work, "do it again, only harder" isn't a solution. Maybe we could try a bit less seizing of wealth, combined with a bit more responsible spending and see where it gets us. Couldn't possibly be worse than the status quo. Alternatively, all of the people who want the commie programs and fight cutting taxes could voluntarily send in some extra cash, instead of insisting everybody else needs to be forced to do so.

Author:	Lenny7 [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:25 am ]
Post subject:
princewally wrote: I dunno. We've had year after year of irresponsibly raising taxes, and digging a deeper hole. If it doesn't work, "do it again, only harder" isn't a solution. Maybe we could try a bit less seizing of wealth, combined with a bit more responsible spending and see where it gets us. Couldn't possibly be worse than the status quo. Alternatively, all of the people who want the commie programs and fight cutting taxes could voluntarily send in some extra cash, instead of insisting everybody else needs to be forced to do so. Ab-so-frickin'-lutely.

Author:	DeanC [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:37 am ]
Post subject:
Funny how when they say they need to cut spending, one of the first things they threaten to do is cut police and fire service.

Author:	Lenny7 [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:47 am ]
Post subject:
DeanC wrote: Funny how when they say they need to cut spending, one of the first things they threaten to do is cut police and fire service. It's the same things school districts do. Cut the things that hurt the constituents most so they won't be so opposed to raising taxes next time around.

Author:	Dick Unger [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:
princewally wrote: Dick Unger wrote: I agree with that. Unfortunately, no one seems to be working on the dtails of efficient spending, just "cutting taxes". We've got a long way to go before it will be prudent to cut taxes. I dunno. We've had year after year of irresponsibly raising taxes, and digging a deeper hole. If it doesn't work, "do it again, only harder" isn't a solution. Maybe we could try a bit less seizing of wealth, combined with a bit more responsible spending and see where it gets us. Couldn't possibly be worse than the status quo. Alternatively, all of the people who want the commie programs and fight cutting taxes could voluntarily send in some extra cash, instead of insisting everybody else needs to be forced to do so. Well the Bush administration CUT taxes. And Pawlenty wouldn't RAISE taxes or have NEW taxes. The property tax "increases" are based on the valuations, the RATES have not increased dramtically. I'm not so sure taxes actually RAISED every year. A lot of our problems stem from not raising taxes, so there is no surplus to carry over when expenses increase. But unless you tell a politician exactly what persons to lay off, or whose wages need a haircut, it never will happen. Just giving an administrator less money than he had last year will not promote any kind of efficiency. We've got a lot of radio jocks telling us what we want to hear, with no concept of the real situation, I think. I don't like taxes either.

Author:	princewally [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Dick Unger wrote: And Pawlenty wouldn't RAISE taxes or have NEW taxes. I missed it. What planet did this happen on? Sales tax and cigarette taxes are two glaring examples that prove this wrong. Pawlenty keeps his promises just like any other <s>weasel</s> politician. Quote: The property tax "increases" are based on the valuations, the RATES have not increased dramtically. My property has doubled in artificial value over the last 10 years, but the taxes have tripled. That's pretty dramatic, to me. The valuation is controlled by the local government. They know they get more money if they boost the value. It's not a 'market' based value. That's a way of raising taxes while passing the buck to property values. Quote: I'm not so sure taxes actually RAISED every year. Really? So you haven't been keeping track? Quote: We've got a lot of radio jocks telling us what we want to hear, with no concept of the real situation, I think. And a lot of people who think accusing others of letting radio jocks do their thinking for them isn't a lame version of an ad hominem attack. There's no logical value to you saying this, but you keep saying it. Quote: I don't like taxes either. But you defend them like a champ.

Author:	princewally [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:
8 tax increases for 2008: http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/petroleum/ ... ates.shtml From last year to this year, I only had a .064% raise in my property tax rate, but, that rate was assessed on a 9.5% valuation increase(during a major housing slump that has caused a worldwide recession?) resulting in an 11% increase in my tax. Nope, taxes haven't gone up there. The best result I can find in favor of your assumption is that the upper limits of the tax brackets rise almost in sync with inflation.

Author:	Dick Unger [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:
What I don't defend is the State and Federal deficit, and trashing programs which are the result of years of previous investment by taxpayers. California and the United States will eventually repudiate the debts.

Page 2 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/