That's the trend that I see and I don't like it. I live in a wealthy community and I know people who fall into the category of the wealthiest 1%, although just barely, have to sell their homes because the local property taxes have more than tripled in the last five years. One family friend who owns a medium sized construction company is paying, get this, $12,000 PER MONTH in property taxes!! That's $144,000.00 per year!!! That's crazy. I mean it's a nice house and it's pretty big, but that's nuts. He can't afford his property taxes so he's trying to sell it and can't because no one else wants to pay that high property tax so he's screwed. I just talked to him Sunday and he's getting real nervous because if he cant sell it by summer, then he's going to be in real trouble. And this is a just local tax. At the same time, the local governments are all complaining that they have these huge deficits. The local school system has to borrow money to keep it running through the end of this school year and I don't see how that could possibly be. The government spends more and more money each year and people don't seem to care. Here in Chicago, our gas prices are sitting at about $1.25/gallon of which 37 cents are taxes. That effects everybody, especially people like me where I have to commute an hour each way because the public transportation (also subsidized) is terrible and my weekly fuel bill is about $25. I drive a Mazda Prot�g� that gets about 32 mpg. I think that because people are so apathetic about it really makes it worse.
Michael Corrigan Programmer Endora Digital Solutions 1900 Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 630-627-5055 ext.-136 630/627-5255 Fax ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd To: CF-Community Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:07 PM Subject: Re: Nukes No disagreeing there. I'm imagining a trend where the government is shifting away from existing to serve the people and towards simply existing to serve itself. Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Corrigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:53 PM Subject: Re: Nukes > Actually the entire quote goes something like this... > > > perhaps you're forgetting that the "tax cuts" were supposed > > to be coming > > from a SURPLUS > > which isn't there, and the government had to BORROW to pay for them. > > So, we need more? > > Methinks you're the one who needs the refresher math class, sir. > > -Ben > > The "them" in the statement "the government had to BORROW to pay for THEM." was referring to tax cuts. Therefore the basis for the statement that I used "paying for tax cuts." > > My whole point is that tax cuts are good. Lower taxes means that we keep more of what we make. That's a good thing. That means that it makes it easier for me to save for my retirement or my children's education or even buying a black Porsche Boxster one day. These are things that are important to me and higher taxes (not just income but gas, sales, property, etc.) take away my ability to do so. That's not good especially when so much is wasted and not necessary. Do you realize that if we got rid of just corporate welfare each year (about $150 billion) that we would no longer carry an annual deficit (about $130 billion)? Did you know that GM is the greatest recipient of corporate welfare payouts? What the hell do they need that for? IBM, AT&T, GE. They all get it. Tom Brokaw gets > it because he has a ranch!!! These do not include steel subsidies, farm subsidies, subsidies for the shipping industry. There is no need for them and they should be eliminated. Get rid of those and you've "paid"for the tax cut. > > Michael Corrigan ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
