In response to Ms. Heller's post: > Does anyone on the list recognize that the financial weapon of mass > destruction is DEBT?
I think that everyone who holds a mortgage would have to argue with this statement. Also the bond rating agencies who give the City a AAA bond rating would probably argue. > Does anyone on the list realize that the DEBT SERVICE expenditures slated > for 2003 are $180,642,000? (Page 32 of the 2001 Minneapolis Comprehensive > Annual Financial Reports.) Yes. > That's right - debt service is $34+ million MORE than the Police and Fire > budget of $146.4 million. On the 2003 Truth in Taxation Expenditure Budget > ($1.22 billion) Police is shown as 8% of the spending plan ($97.6 million), > and Fire is shown as 4% of the spending plan ($48.8 million.) The implication here is that this money could be used for police or other general tax needs. Simply put, it can't be. Most of those revenue sources are only available for their own uses and can't be used to buy cops. Examples include tax increment debt, water, and sewer debt. I don't know if this includes the non-profit debt. > Minneapolis shot itself in the foot. > > We have actually REDUCED the taxes collected by the State (and Federal > government) by excessive use of MUNICIPAL BOND FINANCING FOR PRIVATE > BUSINESSES and by promoting an incredible proliferation of NON-PROFIT and > TAX-EXEMPT enterprises. Well given that the biggest user of these have been hospitals and schools and such, it is sort of hard to see this. It is in the City's best interest to have a healthy non-profit sector as there are certain services that are best provided through this sector of the economy. > When a business borrows money from a bank, the bank must pay Federal and > State taxes on the interest it earns. > > When a business uses the government to borrow, the government sells > municipal bonds to get cash, then gives the cash to the business. The > business (in the case of self-supporting bonds) pays interest to the > bondholders - but the bondholders don't have to pay taxes on their income. This is true - this is why there is a financial advantage to using municipal bonds for non-profit agencies. > As of 12/31/2001, Minneapolis had general obligation debt "reported as" > self-supporting bonds of $829,902,000. (Whether or not these bonds are > really "self-supporting" is another story.) Well it actually isn't another story. If the CAFR says that they are self-supporting, they are self-supporting according to generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP). > I get the impression that Listmembers resent rich folks who don't pay > taxes. Well, then why don't you stop giving them the opportunity to avoid > paying taxes? STOP - before you hurt yourself again. No, what I think is that people resent is that over the last ten years there has been a steady shift of taxes off the rich and onto the middle and lower class, which has resulted in the highest concentration of wealth in > REMEMBER THE ADAGE: "FIGURES NEVER LIE, BUT LIARS ALWAYS FIGURE" And sometimes people don't understand the figures at all... Carol Becker Longfellow TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
