I'm just a bit curious about I-695. I can see both sides of the issue, as I'm employed in a govt. office as well as being a consumer. Why was this inititative allowed in? I can see a clear path to loss of state revenue, and as a taxpayer and voter, I require a certain level of services from the government. How can we obtain this level of service when the state has no money to provide them? The only way a state has to make money to operate is to tax us. Granted, there is a surplus right now, but a very small one in the big picture. This surplus will decline quickly, and there will be no way to generate new revenue to cover future expenses without requiring an okay from the voters. What if the voters don't want to spend any more of their money? That means our state would suffer from lack of funds for services the taxpayers and voters require from the state. We can't have it both ways. How does the public expect the state to operate without money?

-- vex (havoc23@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999

Answers

Subject: How does this happen?

vex says; I require a certain level of services from the government. How can we obtain this level of service when the state has no money to provide them?

Frankly we don't owe YOU squat, in the level of services YOU require. YOU seem to have a very inflated opinion of yourself. The "STATE" has plenty of MONEY! We just need to get rid of Government empoyees like YOU!

vex says; and there will be no way to generate new revenue to cover future expenses without requiring an okay from the voters. What if the voters don't want to spend any more of their money?

Then you can pay for your "REQUIRED SERVICES" yourself, out of YOUR TAXPAYER PROVIDED WAGES! It is people like you who think you are entitled to suck the Taxpayers dry, that made I-695 necessary in the first place.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

I find it ironic that in the same election, there was also an initiative to use OUR excess to invest in high risk (i.e. stock market)options. Why was this never brought to the people's attention in such a way that I695 was? If the government is WILLING to SPEND our SURPLUS in the stock market, can't I be UNWILLING and conservative and decide I would rather see my money in my hand? And now, we find out that the City of Seattle hides money that is suppose to be refunded (King5)... Obviously, as has been said time and again, bad management all around.

If you really think that the surplus will decline quickly, you should be very pleased that the high risk investment initiative did not pass (barely) as well.

-- guin (guinny@unforgettable.com), November 19, 1999.

"What if the voters don't want to spend any more of their money? " Well damn, vex, maybe the Governor could get the National Guard to go stick a gun to the head of all the citizens. No..... that won't work, too many citizens and pretty much everyone in the National Guard is a citizen too. Isn't this democracy a bitch?

"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." Woodrow Wilson

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

Whoa, whoa, slow down there, cowboy. Let's break it down:

"Why was this inititative allowed in?"

The initiative was "allowed in" because we have an initiative process. This initiative followed the proper process. Now, if it is found to be unconst., then the initiative will not be certified or ratified, or whatever fied they call it, these days. "Allowed in". Good lord. God help us if we start 'allowing in' a voice from the people.

Next.. "I require a certain level of services from the government."

Some of us require a lot, some of us don't. Some realize the direct benefits, some don't. Some depend on 'programs' provided by govt., some utilize 'infrastructure'. We all, however, really don't get anything 'provided by' government. We get stuff provided to us by big hearted taxpayers, through the conduit and organizational structure of government.

"How can we obtain this level of service when the state has no money to provide them?"

No money? Slow that runaway wagon down, pardner. 695, at its absolute 'draconian' WORST, isn't even coming CLOSE to eliminating ALL THE money, or leaving us with 'no money'. 695 was argued based on the fact that, if during the best economy in like the last jillion years that we can't have a tax cut, you will NEVER, EVER EVER EVER EVER see a tax cut from government. And you know what? They're right! If they're fighting this hard during skyrocketing revenues, can you imagine how hard they'll fight in a bad economy, where people need more than ever every dollar they earn? Scare ya yet? It sure does me. Lord help us when the economy takes a downturn and we actually have to convince the state that we need more of what we earn. Yikes!

"The only way a state has to make money to operate is to tax us."

Now yer comin' around.

"This surplus will decline quickly, and there will be no way to generate new revenue to cover future expenses"

Oh, if only we had four years so I could dispense a little economic education. I'll try to summarize it into a paragraph.

With the prevailing mentality that 'the only way to generate new revenue' is to raise taxes, we have lost the game. It's not dying. It's not going downhill. We have lost. It's over. Es todo, no mas, el punto finale, nicht, nein, nyet, non, zip, zero. Gone. If we as a people are taxed at a given percentage, let's say, 5%. And the idea is, that the only way we can get new revenue for an increasing population is to move taxes to 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%... what happens? Well, eventually, we get to 100%, don't we? What does 100% taxation equal? I don't think I need to tell you. So, the big question remains: How do we increase revenue with the need for increased services. Well, I'm here to help. If we tax a population at that same, say 5%, and that population produces $1,000,000 in 'revenues', then the state just picked up what? *tap*tap*tap* $50,000. Now, as the population base increases, and more people enter an area, buy more goods, buy more cars, spend more money, make bigger salaries, that new, larger population now produces say $3,000,000 in 'revenues'. What did the state take in: $150,000. Hmmmmmmmm.. taxes remain the same, state takes in more revenue. Seems simple. And guess what? It's not that simple. Here's why: The state convinces people that they need services, at a greater rate than the 'gnp' of taxable revenue increases. Scared yet? Should be.

It's a basic problem in the idea that government needs to get its mits into everything, and expand its 'market presence'. Government needs to do a few basic things well, not a lot of things poorly. Or, in fact, they need to do a few things well, not a lot of things well, thank you very much.

"What if the voters don't want to spend any more of their money?"

We don't. We spend enough as it is, yet king county, despite cuts, becomes a larger oranization. See the preceeding paragraph.

"We can't have it both ways."

We don't want it both ways. We want it one way: Build roads, police, fire protection, judicial system, and maybe, maybe some very basic medical, such as ambulance services... Stay the hell out of everything else.

"How does the public expect the state to operate without money?"

You mean with 98% of their money. 2% baby... 2%.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 19, 1999.

Paul-

Re:You mean with 98% of their money. 2% baby... 2%.

That 2% decrease is bogus. We didn't even substantially slow the rate of increase.

PS: Why do economies of scale work for private industry but with government the greater the number of units, the higher the unit cost? Just wonderin'

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

Marsha, I was very taken aback at your reply to me, but I felt compelled to defend myself a bit here. I just wanted a point of view different from mine, and a little economic education. Thank you for your reply, but I have to say you really didn't do anything in your message but attack me. (see below)

> Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com) responded to a message you left > in the I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative bboard: > > Subject: Response to How does this happen? > > Subject: How does this happen? > > > vex says; > I require a certain level of services from the government. How can we > obtain this level of service when the state has no money to provide > them? > > Frankly we don't owe YOU squat, in the level of services YOU require. > YOU seem to have a very inflated opinion of yourself. > The "STATE" has plenty of MONEY! We just need to get rid of > Government empoyees like YOU!

First of all, who is WE? Why do you feel I have a very inflated opinion of myself? I'm a consumer and a taxpayer just like everyone else. You don't know what my position is in the government. How does WE know that WE needs to get rid of government employees like me? Why does WE owe me squat in the level of services I require? As a CONSUMER and as a TAXPAYER and as a VOTER myself, I require a certain level of service from my STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, not the WE you have stated above. I require a law enforcement presence, a fire department, Emergency Medical technicians, decent roads, and a number of other things. I'm happy to pay my taxes if it will keep the services I require going. As a voter, I *do* want to know where my money is going however, I don't want the funds to end up somewhere else.

> > vex says; > and there will be no way to generate new revenue to cover future > expenses without requiring an okay from the voters. What if the > voters don't want to spend any more of their money? > > > Then you can pay for your "REQUIRED SERVICES" yourself, out of YOUR > TAXPAYER PROVIDED WAGES! > It is people like you who think you are entitled to suck the > Taxpayers dry, that made I-695 necessary in the first place.

I already *do* pay for my required services myself. Through taxes, just like everyone else. Why do you feel like *I* want to suck the taxpayers dry? On another note, addressing my TAXPAYER PROVIDED WAGES... My department went through their latest 5 year salary survey and my position was compared to it's private sector counterpart. The results of this survey, my position was 48% UNDERPAID compared to the private sector market, and yet I pay the same taxes as everyone else. Can you explain that one?

In summary, there has been nothing of substance in your email reply except a lot of anger directed at *me* personally, you have provided no information as to *what* will happen economically due to I-695 passing. That's all I'm interested in. I'm not arguing for or against I-695 or like initiatives, I'm just curious where it will all lead, what will happen to the level of service that *we* as *taxpayers* and *voters* require from our state and local governments. I guess time will tell... It's kind of like a novel, you know? The kind you can't put down? You want to find out how it will turn out?

--vex

-- --vex (havoc23@hotmail.com), November 23, 1999.

> There was an initiative to lower MVET. It passed by 58%. > > Why was this initiative allowed in? > Because it had the required signatures.

And it never should have been allowed in with the log rolling included, but it was.

> > I require a certain level of services from the government. > You used the word "I". > That made you part of the subject of your post. Frankly we don't owe YOU squat, in the level of services YOU require. YOU seem to have a very inflated opinion of yourself. > Seems obvious to me. "we" instead of "I" would have changed you post entirely. You would not have subjected yourself to a personal attack. >

Well excuse me.... *I* can't speak for any other person out there except for myself, I guess I propogated this attack upon myself. So, *I* as a TAXPAYER and as a VOTER expect a certain level of service from the government. The other TAXPAYERS and the other VOTERS don't owe me squat, just like you have so eloquently explained. I agree with you. WE doesn't owe me squat, and I never said WE did. All I said was that *I* as a TAXPAYER and as a registered VOTER of this state expect certain services from the GOVERNMENT.

> > How can we obtain this level of service when the state has no money to provide them? > WE obtain this level of service by forcing Elected officials spending our tax dollars prudently, with what WE decide to contribute. WE are the majority.

Yes, WE are the majority. And if WE don't give our tax dollars to the state, how can WE force them to do anything? If the state has no revenue, they are out of business just like any other business.

> If the state has NO money, where did the sales taxes, property taxes fees and levy money go? The "STATE" has plenty of MONEY!

I never stated the STATE has no money. How do you know the STATE has plenty of money? Can you provide me with real figures? From the figures I saw in the media and on the I-695 website the STATE has enough cash reserves to operate for about 6 months. That doesn't seem like a lot of time when it comes to an entity as large as our STATE.

We just need to get rid of Government empoyees like YOU!

There again, why get rid of government employees like me? You don't even know what I do.

> Where do I start, any Government employee who makes the statement that the state has no money, and receives a paycheck, from the government, local or otherwise needs to be fired for stupidity. I could elaborate further, but I do have time constraints.

Seems to me you just can't come up with a good argument. I never made the statment that the government had no money. I don't know where you came up with that one, but I'm well aware the government has a surplus of funds.

> The only way a state has to make money to operate is to tax us. > And they do. Too much in my opinion. > > Granted, there is a surplus right now, but a very small one in the big picture. > Which will remain, if they cut funding for pork and waste. > > This surplus will decline quickly, and there will be no way to generate new revenue to cover future expenses without requiring an okay from the voters. > Then the Government better stop spending it foolishly. Can we say democracy?

Are you suggesting that we, as a democracy can stop the government from spending foolishly? If that is the case, why haven't we done it yet?

> > What if the voters don't want to spend any more of their money? > Then Government will do the job the best they can, just like the rest of us. > > That means our state would suffer from lack of funds for services the taxpayers and voters require from the state. > Says who? You? How did you conclude there is a lack of funds? Are you the treasurer?

I'm not the treasurer, I'm not an economics professor, I'm just a guy with a curious mind and I'm trying to work all the options out to see where our government could be going in the future.

> > We can't have it both ways. > Why not? I don't mind paying taxes for essential services. I just want them to stop wasting it on empty busses no one wants to ride and light rail, that costs too much. User fees should cover a higher portion than they currently do. On ferries as well. >

I guess that's where the democracy part comes in, right?

> > How does the public expect the state to operate without money? > There you go again, this is your most absurd statement yet.

How is that an absurd statement? Can our government operate without money?

> > > Too many statements that are opinions, misrepresentations or lies is what led to my response to you. Your email references were even more absurd. In our state, we have a thing called a majority. WE the majority made a decision on an initiative. Live with it and stop whining. I repeat, WE DON'T OWE YOU SQUAT!

When did I ever say that the majority owed ME anything? All I said was that I expected a certain level of service from our government. You agree with me here, you said in your statement above that you don't mind paying for essential services. Who says I'm whining about the initiative? I couldn't care less about it, I'm just trying to be more informed. I'm not complaining that it passed, I wouldn't complain if it didn't either.

> Not one Law Enforcement in my community, and not one firefighter is being layed off. I guess the money was there all along.

Nor in my community either. I guess that means certain core functions of the government will keep on rolling, which I've never debated in the first place, I have just been curious as to how the government will take up the slack caused by I-695.

> I imagine you wanted to keep this off the forum. I would if I were you. Seems pretty cowardly though.

There ya go, another stab at me personally again. Makes no difference if this was kept of the forum or not, I just replied to the people personally because it's a bit easier. But, I'd be more than happy to post the entire thing, I'm imagining that's what you are wanting me to do by calling me a coward. Cowardice has nothing to do with it. > > > >From: "havoc23" > >To: > >Subject: Re: Response to How does this happen? > >Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:47:20 -0600 > > > >Marsha, I was very taken aback at your reply to me, but I felt compelled to > >defend myself a bit here. I just wanted a point of view different from mine, > >and a little economic education. Thank you for your reply, but I have to say > >you really didn't do anything in your message but attack me. (see below) > > > > > Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com) responded to a message you left > > > in the I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative bboard: > > > > > > Subject: Response to How does this happen? > > > > > > Subject: How does this happen? > > > > > > > > > vex says; > > > I require a certain level of services from the government. How can we > > > obtain this level of service when the state has no money to provide > > > them? > > > > > > Frankly we don't owe YOU squat, in the level of services YOU require. > > > YOU seem to have a very inflated opinion of yourself. > > > The "STATE" has plenty of MONEY! We just need to get rid of > > > Government empoyees like YOU! > > > >First of all, who is WE? Why do you feel I have a very inflated opinion of > >myself? I'm a consumer and a taxpayer just like everyone else. You don't > >know what my position is in the government. How does WE know that WE needs > >to get rid of government employees like me? > >Why does WE owe me squat in the level of services I require? As a CONSUMER > >and as a TAXPAYER and as a VOTER myself, I require a certain level of > >service from my STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, not the WE you have stated > >above. I require a law enforcement presence, a fire department, Emergency > >Medical technicians, decent roads, and a number of other things. I'm happy > >to pay my taxes if it will keep the services I require going. As a voter, I > >*do* want to know where my money is going however, I don't want the funds to > >end up somewhere else. > > > > > > > > > > vex says; > > > and there will be no way to generate new revenue to cover future > > > expenses without requiring an okay from the voters. What if the > > > voters don't want to spend any more of their money? > > > > > > > > > Then you can pay for your "REQUIRED SERVICES" yourself, out of YOUR > > > TAXPAYER PROVIDED WAGES! > > > It is people like you who think you are entitled to suck the > > > Taxpayers dry, that made I-695 necessary in the first place. > > > > > >I already *do* pay for my required services myself. Through taxes, just like > >everyone else. Why do you feel like *I* want to suck the taxpayers dry? On > >another note, addressing my TAXPAYER PROVIDED WAGES... My department went > >through their latest 5 year salary survey and my position was compared to > >it's private sector counterpart. The results of this survey, my position was > >48% UNDERPAID compared to the private sector market, and yet I pay the same > >taxes as everyone else. Can you explain that one? > > > >In summary, there has been nothing of substance in your email reply except a > >lot of anger directed at *me* personally, you have provided no information > >as to *what* will happen economically due to I-695 passing. That's all I'm > >interested in. I'm not arguing for or against I-695 or like initiatives, I'm > >just curious where it will all lead, what will happen to the level of > >service that *we* as *taxpayers* and *voters* require from our state and > >local governments. I guess time will tell... It's kind of like a novel, you > >know? The kind you can't put down? You want to find out how it will turn > >out? > > > >--vex > > > >

-- --vex (havoc23@hotmail.com), November 23, 1999.

"The results of this survey, my position was 48% UNDERPAID compared to the private sector market, and yet I pay the same taxes as everyone else. Can you explain that one? "

Gee- We freed the slaves some years ago. I guess that means that you CHOOSE TO WORK AT THAT JOB. If you want more money, find the other job. Also, quit whining and grow up.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 23, 1999.

Vex: You asked the right question, "How [did] this happen?"

For partial answers, see my posts, "Ancient Greece and I-695," and, "Don't be fooled by I-695! (How to read Tim Eyman's sales talk)".

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001gzd

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001gbK

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.

"The results of this survey, my position was 48% UNDERPAID compared to the private sector market, and yet I pay the same taxes as everyone else. Can you explain that one? " Gee- We freed the slaves some years ago. I guess that means that you CHOOSE TO WORK AT THAT JOB. If you want more money, find the other job. Also, quit whining and grow up

Sorry vex, that's all zowie's three degree's will get you for an answer.

-- Ken (klemay@amouse.net), November 24, 1999.

ken-

Obviously "zowie" was too curt and abrasive. He may have even threatened "vex"'s self-esteem, and his answer obviously dis not suit you either.

Is this any better.

vex-

Over the course of the last 223 years, millions of your countrymen have fought, and hundreds of thousands of them died, to ensure that you have the liberty to choose to leave your employment with the state, and seek your fortune in the dynamic US economy. In memory of ALL they have sacrificed to give you that opportunity, it is respectfully suggested that you either exercise that option, or quit your pathetic whining about it.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.

I was *never* whining about my job or anything else, I just wanted some info on what would happen with our state with I-695 vs. without I-695. I am well aware that if I'm not happy with my job, I can go somewhere else. And believe me, I'm *very* happy with my job. I was trying to make a point to Marsha. If the government is doing such a good job at wasting our tax dollars, why are they paying me 48% less than a private sector job? Seems like they are doing a pretty good job of *saving* taxpayer dollars by paying me less...

-- --vex (havoc23@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.

"Seems like they are doing a pretty good job of *saving* taxpayer dollars by paying me less... " Kind of depends upon what you are really worth. Haven't seen anything so far that would convince me you're not overpaid.

"I was *never* whining about my job or anything else"

If this ISN'T an example of you whining, I sure don't want to see an example of you whining.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.