Hey. Just wondering how popular I would be if I started an initiative to remove all taxes which would in turn remove all publicly funded services such as snow removal, parks, welfare, food stamps, etc?

Does I-695 account for inflation? In other words, when costs go up to fund these services, is the same level of taxes going to work?

My point: since no voter would vote for a tax increase (as we can see from the passing of I-695) eventually the surplus will be gone, and the taxes will not cover these services, then what will we do?

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999

Answers

We're gonna try again with econ-101. Taxes rated at a percentage, ie property taxes, sales taxes etc., go up with inflation. 5% of 100,000 is more than 5% of 10,000. That's why the states revenue went up in spite of 695. Economy is so hot, that the state STILL makes a mint.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 29, 1999.

Yes, I thought about that. What I was thinking is that the costs of things that the state pays for seem to inflate faster than things we pay tax on. For example, labor for the state seems to cost much more than it does elsewhere, whether it's contracted out or not, take it from a former state employee. So, will the cost of labor for state services rise faster than the taxes? They're going to keep raising their own pay whether there's money or not. Then what are we going to do about the deficit?

I'm still not convinced that 695 is financially sound.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

Oh yeah, one other thing Paul, could you send me the source of your information regarding the increase in revenue? I'm not being sarcastic or rude, I want to compare the increase in revenue to the increase in expenditures, then maybe my point will become clear.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

In case Paul is busy, it was in the Seattle Times and most major Newspapers Friday, November 19, 1999.

Forecast adds $215 million to surplus

by The Associated Press

OLYMPIA - Washington lawmakers, scrambling to find ways to ease the pinch of tax-revolt Initiative 695, got good news yesterday: A new forecast adds $215 million to the state's billion-dollar surplus.

The state Revenue Council, a bipartisan panel of legislators and Gov. Gary Locke's budget and revenue directors, approved the new projection, basing it in large part on a surge of personal income, primarily from Microsoft and other software employees.

The average software worker now makes more than $400,000 a year, including stock options, said Chang Mook Sohn, the state's chief economist. He said that doesn't take into account the holdings of Microsoft billionaires Bill Gates and Paul Allen.

Despite Microsoft's court troubles and Boeing's continuing sales and employment slump, the state economy is performing well, Sohn said. The housing market is hot, sales taxes are rolling in faster than expected, and average personal income is growing 6.2 percent this year, he said.

The new forecast adds $215 million to the previously announced surplus of $1 billion.

Hey Cave, knock yourself out.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

Cave,

You said; "...eventually the surplus will be gone, and the taxes will not cover these services, then what will we do?"

Thank God this kind of attitude wasn't prevalent prior to government providing these services or we would have never survived as a country.

Laziness causes us to believe that government can solve all our problems as opposed to serious intellectual discussions as to what we as individuals living in the greatest country in the world can do for ourselves.

Take some time and really try to think of some ways we could provide snow removal, parks, and provide assistance to those who are really in need without government interference.

P.S. dbvz; You might want to take some time thinking about this also!

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 29, 1999.

cc--"My point: since no voter would vote for a tax increase (as we can see from the passing of I-695) eventually the surplus will be gone, and the taxes will not cover these services, then what will we do?"

Unfortunately, Colorado's experience shows your fundamental assumption to be unfounded in reality. Since the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights passed, about 76% of the levy increases on the ballot actually passed. Since Colorado is (IMO) slightly more conservative than Washington, I'd expect *at least* similar numbers here as well.

You might wish to qualify your above statement a bit.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 29, 1999.

Cave Canine:

What Marsha said.

Thanks marsha... saved me typin' in the link.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 29, 1999.

Brad--Is Colorado one of the 10 highest taxed states? If not, we shouldn't compare Colorado to Washington. In a state where we're ALREADY the 6th highest taxed state, you think people would vote for increases?

Paul/Marsha--Do either of you know the percent increases for revenue AND expenditures? Comparing those two percentages is what I want to do, but I can't find them.

Tony--Are you suggesting private citizens should take care of snow removal (on every road in Washington), park upkeep, and feeding the hungry? Otherwise I don't understand your question. How else should these services be provided? Cause I sure would like to see you shoveling off the North Cascades Highway in the spring so it can be reopened.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

cc--"Is Colorado one of the 10 highest taxed states? If not, we shouldn't compare Colorado to Washington. In a state where we're ALREADY the 6th highest taxed state, you think people would vote for increases?"

Colorado's experience shows people will vote for tax levies when they see the value in doing so. If a reasonable case for the increase can be made to the population, it's quite likely (IMO) there will be similar results in Washington.

Even if Colorado has lower taxes than Washington (FWIW, I believe you are correct), I don't think it really matters. If you assume Colorado's population to be more conservative (on average) than Washington's, it seems reasonable to think it's a fairly even comparison. In my experience as a resident of both states, it seems safe to assume Colorado's residents are somewhat more conservative than Washington residents.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 29, 1999.

Cave, I am not about to do your research for you. You can start at:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget_toc.html

Let me take a moment of your time and ask YOU a few questions. YOU stated: since no voter would vote for a tax increase (as we can see from the passing of I-695)

You are operating only on assumptions here. How do you conclude that the voters will not vote for an increase? Approval of I-695 does not translate into NO new taxes, it simply got rid of an unfair, (in the majority opinion) tax and gives voters the right to approve/disapprove NEW taxes. (You answered Brad with questions). He made an assumption that new increases WOULD be approved. You assume they won't. What do you base this on?

You also stated: eventually the surplus will be gone, and the taxes will not cover these services, then what will we do?

You also assume that the surplus will be spent, and the State Government will NOT make appropriate cuts in spending to cover future operations, correct? How did you come to that conclusion?

MY point is, if we continue the tax-spend cycle, with continual increases then , you will eventually be taxed at a rate you can no longer afford, no matter what it pays for. I-695 prevents our State Government from taking more than we want or can afford to pay. Why does this seem so difficult for you to understand?

Please do not say I assume my taxes have increased. I KNOW they have. I paid over $10,000.00 last year in real estate excise and sales taxes alone. That does not include normal sales tax money spent on day to day things, nor does it include property tax. (Ever built a new home?) Marsha, still waiting for enough income to buy the Mercedes.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

"Hey. Just wondering how popular I would be if I started an initiative to remove all taxes which would in turn remove all publicly funded services such as snow removal, parks, welfare, food stamps, etc? " Hard to tell, canine. You don't strike me as a particularly loveable person even before you start the initiative. My guess is NOT VERY.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

Cave, Please read following thread:

New state jobs inflate the budget, I'm sure it will help you with your research.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

Cave:

My point was simple: As an economy inflates, so does the amount of revenue going in- 5% of 100,000 is greater than 5% of 10,000. As for any discussions of the costs of STATE employee labour outpacing the pace of inflation...weeeeelll- sounds like state employee labour's got a problem. Sounds to me like they might be 'wage increasing' themselves out of a job. What the.. who am I kidding? I suppose it would help, however, if Mr Locke wouldn't be so hell-bent on increasing the size of government and its employee base, maybe he wouldn't get caught with his knickers down.

If state employee wages are outpacing inflation, I'm sorry, that's not my problem. I have a right to have a say in my level of taxation. If the unions for state employees are greedier than my will to keep more of what I earn, and I win the argument (see 695), then pick up that Sunday times and start lookin' fer a private sector job-- you know, where they expect results.

Sorry to sound so uncompassionate, but I have to get my raises the old fashioned way.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 29, 1999.

Brad--What you say makes sense. I didn't know you were a resident of Colorado, but now that I do, your argument is more credible. And what is FWIW?

Paul--"If state employee wages are outpacing inflation, I'm sorry, that's not my problem. I have a right to have a say in my level of taxation. If the unions for state employees are greedier than my will to keep more of what I earn, and I win the argument (see 695), then pick up that Sunday times and start lookin' fer a private sector job-- you know, where they expect results."---That's where I agree with you. And also the thing about Gov Locke. I'm actually quite conservative, but I think here I'm playing a devils advocate.

Marsha--"You assume they won't. What do you base this on?"---The same 'feeling', if you will, that Brad had about voters approving. I know a lot of people feel that any tax is a bad one. Just a 'feeling' I have picked up from talking to people. "You also assume that the surplus will be spent, and the State Government will NOT make appropriate cuts in spending to cover future operations, correct? How did you come to that conclusion?"---When Gov Locke said (several times) that the surplus WILL be used up in 16 months. I don't like it, but that's what he said. "Why does this seem so difficult for you to understand?"---As we've recently been discussing, everything increases relative to each other with inflation. So...with everything going up, wouldn't our income go up, therefore creating a 'relatively' equal income/tax ratio to what we have now? What I'm saying is, if I can afford taxes now, I would be able to afford an increase in taxes later because my income will be higher. Also, I don't believe I've said that you assumed your taxes increased, nor did I make the comment about a Mercedes. Remember I told you how not to use circumstantial evidence to confuse me with someone else? I only use one name on here. I don't want you to do my research, I only thought you might have the numbers for increases in spending since you had it for increase in revenue. Seems like a good pair of numbers to compare to me.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

Cave,

One important point. The Legislature may not allow Governor Locke to spend down the surplus in 16 months. The Legislature may make the appropriate cuts. You and I can speculate all we want. It's not important. What is important is that we communicate with our Elected Officials what is important. I will make a comment about a Mercedes on any post I like. Stop jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. I was beginning to think you were on this forum to learn. FWIW-for what it's worth. I am trying to see you get the information you wanted.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 29, 1999.

Paul Oss:

Your comment about a growing economy generating more tax revenue is correct for the sales tax and some others, but does not help those many local governments that depend on the property tax for all or most of their revenue. For them, 695 changed the whole revenue picture. They don't get any sales tax. 695 states that voter approval is required for any increase in the tax, and defines that as an increase in the rate, or amount, or expansion of the base, or fees, etc. That seems to prevent any increase in the property tax revenue. The only possible exception is new revenue due to new construction, and that may not be considered a tax increase because it is not paid by these that did not add to their property value by building on it. It is paid by those who added both value, and service need, by building.

If the amount of the tax can't increase without a vote, a good ecomony works against local governments depending on property tax revenue. A good ecomomy means full employment, labor costs increasing, supplies and services costs increasing; but revenue from the property tax is not to increase without a vote.

As for the chances of voters taxing themselves, for some things it is quite high. Several fire districts asked for tax increases as a precaution in case 695 passed, and I think all or most of them were approved. An EMS levy is likely to be approved. Most local school levies are likely to be approved.

For some services, in the current environment, a tax increase proposal will be harder to sell. What about the property tax to support a public hospital district, that is operating in a competitive market and charging the market rate for rooms and services? What about the property tax to support the local library district? Or flood control district? Or park district? Every one of them will need to sell their need to the voters, just to maintain the current level of service, when the cost of that service is going up and the revenue is not.

Those who support 695 will say that is exactly what they want. Sell the need. But how much attention will the needs of a library district get, in the middle of a presidential election, or a campaign for governor, or another initiative like 695? The initiative expects voters to cast informed votes on the revenue and budget needs of every taxing district that serves them. To do it right would require a lot of work. That is why I expect it will not be done right, and one of the reasons I was against 695.

Don't assume that in a good economy, local governments will do OK. For many of them, that just makes the problem worse.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 29, 1999.

Cave,

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. It is intellectual laziness to believe that the services you mentioned all have to be provided by an inept government. Parks are not a constitutional right and they shouldn't be owned or managed by the government. If you want to use a park, you can pay to use that park or perhaps a church or private organization can provide the park. Now I'm not going to give you all the answers because I'd like to see you really think about options other than government options for snow removal and helping people in need. Can you do that?

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 29, 1999.

Marsha--"The Legislature may not allow Governor Locke to spend down the surplus in 16 months."--An assumption. See? We all make them.

Tony--

I'm failing to follow your argument. Yes, I can pay for parks, and in fact I do, you know that little sticker that you put on the back of your car? The Forest Service one? "...they shouldn't be owned or managed by the government." WHAT?? Now you don't want the government to own parks? I'm going out on an assumption again, but the protection of our lands would be NON-EXISTENT. No private company carries the enforcement power the government does. A private company holding a park (ie. campgrounds, forests, large scale parks, etc) would not be close to as cheap as it is now, like it should be. We would pay gross amounts to private companies to use a park. For example, an exaggerated one but still, Jurassic Park. Too much liability and huge investment in capital.

I suppose a private company could provide snow removal, hmmm let's see... Again, this would require a HUGE investment in capital for a private company. Or maybe a church or service organization such as the Salvation Army or Red Cross could plow the roads for us. Do you even know what the North Cascades Highway is? It's closed during the winter months because of the 80 some feet of snow it gets during that time!!! What a huge job to clear that!!! But I guess a private company could invest their own millions to clear it. Or they could set up a toll and charge people to drive on the highway, but then they would have to own that road, and how would that work? A private company owning a public road? But that is only for that stretch of road. What about the other thousands of miles of urban and rural roads that have to be cleared??? I think that if we took away government snow removal, no one in their right mind would take over that job.

People in need are assisted by many service organizations and churches, but it's obviously not enough because they still depend on welfare and other subsidies unfortunately. Once again, where do you propose that a private company gets money to donate to poor people. Oh, use a company's extra profits? And who is going to require that? Without a requirement, companies might choose not to do it, as we see these days. Some do, some don't. But let's take away government subsidized assistance programs. Sheesh! I thought I was unpopular.

Your argument is crazy to me. I really don't get it. Did I think enough? I think I've shown how incredibly difficult changing government programs to private would be.

"...an inept government."---Wow. If you don't like Washington's government move to another state. We all think we could do a better job, but do you know what goes on in a capital/capitol? Have you ever sat through more than a day's worth of session? Do you know what it takes to make things happen in this state and nation? It is a very hard job, and I am VERY offended that you would say our government is inept.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

Cave,

I'm sorry to dissapoint you, however, I'm not leaving Washington. On the contrary, I'm going to continue to do battle with socialists who think that government is the only answer to our problems. By the way, it appears that 58% of your fellow Washingtonians believe that this current government is inept and they voted for I-695 to send that message. Would you like us all to leave or just me.

If you think that a state government that has to spend 350,000 dollars to determine how to spend the money they extorted from the tobacco companies or a state government that spends 7 million dollars to build an elevator (just a few examples of many) is not somewhat inept, then I can understand why you mistakenly think they can do a better job than private companies, churches, charities etc.

Don't assume subsidized government services are less expensive than privatized services. With government services we all pay whether we use the services or not - THAT'S SOCIALISM!

If you think taxpayers should subsidize your park visits then by extension should we also subsidize your next ticket to Northwest Trek, Busch Gardens, Lion Country Safari or Disneyland?

Where do the subsidies stop?

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), November 30, 1999.

Cave:

Regarding your post about the demise of the surplus and no taxes being available to cover services, please don't be confused by what is called "static revenue analysis." I first heard this phrase in the late 1970s when inflation and high tax rates were inflating taxpayers into higher tax brackets (remember the phrase "bracket creep?").

Static revenue analysis is pushed by big taxers to justify tax increases. It assumes, incorrectly, that if you increase or decrease a tax rate by a given amount, tax revenues will rise or fall by that amount. Thus, increase taxes by 5 percent, and revenues will increase by 5 percent. After a certain point, static revenue analysis doesn't work.

This assumption fails to take into account the facts that human decision making and human behavior respond to INCENTIVES. The fact is, people will respond to high taxes with changes in their behavior. At a certain point, with marginal tax rates pushing people into higher brackets, it isn't worth it to work, risk and invest. People's time, and certainly the time of people who put up risk capital that results in new job creation (and the potential for more tax revenues) becomes more valuable than the small amount of money they are left with after taxes, so they spend more time in leisure pursuits, which, while fun, aren't always productive. This is exactly a key part of the problem we had in the late 1970s when inflation, rising wages, and higher marginal rates (due to a very steeply progressive tax system), pushed even middle class people into tax brackets which formerly hit "the wealthy."

When the federal income tax 30 percent reduction came in in the 1980s, there was a huge increase in job creation, capital investment and a subsequent explosion in tax revenues.

I think the same situation is applicable to the state level. The more taxes people pay, the less they will have to save and invest, which creates new jobs, and subsequently, more tax revenue. The state is raking in a lot of revenue, but how much more would it take in in aggregate if it at least reduced the sales tax, or eliminated our destructive b & o tax (based on gross income no less, with no regard to profitability!)?

My point is that if you don't take away people's incentive to earn, but instead encourage them to work and invest via a less punitive tax system, the revenues will be there to fund government's legitimate duties.

As an ancillary matter, there is also the very important question of the morality and wisdom of just how much state and national weath government should consume, but rather than get into that, I wanted to address your specific question.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), November 30, 1999.

Tony

I would disagree that 58% of the people were knowingly voting to say we have an inept government. I would say that the average voter voted for I-695 because of the tabs. Wouldn't you? That's how the initiative was advertised, and for the many people who don't read their pamphlet that's why they voted yes.

I am not assuming that privatized services would be more expensive, I'm saying that the state can afford it because of taxes. We ALL use at least one service, the roads and sidewalks. So don't go claiming socialism because many people use more than one service. Are you talking pure socialism or partial. Sure there might be some, but there is some communism then too. Welfare, food stamps, and other assistance programs designed to help everyone have the same opportunities, isn't that a little communism?

You obviously do not know what goes on in a government. 7 million for an elevator? How tall a building was this put in? Did they have to remodel the entire building to put in an elevator shaft? Were other jobs done along with the elevator? Do you have the invoice that says only one elevator w/installation=7 million?

You also appear not to understand what I'm talking about when I explain about the North Cascades Highway and the other thousands of miles of road in this state. Once again, why don't YOU think of a private company, church, or charity that would be willing to take on snow removal?

Those PRIVATE parks you listed should not be subsidized of course. They were BUILT on purchased land. A forest was not built, nor was it purchased. If you want to get technical we took it, and maybe we should give back the land we took. And I also already told you that I bought a Forest Service pass, so I've done what I can to pay for my own leisure.

I don't think government is the ONLY answer, but I think it's a big part of the way we live. How would you like no subsidized programs? Then we wouldn't need elected officials. Then we wouldn't really need a government. Without a government we would have anarchy. Then we would probably slip back to third world nation status. That's what we see with weak governments around the world. But I guess you and 58% of the voters would like that. Is that right?

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

cc--

"I would disagree that 58% of the people were knowingly voting to say we have an inept government. I would say that the average voter voted for I-695 because of the tabs. Wouldn't you? That's how the initiative was advertised, and for the many people who don't read their pamphlet that's why they voted yes."

The evidence doesn't support your assertion that tab fees are the primary reason people supported I-695. In general, KOMO's polls showed higher support for the tax and fee plebiscite requirement than the reduction in tab fees.

"I am not assuming that privatized services would be more expensive, I'm saying that the state can afford it because of taxes. We ALL use at least one service, the roads and sidewalks. So don't go claiming socialism because many people use more than one service. Are you talking pure socialism or partial. Sure there might be some, but there is some communism then too. Welfare, food stamps, and other assistance programs designed to help everyone have the same opportunities, isn't that a little communism?"

You're wasting your breath arguing with Tony.

"You obviously do not know what goes on in a government. 7 million for an elevator? How tall a building was this put in? Did they have to remodel the entire building to put in an elevator shaft? Were other jobs done along with the elevator? Do you have the invoice that says only one elevator w/installation=7 million?"

While I understand your point, you're not going to gain any credibility by refusing to acknowledge that $7M for an elevator is ridiculous (if it's truly that expensive it simply shouldn't be built).

"You also appear not to understand what I'm talking about when I explain about the North Cascades Highway and the other thousands of miles of road in this state. Once again, why don't YOU think of a private company, church, or charity that would be willing to take on snow removal?"

The assumption you have is that it only gets done because the government would do it. Having lived in rural areas, I find this assumption quite suspect. In general, the people who live in these areas often work together voluntarily to provide services they all need. To be fair, they'll usually only do this if the service *isn't* provided by a government entity.

FWIW, I don't know how well this model scales. I also don't think it's universally applicable.

"Those PRIVATE parks you listed should not be subsidized of course. They were BUILT on purchased land. A forest was not built, nor was it purchased. If you want to get technical we took it, and maybe we should give back the land we took. And I also already told you that I bought a Forest Service pass, so I've done what I can to pay for my own leisure."

I kept looking for a point.

"I don't think government is the ONLY answer, but I think it's a big part of the way we live. How would you like no subsidized programs? Then we wouldn't need elected officials. Then we wouldn't really need a government. Without a government we would have anarchy. Then we would probably slip back to third world nation status. That's what we see with weak governments around the world. But I guess you and 58% of the voters would like that. Is that right?"

Explain your reasoning for the following assumption:

weak governments --> anarchy

strong governments --> absence of anarchy

Before you state the above is obviously true, I'd ask that you think about how it might not be true. Personally, I don't think weak *or* strong governments have much to do with anarchy (under any reasonable definition--absence of government or chaos). Similarly, I don't think strong *or* weak governments really matter. Instead, we should be worried about an *effective* government. IMO, a strong *or* weak government could be equally effective depending on the situation.

Put another way, it would be equally fallacious to state the following:

weak governments --> freedom

strong governments --> totalitarianism

Again, it depends on the situation.

Finally, I think you've served us up a huge scoop of hyperbole when you suggest having a weaker government will lead us towards becoming a third world nation. I could just as easily state that many third world governments are totalitarian (arguably, the strongest form of government available).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 30, 1999.

Cave,

The 7 million dollar elevator was covered throughly by Craig in an earlier thread. Too lazy to go back and read all the posts? Too bad. Just because you did not come across the information does not mean it did not exist. It's there. One thing that irrates folks is failure to read previous threads.

You stated: Do you even know what the North Cascades Highway is? (YES, used to camp at MT. Baker all the time.)It's closed during the winter months because of the 80 some feet of snow it gets during that time!!!

I have a solution for the North Cascades Highway. Don't expect to drive on it in winter months! It gets closed for a good reason. It is very dangerous in spots, even cleared of 80 some feet of snow! Why would you want this open? It should not be publicly or privatly cleared of snow, sheesh. Have some common sense!

Most of us who supported 695 are not stating we want to abolish all taxes. Is that what you think the purpose of I-695 was about? Or are we just cheapskates wanting 30 tabs? You are sadly misinformed. We (the majority) wanted a say in tax increases. You sure sound like you have a bad case of sour grapes.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

"The 7 million dollar elevator was covered throughly by Craig in an earlier thread. "

Actually, no! I recall seeing it, may have been one of Westin's posts. Mine were usually transportation related ($65 million light rail amusement ride to replace one 1.6 mile long bus route in Tacoma, Underground park n ride parking carage on Mercer Island (with elevator) at $29,000 per stall, $22,000 stall above ground parking garage in Renton, $10 million capital investment and $2.5 million per year for 700 people to commute between Kirkland and the UW by passenger ferry, $2 billion dollar Seattle light rail that will make Metro less efficient, at a cost of $100 million per mile.) There are a lot of REAL questionable projects out there, but the $7 million elevator wasn't one that I discovered.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 30, 1999.

I stand corrected.

I was beginning to think someone did away with you Craig. Glad to see your post.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

Marsha Marsha Marsha!!--Fortunately you make it easy for me since you always take the stubborn, closed mind approach. "I have a solution for the North Cascades Highway. Don't expect to drive on it in winter months! It gets closed for a good reason. It is very dangerous in spots, even cleared of 80 some feet of snow! Why would you want this open? It should not be publicly or privatly cleared of snow, sheesh. Have some common sense!" I don't want to open it during the winter and I don't expect to drive on it. If you would have read what I said earlier in the thread (taking some of your own advice) you would see that I was talking about the job that has to be done in the spring to open it. Or did you think it all just melts away? Sheesh. Anyway, I wasn't asking *you* if you knew what the NCH was.

Brad--"In general, KOMO's polls showed higher support for the tax and fee plebiscite requirement than the reduction in tab fees." This also proves nothing. That's KOMO. Who did they ask? Voters statewide? There were counties in which I-695 was handily voted down (yes, I know that what counts is the state %'s).

"You're wasting your breath arguing with Tony." Thanks. I'm relatively new here, and I was starting to figure that out. :)

"While I understand your point, you're not going to gain any credibility by refusing to acknowledge that $7M for an elevator is ridiculous (if it's truly that expensive it simply shouldn't be built)." Yes $7 million is too much. I'll check what went into the 7 mil later.

"FWIW, I don't know how well this model scales. I also don't think it's universally applicable." I agree with you, many people do come out with their own plows etc. It might not scale, but it is one example out of many miles of roads that have to be covered that have no inhabitants for great distances yet are used.

"I kept looking for a point." My point was that the parks he named were already owned by private companies, whereas public parks are payed for by tax dollars and owned by the people. So when he made the point of thinking of other ways to provide parks, and then went on to name private parks as something that should not be subsidized, he was answering his own assertion (that private parks should not be subsidized).

"weak governments --> anarchy strong governments --> absence of anarchy" Unfortunately I drifted while writing that paragraph. I didn't mean to make that connection, although after rereading what I wrote, that connection is easily made. What I meant was that if Tony wants nothing subsidized that would eventually lead to no government being necessary, and without any government we'd have anarchy (no recognized leader, no police, etc). I agree with you that a strong government doesn't necessarily mean no anarchy. My point wasn't weak vs. strong, rather the existence of a government at all.

"Finally, I think you've served us up a huge scoop of hyperbole when you suggest having a weaker government will lead us towards becoming a third world nation. I could just as easily state that many third world governments are totalitarian (arguably, the strongest form of government available)." Again I agree with you here. What I was trying to say is that our government in specific is quite influential in our economy, and *without* it we would have problems.

Let me say that some of you are quite polite and courteous (Brad, Ed) to debate with. I am probably on the same side as most of you, I just like to debate from the other side. It gives people something to think about,

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

cave

About the $7 million elevator, that is a correct figure. If you can't find it don't worry, it takes a little digging through the budget.

Found it couple of times, then when I want to go back, can't remember where it's at. So have to start the digging all over again.

Also Marsha, got the sarcasim on your post about the trip-premits. I was also being sarcastic.

Ed - just a friendly guy

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.

To finish my last post since it was cut off...

It gives people something to think about, and encourages open mindedness.

Also, I tried to find Craig's 7 million dollar elevator post but couldn't, and now I see that he explained he didn't post it. Unfortunately there are quite a few posts on here, and I don't have the time to look through all of them. Too bad, ri

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

Cave, Cave, Cave,

You last stated: If you would have read what I said earlier in the thread (taking some of your own advice) you would see that I was talking about the job that has to be done in the spring to open it. Or did you think it all just melts away? Sheesh

Your original comment:

I suppose a private company could provide snow removal, hmmm let's see... Again, this would require a HUGE investment in capital for a private company. Or maybe a church or service organization such as the Salvation Army or Red Cross could plow the roads for us. Do you even know what the North Cascades Highway is? It's closed during the winter months because of the 80 some feet of snow it gets during that time!!! What a huge job to clear that!!! But I guess a private company could invest their own millions to clear it. Or they could set up a toll and charge people to drive on the highway, but then they would have to own that road, and how would that work? A private company owning a public road? But that is only for that stretch of road. What about the other thousands of miles of urban and rural roads that have to be cleared??? I think that if we took away government snow removal, no one in their right mind would take over that job.

It would appear that since your original post made no distinction as to time frame, I came to what I feel is the appropriate conclusion. In any case, the rest is bunk. Privitizing snow removal services would not result in public roads becoming privatly owned. You can debate from any direction you like. However, with statements like that, you leave yourself open to ridicule.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

True enough Marsha, my apologies.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

"Privitizing snow removal services would not result in public roads becoming privatly owned." It wouldn't? Who would pay this private company to do it? Or would it be volunteer? Again, not something any company of mine would

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

Cave, Please, by all means enlighten us as to how a private company, paid either by a toll system or from taxes, would come to own said road? Does this mean all toll roads and bridges are privately owned?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

Okay. Do you agree that a private company would want to make money by plowing a road? Since a private company can't institute a tax on the public, the would have to put up some sort of toll, right? And to have the rights to put up a toll, wouldn't they have to own the road? And to own the road, wouldn't they have to buy it from someone? It seems to me that the answer to all these questions is yes. However, this does not mean that all currently tolled roads and bridges are privately owned. Probably none are. I catch your sarcasm, but it seems like such an easy connection to make. Of course, I make connections in my head quickly and sometimes miss writing something down, so I thank you for pointing out where I have failed to enlighten you. I'm sure there wil

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

Weird cutoffs of my messages (probably because I'm on a sleazy Mac right now)....

I'm sure there will be more.

chec

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

Cave,

I agree with Brad. Don't argue with me, however, if you want to debate further in the future I'll be here.

P.S. If you want to know more about the 7 million dollar elevator and other government waste, go to my post - 1.1 billion reasons to vote yes on I-695

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), December 01, 1999.

I think what Brad was saying is that you're pointless to debate with. Your ideas are out there, but you're entitled to your opinion.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

Cave,

I see where your reasoning and mine differ. I do not believe in order to collect tolls, a private company would have to own the road. You may want to think this through a bit more, it could lead to a lucrative business venture.

Imagine if you will, buying a small number of vehicles for snow removal, (can we say surplus government equipment?) You bid and win a state contract to clear the snow in the spring months. You work for a few weeks clearing snow, in exchange for a small toll being collected by you, from each vehicle traveling said road during the summer. Sit on your bu** all winter, and you make a living. You own the business, the road remains public. And my taxes get lowered! Hmmmm...if you think my logic doesn't work, then let me give you more food for thought.

Do you remember a year or so ago when Governor Locke decided 40-50% of State Parks may need to close. Why? Not enough money? Why? Allow me to use Fort Canby as an example. My last visit, camping in a full hookup site cost me $15-$16 dollars per night. I don't remember the exact amount. This is a user fee, correct?

Recently, instead of staying at Fort Canby, we chose a private RV Park in Illwaco. We payed $17 per night.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the private park has expenses over and above what the State park would have such as city water, city sewer, property tax, income tax, and presumably, B&O of some sort. Yes, they may even pay wages. Why is it that for $1 or $2 dollars more per site, a private company can make a profit? This scenario could be applied to the majority of state and private parks. You can assume that they would have similar vacancies, although the State park fills to capacity sooner. Most state park reservationists will tell you that. Oops, I forgot to mention that $6 state reservation fee.

Is it possible a private company could do a better job with State Parks? When privatizing won't work, many times contracting out the operation will. Can you explain why a private park can make a profit and State Parks need tax subsidies? How much of a user fee might be needed to completly cover operational expenses of state parks?

See Cave, I try to base my opinions on more than speculation. I use a little common sense and my life experiences, (honorary dinosaur! Maddjak said so!), combined with reading and participating in the process. I have not deliberatly set out to attack you, I just have found no basis for your position in my own experiences. It is almost as if you are speaking a different language. I know my examples sound simplistic, but these things sometimes just aren't that difficult to begin with.

One final note. I worked for a private company for 3 years, then the operation was taken in house by the local Transit Agency. I made more money working for the private company.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

Cave,

If you think ideas like privatization, church and charity giving, and elimination of wasteful government spending, are somehow useless to debate, then who is really "out there"? Just because you don't like the idea of parks or similar services being provided by someone other than government doesn't mean intelligent people shouldn't discuss the possibilities.

Also, as I have mentioned numerous times in past discussions, how much more could we as citizens do for our fellow citizens if the government didn't suck out so much of our life energy. (tax dollars!)

We also need to get something straight; I have never indicated that we should eliminate all government services. What we should do is look at our guiding documents to determine what should and shouldn't be funded or subsidized by the government.

You may have heard of these documents: The United States Constitution and the State of Washington Constitution.

Finally, I'm going to assume that it may be fear of change that keeps you so entrenched in your beliefs and that may also be the reason for your fear of debating some of these issues.

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), December 01, 1999.

Marsha--I agree with your thoughts about the snow removal. Makes sense. And the parks? Makes sense too. Although, that private one you visited might not being making any profit, they may just be trying to remain somewhat competitive with the state or other parks. I too am using life experiences, however many less than you, but still my own experiences. I'm just trying to bring to you a different point of view you might not have thought of before and apparently haven't if it sounds like a different language. "Can you explain why a private park can make a profit and State Parks need tax subsidies?" Yes. State employees are often paid much more unfortunately. And what I said above about private parks trying to remain competitive. I agree that contracting might get the job done better, but I have personal experience working for a construction company in which we did work for both private and state jobs. The state jobs paid $7-$8/hour more in some cases. I'm not sure why. Why can't you follow my arguments? Because you're so set in your own ways? I don't know. I'll try harder from now on.

Tony--I'll try for a third time. Without any clarification from Brad as of yet, what I understood when he said it was a waste of my breath was that you are bull-headed and extreme and will listen to nothing and will not be a good debater. That's what I took from him. We'll see what he has to say soon I'm sure. Therefore, I do not believe those ideas are useless to debate about. Again, I've never said I don't like the idea of privatizing those services, I'm merely arguing the cons. *Don't* insinuate that I'm not intelligent, friend.

"Can you explain why a private park can make a profit and State Parks need tax subsidies?"--The fact is most people don't want to do anything for anyone else anymore. When was the last time you picked up a hitchhiker? Or helped someone along the road? Or worked at a soup kitchen? If you have, then you've done a lot more than the average citizen. "I have never indicated that we should eliminate all government services."--And I never indicated that private parks should be subsidized. Where does the elimination stop?

I am not afraid to debate these issues. As I have said before, the side I am debating might not reflect my own personal beliefs, so being "entrenched" in my own beliefs is not accurate. I would venture that I am not only looking at both sides of the issue fairly, but that I'm also making other people so adamant about their beliefs that they won't even consider the point I argue.

semantics: the life-blood of debate

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

Sorry. In my previous post, the first line of the third paragraph should be this quote: "...how much more could we as citizens do for our fellow citizens..." My clipboard got messed up or something and I pasted the wrong thing. Sorry folks.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

cc--"The fact is most people don't want to do anything for anyone else anymore. When was the last time you picked up a hitchhiker? Or helped someone along the road? Or worked at a soup kitchen? If you have, then you've done a lot more than the average citizen."

From my experience, your so-called "fact" doesn't hold water. I've observed that most people are willing to be helpful when asked. Furthermore, many people are willing to help *without* being asked (sometimes even providing unwanted help).

What do you suppose our respective viewpoints say about either of us????

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 01, 1999.

Right, so it may not be a *fact*. That's just my viewpoint. Our respective viewpoints tell me that we are different ages and therefore have been brought up in different times. You're probably in your upper 30's to lower 50's, and were brought up to help other people and be kind to your fellow citizen. I am in my 20's and was brought up during a time when kids were/are selfish and people were/are more concerned about themselves. Although I personally help out, many people in Generation X (ages 19-29 as defined by marketing research) are in a "rat race", only concerned about themselves making it to the top, with "no time" to help other people. I would venture that this might spill into people aged through their 30's. But of course there's been no study that I know of, so this is just my thoughts on our respective viewpoints.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

It's also possible that everyone younger than 19 is selfish. Quite possible. Just an observation of the people who will be our leaders in 20-30 years.

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

cc--"Although I personally help out, many people in Generation X (ages 19-29 as defined by marketing research) are in a "rat race", only concerned about themselves making it to the top, with "no time" to help other people."

Your premise (which I didn't quote) is that younger people are more selfish than older people (FWIW, I generally agree). If this is true, is this a new thing *or* has it always been this way?

In other words, it's unreasonable to presume that because younger people are "less helpful" (whatever that means) that they will remain that way. Along the same lines, it's also not reasonable to presume that "less helpful" younger people are a new phenomenon.

I'd ask you honestly answer the following question: does generousity correlate with age?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 01, 1999.

cc--"It's also possible that everyone younger than 19 is selfish."

This is meaningless (for several reasons). I'll give you a couple of examples that explain why:

"It's also possible that everyone younger than 5 is selfish."

"It's possible to survive a 60 mph headon collision w/o wearing a seatbelt."

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 01, 1999.

No, age has no correlation to generosity. I wasn't trying to say that, once again I've failed to complete my thoughts on paper. What I was getting at was that, in general, people aged 30 and younger have more selfish tendenicies and will continue these as they grow older. Do you see what I'm saying? When I said that people 19 and younger are quite selfish I meant that there seems to be a pattern towards increasing selfishness and therefore at some point there will be a whole lot of selfish people out there. I can only hope that it doesn't continue this way, but it doesn't look good. The point I made of being "brought up" some way should have conveyed to you that people will carry their ways *throughout* their life, and not change over to helpful at age 30.

No, "less helpful" young people is not a new phenomenon. Rather, it's becoming *increasingly* more obvious, and this attitude stays with them longer. Unfortunately, greed and materialism are rising which correlates to less help for others. Yes, I know there are rich people who donate a lot and help out a lot, but I'm thinking of the middle to upper middle class.

BTW, how many big corporations or wealthy people do you would contribute money to charity if the public didn't look down upon the ones who didn't?

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), December 01, 1999.

cave

you write, "wealthy people do you would contribute money to charity if the public didn't look down upon the ones who didn't?"

Kinda like Al Gore donating less then $300 in '97, yeah.

Ed - gave more then that to one place last year, and I make less

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), December 02, 1999.

snip-Al Gore

Ha! Hopefully someone is/will be using that against him during the campaign! What does he make though, $2-3000 a year?!?

-- cave canine (cavecanine@hotmail.com), December 02, 1999.