Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Recently, I was on a trip through Missouri. Taxes on everything (gasoline included) was substantially lower than ours. I checked income tax rates there, and they are substantially less than ours. Gasoline was 21 cents per gallon cheaper ($4.20 per fill up on a 20 gallon tank vehicle). When I returned, I saw a yard sign promoting a sales tax which indicated that the tax would provide capital. That is the kind of thinking that gets us in trouble. Taxes are nothing but a reshuffling of money and is a drain on capital. We need new money coming in, not simply taking it from one pocket to another, which does nothing more than make us poorer in the end. I fully recognize that we demand and need government services and that taxes is the revenue source for them. However, I am amazed that Missouri, with twice our population and thereby twice the demand for services, can keep its taxes lower. We need to take a hard look at our tax structure and our attitudes toward new incomes. Having our governor veto two electrical generation plants, paid for mostly by Colorado, is an example of why we need more taxes and are getting poorer. I bet that Missouri would have jumped at the chance of getting those plants.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wealth is created by making something. For example, producing electricity creates wealth. Creating something requires capital. Taxes consume capital. We cannot tax ourselves into wealth. In fact, as we use up our capital through taxes, the need for additional taxes increases because of the economy cooling, and we go into a spiral, getting poorer as we go. We are, I'm afraid, headed in that direction in Kansas. Further, the leading presidential candidate proposes raising taxes on upper incomes. Since I am not in those income brackets, I am tempted to like his idea. The problem is that it is those people that provide the capital to create wealth, which reduces taxes overall and thereby benefits all. Between the governor running off a $3,500,000,000.00 electrical generation proposal, and our likely next president taxing capital, I am afraid that the standard of living will be reduced in the United States in general, and Kansas in particular, over the years ahead.

Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This town needs a proverbial "Night of the Long Knives."

Posted by create (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh my, a complete purging!

Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

" ... a city manager who appears to do little beyond finding ways to spend public money ... "

Actually, as I remember, most of Mr. Zimmerman's first year was spent finding ways to cut money. I'm assuming everyone remembers the reaction when he suggested slicing the municipal band's funding, the fireworks, the taxi coupon program and more .......

It's a no-win situation. If he recommends a budget that spends money, he's profligate. If he recommends cuts, he gets complaints from everyone whose ox was gored. I wouldn't take his job for the world.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To answer Mr. Hill's question, I believe the commissioners each "make" less than $5,000 per year. When you factor in time spent at meetings and study sessions (and away from their respective businesses) that is a bargain. I may not always agree with city officials, elected or otherwise, but no one is in city elected office to get rich. Conversely, you almost have to possess significant resources or fall past working age in order to do the job required of a commissioner.

I get that people have questions, of officials, organizations, businesses and in some cases individuals. What I don't understand is how lack of knowledge or understanding of one of the aforementioned categories can instantly turn into an unsubstantiated accusation. $150,000??? I don't want to call anybody out here. Honestly that isn't my intention. However, if you’re going to take lack of knowledge and use it to create insinuations, how can any government, organization or business hope to function? If you have a question, simply e-mail one of the commissioners and I'm sure they would gladly answer your question.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would also add that the parking contract appears to be cheaper on paper and based on what I saw during the commission meeting I watched is the item went out for public bidding and review. The bid they approved is cheaper than the previous contract and apparently saves a significant amount of money over 4 years. As to parking enforcement, I read that downtown businesses push to have parking enforced to move traffic around to make parking spaces available and to assist with the upkeep of parking lots etc. Seems like that is a better option of letting those who use the service pay for it rather than hiking up the mil levy and charging everyone, including people who don't use the service. It is my understanding that the parking fines don't even cover the cost of the processing so nobody is making any money here. Perhaps a increase in parking fines and parking meter fees would be in order.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker, I know a few people who live in Missouri and they tell me the state is about broke. Taxes apparently are up considerably and hope you don't have kids in public schools. Their law enforcement and public school teachers are paid less than most and they can't find the funds to outfit lab equipment in school science labs. The same holds true for Arkansas. Unless you are in a bigger city, services are not on par and is truly a case of getting what you pay for, or at least so I'm told.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

justthefacts,

I agree an increase in fines is justified. However, I would probably want any increase to target chronic parking offenders by utilizing an increasing scale rather than targeting a general customer of a service or retail business. Customers make the community money. Others that deny customer’s access cost the community money. The national chamber of commerce did a study on the value of parking spaces in sales per year for smaller communities. It's been a few years since I have read the report, but I believe that a city the size of Emporia had a value of around $30,000 per year per parking space; meaning that each parking space, when unobstructed, could generate up to $30,000 per year in sales for service or retail based businesses. I know that money is tight, but it seems like an effective parking enforcement policy could actually be a fund generator if done properly. Maybe more accessibility downtown would equal more sales, more businesses, more profits, more sales tax revenues and more variety. I think that you have to separate the average consumer from those that consistently ignore parking ordinances to gain any business advantage without creating a customer/client deterrent.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gosh, justthefacts, maybe we can tax ourselves into wealth. Who needs capital for the future, let's just use it for government growth, and that way we don't have to worry about building the economy, expanding the tax base, increasing property valuations, keeping jobs locally so that our kids can stay here or any of those things. We can get poorer and poorer and thereby qualify more people for welfare, and raise taxes even more to pay for that. With a declining population, we won't have to worry about so many people at Wal-Mart when we shop (that is, if we have money left to shop with and Wal-Mart doesn't leave, too). Without capital, we won't have to worry about building power plants or infrastructure. Good ideas. More taxes, please.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.emporia-kansas.gov/pdf/2009bu...

2009 budget
remodel patrol supervisors office (police) $11,000 ?

$380,000 for the golf course? How many taxpayers golf?

$124,000 worth of new lawn mowers? cant some of the same equipment be used at the golf course,airport,parks? do they all need Seperate mowers?

Engineering scanner and printer $16,000? seems a bit high to me!

2009 Civic Building , Seven curtains $8,400?

Just a few examples of what I would call waste of tax dollars

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One other thing, justthefacts. Your argument that Missouri's economy is going bankrupt because its taxes are too low is preposterous. Capital goes where it can best be put to profitable use. Low taxes is a major consideration, not just for the business owners, but for the work force, too. In Kansas, on the other hand, we tax to the max, and at the same time, when a capital venture (like the $3,500,000,000.00 proposed electrical generation plants) begs to come in, our governor runs them off. What are we thinking? Our tax to the max mentality has overreached - we maxed out sometime ago. Now we are headed into a spiral. If somebody doesn't get on top of this, Mississippi will no longer be the poorest state in the nation.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I take no joy in saying this, because Kansas is my home and I intend to remain here for whatever time I have left, and thereafter to be buried in its soil. The facts are that dark days are ahead of us. Somehow, someway, we have to attract capital to invest here. Our governor has made it clear that we are a state unfriendly to businesses that pay the taxes and provide the jobs. Our local governments continue to propose more and more taxes and more and more regulation (a current example is a proposal to dictate to local restaurant owners that they must ban smoking) on local businesses, which provide the taxes and provide the jobs for our local economies. Every time that a capital venture goes to another state or a local business fails, we head downward. A New Jersey professor wrote an article about 5 years ago predicting that Kansas would become a "buffalo commons" (a place where the population and the wealth departed to other places). We are in great and serious need for leadership that has our long term interest in mind, that is not beholden to politically correct interests, that is not self promoting, but is a son or daughter of Kansas who will provide real leadership for his or her homeland. We will never be the wealthiest state or the one with the largest population, and we don't want to be. However, things don't stay static, and when you don't grow, you diminish. We need to find that balance, which we have lost and no longer seek.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on July 24, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The individual from New Jersey that you are referring to actually wanted to turn the western half of Kansas into a type of native game preserve for buffalo and other native plains animals because there was "nothing out there"; a lovely plan from someone who has probably never set foot west of the Mississippi.

I agree that we need to look long term, and although I'm not fond of paying taxes I understand their importance. A lot of our nation's crumbling infrastructure is tax supported. Without our taxes, the roads, energy, water, communications and other support services needed for a functioning modern economy can't exist. As a secondary consideration, some government institutions like departments of commerce can actually help drive development with innovative programs that produce a high return on investment. I guess what I am saying is that government (and its taxes) has its place. When taxes are utilized in a fair, equitable manner that takes into account their relative effect and utilize the cash resources correctly they can be a good thing for a well developed society and economy. Government is here to provide help for things that individuals can’t make a profit at, shouldn't make a profit at or need a cooperative effort to succeed. I guess I can see both sides of the coal plant debate, but I don't find things as bleak (long term) as others do.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on July 24, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus, The idea of the parking scale is great but will involve the cost of someone monitoring. That means more staff time and attention. Given the penchant toward a lack of interest in these forums of investment, I'm not very optimistic that your good ideas will come to fruition.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on July 24, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker, a red dog, green dog issue (agree to disagree). Failure to invest in infrastructure and services does not provide the amenities that quality businesses which to invest. I know this because I worked for a large corporation as a scout for new business locations. They looked at police and fire services, education, cultural opportunities, higher education and retail trade base as well as transportation and access to shipping and railheads. To be able to attract good employees and a work force. The one thing they didn't particularly care about was the tax rate. I also spent a lot of time in coffee shops and reading the newspaper to measure the attitude of the local citizen input. If I was measuring Emporia, I'm afraid we would do poorly on the community's willingness to be forward looking and willing to invest (taxes) in the future.

I know of Missouri and Arkansas because of friends and family there. Yes, taxes are low there but so are wages and educational opportunities. I've been in the back woods of Missouri, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi doing some research and I can assure you I now know what abject poverty is. It is nothing to be proud of. For whatever it's worth, their is a responsibility to invest in the future. Otherwise, we'd all be riding horses, drinking tainted water and probably only have a life expectancy of 35 years.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 24, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course we have to have taxes. I do not argue that. I submit that when anything gets out of balance, trouble follows. In our case, we maxed out on taxes, but have not created an investment friendly enviornment. Unless we find that balance point, and there is no sign that we have (read the posts immediately preceeding), we will spiral into poverty. It make take a while, but that's precisely where we are headed.

(The New Jersey Professor's recommendation for a Buffalo Commons was a way to salvage the land area of western Kansas after the wealth and populations left due to precisely the concerns that I am raising here. I hope that one of our leaders, somewhere, will take notice.)

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 24, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I assume, momus and justthefacts, that you would agree that private investment in our city and state would be a good thing. I assume that you agree that the trend has been for investment to go elsewhere (not just in Emporia, but throughout Kansas). I assume that you agree that our tax rates are higher than our neighboring states. I assume that you agree that private investment is good because it brings jobs. I assume that you agree that with jobs, population increases and thereby tax revenues (even if the rates are low) increase for schools, roads and other services. Notice the corrolation: High taxes, low investment. If you agree with any of these assumptions, you should be posting with me pointing out the economic destruction done to us by increasing taxes. It is an elementary axiom that good policy means lowering taxes when economic times are tough. At a bare minimum, you don't raise taxes during economic slowdowns.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on July 24, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker,
Never assume, you know what that does....Yours is a myoptic view that obviously you have worked hard and throught through the process. I would not agree with all your assumptions. If you don't have the infrastructure and don't invest, you will never get the investment of new wealth or business. If we don't stop trying to rely on 1800's industrial models and 20th Century growth development and ag based economies we will be doomed to fail. If everyone would work to find new bases of revenue, and work toward new paradigms of development and forward thinking 21st Century community design, the tax issues would take care of themselves. At this point, I guess if the majority of the folks here think as you, I would ask that whatever two of you are left after everybody has moved on to plese turn off the lights to save the remainder indivudal's light bill and subsequent franchise tax on the utility.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 24, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

justthefacts: I learned a long time ago that two reasonable people can look at a given set of facts and reach different conclusions about its meaning. If we can't even agree on basic assumptions (I would be interested as an aside about which of the assumptions you cannot accept) about what I regard to be basic econ 101 principles, then we are going to have to agree to disagree (what did you call that - a red dog, green dog issue?). I would suggest to you that you might want to be mindful that when you criticize an agricultural economy that ag is all that we have left in our area. Ag is therefore the engine to pay those high taxes, so be mindful of the dog who bit the hand that fed him. I have nothing more to say on the matter. We have been accepting of high (and higher) taxes for years (that's how we got to be the highest tax state in the region), but at some point the scales tip. I am fearful, given that we have so little in the way of investment and what we have is leaving (or left), that we have already tipped.

Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To LifeGoesOn: Actually, $16,000 for an engineering scanner/printer is pretty reasonable. A range of prices for a few models, some of them far beyond the price tag you mentioned, can be found at this site:
http://www.ndsgrafx.com/docs/DigitalPric...