DBTrek wrote: Mon May 21, 2018 4:20 pm
Manifest destiny ... didn’t require much central planning.
Seems to me your homesteading idea would have a better chance of success if the government simply limited lots to a particular acreage and stepped back. Then, as problems affecting “the commons” or issues of external costs arose, they could step in and play their role without directing the organic growth of the settlers.
But centrally planning how the perfect little homesteads will be built and operate from scratch, start to finish, before the first hoe digs a furrow in the earth ... that’s a recipe for an expensive failure.
Didn't require central planning? Are you mad? What do you think the republican party was about??
Jacksonian hogwash.
Some of you all need to watch more Gunsmoke reruns.
Railroads
Corporate subsidies to build cities like Cheyenne.
Land grants
Homestead acts
What the Seattle City Council learned just two weeks before the head tax vote
...Noble told the Council that the city doesn’t have room in the budget for long-term spending on homelessness. It would be wrong, he said, to think the boom is going to surprise the city with more tax money like it used to.
Underlining this point: As the need for money to curb homelessness increases, money from the boom declines.
What does that mean for the head tax — that $275-per-employee charge to big businesses? Well, the $47 million the tax is expected to raise annually could plug the shortfall. That would decrease how much head tax money would go to new spending on homelessness...
...To recap: The city of Seattle overspent its budget on homelessness before the City Council voted on the head tax. Unless something changes, most of the money raised by the head tax will cover previous spending commitments — not new spending.
... and now we learn that the employment paralyzing Head tax may not actually provide anything. It may just shore up some of the years of unaccountable over-spending Seattle has been doing up until now.
Shocking, right? Wish someone would’ve told this to the Ssembled socialist derp-sherpas chanting “we’ll be back for more” at the vote. Oh wait, we did tell them.
Just like I told them in this thread - but the kool-aid poison runs deep, and they can’t break their addiction to it.
What the Seattle City Council learned just two weeks before the head tax vote
...Noble told the Council that the city doesn’t have room in the budget for long-term spending on homelessness. It would be wrong, he said, to think the boom is going to surprise the city with more tax money like it used to.
Underlining this point: As the need for money to curb homelessness increases, money from the boom declines.
What does that mean for the head tax — that $275-per-employee charge to big businesses? Well, the $47 million the tax is expected to raise annually could plug the shortfall. That would decrease how much head tax money would go to new spending on homelessness...
...To recap: The city of Seattle overspent its budget on homelessness before the City Council voted on the head tax. Unless something changes, most of the money raised by the head tax will cover previous spending commitments — not new spending.
... and now we learn that the employment paralyzing Head tax may not actually provide anything. It may just shore up some of the years of unaccountable over-spending Seattle has been doing up until now.
Shocking, right? Wish someone would’ve told this to the Ssembled socialist derp-sherpas chanting “we’ll be back for more” at the vote. Oh wait, we did tell them.
Just like I told them in this thread - but the kool-aid poison runs deep, and they can’t break their addiction to it.
I think I covered why it's rational for low income Seattleites to support the head tax, whether it slows growth or builds new housing units.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
Low income people aren’t served by running high income careers out of town. Someone buys the goods/services from their low income jobs. Someone pays the taxes that subsidize their housing, food, daycare, utilities, and transportation.
Run those jobs out of town and you wind up jobless and without the social services you’ve grown accustomed to.
Then there’s the whole issue of exacerbating the housing crisis with bad economic policy. That doesn’t help low income citizens either.
I hear what you’re saying, but there has to be a balance if you are talking about what’s in the low income people’s interests. If you have to move away from the place where the benefits of growth are happening, those benefits of growth aren’t going to do you any good. Rents increasing 56 percent in five years in an already expensive city is a pretty clear threat to anyone with low income wages. I can see why one would consider that danger greater than the potential benefits of growth.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
