Here is a wire service link on an article on DSHS. If your a supporter of a solid safety net that is efficient so the citizens needing help get it with out bankrupting the rest as I am, you might be pissed.

http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/4479-let’s_reinvent_state_government_and_start_with_dshs.htm

Rivrguy, being the economic and political expert that you are... perhaps you could explain exactly how the 'rest' of us are being bankrupted by DSHS?

I'm not sayin' that they aren't wasteful and couldn't use a little cleanin' up.

I just want to know how exactly having DSHS provide a social safety net is bankrupting the rest of us like Rivrguy said?

And it never ceases to amaze me when someone challenges a hyperbolic statement concerning taxes the government haters and anarcho-capitalists come out of the woodwork wanting to know why the government needs taxes at all.

They never stop to realize that the United States uses a progressive tax system to fund social programs (unless you're in the top 1%, then it's highly regressive) such that taxes alone can never bankrupt an individual.

Did not mean to start a verbal barrage. With the feds putting up 500 million and staving off across the board cuts or a special session it struck me as timely. We only have so much money, we are borrowing at the federal level against our children's future, then providing the same services ( or greater ) at the same cost seems to me to be desirable.

I appose any cuts to DSHS as so many people are hurting we need to be able to do more not less. I sat through dinner after dinner as my ex ( who was a consultant for DSHS ) just came unglued about the waste. I particularly loved the sex change operations for over 250k and up to 400k that was not well know by the public.

We need to use our taxes to help those in need 1st, but also efficiently so other programs can be maintained. It does seem to me to be a bit of no brainer.

Hank ol' bean... it appears that your advanced age is beginning to affect both your eyesight and cognitive capabilities.

Rivrguy's original statement made it sound as though having a social safety net like DSHS at all is bankrupting "the rest of us"... so I merely asked him to explain how.

Perhaps you could enlighten us instead?

Not at all.

Perhaps I misunderstood Rivrguy's intent? It sounded like he was all for eliminating agencies like DSHS.

Not germane to the conversation. Social programs are not funded by property taxes. And if your property taxes are too high for your income, then you're living above your means. The R's preach personal responsibility (if you're not a R), so it's time to downsize into a home you can afford.

The same as your attack on someone challenging a hyperbolic statement.

Schools get 55%, after that it's counties, cities, fire, ports, libraries, parks and recreation, emergency medical, and hospital districts.

Again, property tax is not germane here.

Property tax isn't what causes bankruptcy, an individual's inability to properly plan their financial future causes bankruptcy.

Of course it probably is easier to imagine the government has some diabolical plot to force everyone into foreclosure so the market would be flooded with cheap homes for people that have declared bankruptcy and...can't...afford...the...property...taxes.... hey, wait a minute.

" Property tax isn't what causes bankruptcy, an individuals inability to properly plan their financial future causes bankruptcy. "

You know GH their are times one must ask what in the hell you use for a thought process. When you are in your 70's or older and had the same house for 25 or more years, seen your property tax many times quadruple based upon values of surrounding home sales, on a fixed income based upon retirement, and can not afford 4 or 5k a year in taxes that did not exist when they retired, and they didn't plan for the future?

Christ guy I understand your point of view as an abstract but unless this is the 1960's and you are signing up for Che's Brigade it lacks validity. Now if you are a dedicated Marxist then I apologize as it does make sense.

I've always had a problem with this whole property tax thing.

The idea of an older couple on a fixed income being forced out of the family home by property taxes doesn't sit well with me.

At the same time, how can we have two identical houses sitting side by side, paying grossly different property taxes? Certainly both homes bring an equal burden on their state/county/city for the various services they require.

Maybe the taxes could be adjusted back and later be collected from the estate? That way, the taxes from the huge gain in property value could be paid by those that actually realize that gain, rather than by an older homeowner getting penalized for gains they'll never realize.



Sorry.............rambling..........

Ahhh property taxes and assessors valuing your homes. Now there is a really interesting magic trick. Talk about some serious smoke and mirrors. Many homes are over valued right now by the assessors, especially in King and Pierce. And the tax appeals process is no joy to navigate either. It is a stacked deck and it isn't in our favor.

Property tax isn't what causes bankruptcy, an individual's inability to properly plan their financial future causes bankruptcy.



[/quote]

Help me out here harley, I'm 59 years old and will retire in 5 to 7 years. What kind of a percentage increase can I expect in my property taxes when I reach 75?

Germane is my third favorite Jackson.

Property taxes are not germane to the conversation because the original post was about DSHS, which is not funded by property taxes.

But it is interesting to see conservatives use the same arguments defending the elderly living above their means as liberals defending a single mother on welfare.

If you're in a house and cannot afford the cost, you're living above your means. It's really that simple. You can blame anyone you want for the financial situation you find yourself in, but it's still about personal responsibility.

Okay, so how many here bought a house thinking the value would never go up, thus, the taxes would never rise?

If a person isn't smart enough to guage the rate of tax increase commensurate with their income, then perhaps they shouldn't be home owners.

Or perhaps we should subsidize their income proportionate with their tax load through social programs?

I've lived in the house I currently own for 15 years now and my property taxes have increased maybe $500 in that time. The county has re-assessed the property 4 times over the last 6 years and my property taxes have actually decreased to reflect the current market value.

Property taxes have NOT increased dramatically in most instances.

Also... property taxes increase as the value of the property increases. Seniors living on a fixed income and living in a paid off house have options to help them if for some strange reason, their taxes DO actually become overwhelming.

Harley has summed it up though. And as usual, you wingnuts are just graspin' at straws... or more accurately, straw men to try and prove your points... which, in typical conservative fashion, you have utterly failed to do once again.

You are fourtunate 4salt... it sounds like lynwood is doing a better job of valuation/taxation than bremerton...

I now pay twice as much in property taxes as I did 10 years ago has gone from $2500 to just under $5000 (the valuation took a 100k jump from 390-490 at the peak). At this rate I have resigned myself to the fact that I will not be able to live in my house when I retire... (funny thing... I actually pay as much in taxes than I did for the apartment that I was living in when I bought the house)

as a side note: The auditor has it currently valued at 420 even though it was on the market for a year at 350...

None of this would be a problem if we'd just vote down the aid package to states that would keep firefighters, policemen, and teachers employed, and if we'd extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1% in the country.

Fish on...

Todd

Seniors making under $31M (roughly) per year can get a huge break on RE taxes. You can thank me later.

So back to DSHS.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. I think most of us would agree that there is room for cost savings in State government. Let's give employees an inventive to eliminate waste an duplication of sevrices by giving them 5% of the annual yearly savings, and do away with laws that require duplication of services.

Don't care. Honestly. Every citizen of this state should be for efficient government, except for the do-nothing "lumps of skin" that are actually for waste.

("Lumps of skin" term belongs to Rocket Red)

Not being a wingnut but rather liberal really I am forced to wonder what structure you live in? Average increase where I live was $500 this cycle as they did you every three years and in the 5 years I have owned my home they went from 2400 to 3800. Been a change so they are supposed to do it each year but those appraised before the drop are stuck though until next year so they got to enjoy the extra two ride.

A home worth ( structure ) 200k and 10 acres will cost you about $4500 a year to 5k ( or more ) depending on out buildings and big barns hurt. Around here we were not to bad off until recently as the cheaper housing has drawn people from out of the area which in turn drove up values.

As to how property taxes get spent depends on where you live as it differs but after the state takes its cut ( which goes to the general fund I am told ) come local. In unincorporated GH 4% of the property owners pay 95% of the tax a commissioner once told me. Timber lands, government, and senior discounts ( have to have a poverty income ) will get a deferral. SCHOOLS GET BIG CHUNCK BUT MOST OF THE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX GOES TO THE COURT SYSTEM. In fact the judges almost put a contempt order on the county over funding ( indigent lawyer fees the big driver ) In fact every time the legislature passes another unfunded mandate the counties freak out. My favorite is the dead beat Dad bit. Great I said throw the bums in jail. Uh huh the commissioner said. The ones that are not paying because they are SOB's are few. Come to find out most just can not make the support, ex is on welfare, so DSHS has the support directly paid to them, so if you are out of work, laid off, screwed up, new job does not pay that well, in the slammer you go at tax payer expense.

A tweaker busted? We pay the legal not the state. In fact the state has been shoveling crap at the cities and counties from education, law enforcement, enviro and local government foots the bill with what? Sales and property tax.

So to my original post. When a ex employee can show savings to help maintain services and the state refuses to address the issue, yes it pisses me off. People are hurting and pissing money away to protect a system that is getting close to ineffective does the tax payer and those in need a disservice.

That is 31k gross. Married you go from a 15% bracket at 49k to 25% bracket but single ( widows get it bad ) it is 39k you hit into 25%. As most don't have many deductions it is short form time.

The problem is that over 24k the IRS taxes back on Soc Sec on a %. Take a Soc Sec income of 1800 ( marginal ) that puts you to 21600 add a pension, IRA or 401k of 1500 month ( which is low ) that puts you at 39400 and bingo widows ( or widowers ) get creamed by the IRS for a 25% tax bracket, are regarded as rich so no prop tax break. Sounds like a lot of money until you subtract med, tax, prescrips, the whole mess. Bottom line they live on 1800 a month.

Land of opportunity if your poverty stricken individual who through stupidity or bad luck does not have two nickels or wealthy .......... god have mercy if your middle class, worked hard saved for your retirement, and sacrificed to retire in your " Golden Years " You gotta love both of those asshole lying two bit fleecing political parties.

PS: I am being kind to both R&D's. Frankly they are worse but out of respect for Bob I restrained myself.

They are all assholes. I'm not part of the problem as I voted for Ron Paul.

If he'd have been elected, you'd be partially responsible for a major fuckup that would have piled on the BushCorp years...you're lucky your dog didn't get tapped.

Fish on...

Todd

I'm looking forward to turning to life of crime in my golden years to make ends meet.

Doesn't "turning to a life of crime" imply that you haven't been living it already?

Fish on...

Todd

Shhh.

Keep that sh!t down.

Do you have a background in agriculture? High elevation skills are best!

After November he could have a few friends in Congress as well.

The younger Paul, Didier, Fiorina, Rubio, Justin Amash, BJ Lawson, John Dennis, Doug Cloud, Jake Towne.

Could you imagine an actual Liberty Caucus in Congress comprising of 20-30 members in 2-6yrs?

Todd,

Curious as to what the major fukkup piling on the BushCo years would have been should Paul have been elected?

Ron Paul is almost as much of a fruitcake as his son...Rand shouldn't be elected to a local school board, much less any position of great responsibility...Ron's just not as in your face about it.

TeaBagger all the way.

Fish on...

Todd

Ahhhhh got it. Appreciate the concise explanation.

Silly me to think you might actually articulate why his election would have been a continuation of BushCo policy.

You know,.... as opposed to the sock puppet currently residing in the Oval Office. He's gone ahead and kept all his campaign promises like closing Guantanamo, ending warrantless wiretapping, prosecuting Bush Admin officals for the illegal torture program, ending rendition policies, and ending both unconstitutional wars.

I'm sure things like reauthorizing the Patriot Act verbatum, escalating the Afghan war, and continuing and expanding banker bailouts couldn't be construed as continuing BushCo policy whatsoever

Todd ole boy sorry to bust your bubble but Ron Paul is pretty much the most principled member of congress. A libertarian he sticks to his principles even if faced with some pretty ugly verbiage both from the left and right.

I think I posted this once before but when you take a group of people both R & D's and ask them a series of questions designed to identify philosophical leanings strange things happen. In the D camp about 25% hardcore D but about 50% are closer to the Green Party and 25% go independent. In the R it is about 25% stay R beating the ole drum but nearly 60% are closer to Libertarian with the rest Independent.

When I sat through this exercise I was totally dumbfounded as I had always considered myself a conservative D. Well imagine my amazement when I came out Libertarian with Green Party leanings. ( lost true Libertarian on the military thing ).

Bottom line if people would vote for the INDIVIDUAL and not the party and we had public financing of elections so this legalized bribery came to and end, our kids would have a good run. Doubt it will happen as we are going to have to hit bottom HARD to dump the two perverted, immoral, damn near criminal parties we have. Hope I live to see it as it will be the greatest day in our nations history since the British defeat at Yorktown!

I don't think Ron Paul would have been a continuation of BushCorp policies, I think it would have been a continuation of the years of fuckup...just in a different way.

We're going to be stuck with our two party system until two things happen, and they're the two things that seem to be at least a partial answer to every single thing we argue about here on the Dark Side; term limits and publicly funded elections. So long as the corporate donors own the politicians, and the politicians who do their bidding get virtual lifetime appointments to Congress, we will get what we have been getting.

Fish on...

Todd

I'll still hope for change.

Ain't just corporations. It is unions, special interest groups with money, just everything. Look at this state. Been a D to Independent all my life,............... and the party of my parents has a governor and legislature that has been bought and sold by the tribes and state employees union.

So on this one I must agree with your thoughts. Public financing of ALL elections bottom up and term limits. The best example of a politician selling ones soul is Ms. Murray. Ran as the Mom in tennis shoes, took on the establishment now two terms later she is the poster child for political hacks and little more than a parrot for the DNC.

The power corrupts and need for money to get elected for sure. One more time............... Come the Revolution...............

In a different way than is happening right effing now?

Again, you've failed to explain, at all, why there would have been any continuation of said fukkups. I'll simply quit asking and come to the conclusion that you either don't know or can't put it to words.

We can agree that this country suffers from continuing duopolies and the illusion of choice.

Walmart vs. Costco, McDonald's vs. Buger King, Home Depot vs. Lowe's, Coke vs. Pepsi, Hannity vs. Comes, Liberal vs. Conservative, Left vs. Right, Democrat vs. Republican.

We in this country believe we are free and we have choices. We only have an illusion of choice,.....nothing more.

This current corporate/government collusion that some on the left have described as "Capitalism" or the failure thereof, is nothing of the sort. It's fascism, plain and simple. Until the people of this country elect leaders who are dedicated to the decapitation of the federal beast responsible, meaning returning enumerated powers to the states as was designed, we will continue down the same path.

Funny that most of us that post here regarding political matters are pissed off about the same things,........... we just can't come to agreement on how to fix them

I think we all agree a lot more than we let on...

Fish on...

Todd

I don't agree with your statement Chuck.

Just on general principle, I don't agree with either of you...or anyone else here, either, for that matter.

Fish on...

Todd

...and Satan just put on a snow suit.