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.