Privitization efforts by the City of Chicago

[Balta1701]

Or (3) You cut government budgets to meet what you are taking from taxpayers and keep the money stashed away for later needs.

Seriously, you save up a rainy day fund, and when a rainy day comes, your argument is that you should keep sitting on that fund?

[NorthSideSox72]

Last I heard, it was almost all gone already.

Of the $400M currently held, $270 or so is going into this year's budget as a stop gap, half of which is to be repaid. $130M stays, another amount similar to be repaid, and I am not sure about the remaining $600M or so - maybe they haven't received that part yet? That section of money I honestly am unclear on. The rest is out there in the public domain, if you want to find it.

 

Regardless, that was the purpose of that money anyway. The fact that its being spread out over time is good.

 

[southsider2k5]

Seriously, you save up a rainy day fund, and when a rainy day comes, your argument is that you should keep sitting on that fund?

 

When I got fired from my job, I didn't go out and spend my savings. I cut costs and tried to make it last as long as possible. I didn't sit around trying to justify why every expense was necessary. From a prudent standpoint we have no idea how long this lasts, especially with the pretty commonly held belief that this recession could have another leg, why blow all your money right away?

[NorthSideSox72]

When I got fired from my job, I didn't go out and spend my savings. I cut costs and tried to make it last as long as possible. I didn't sit around trying to justify why every expense was necessary. From a prudent standpoint we have no idea how long this lasts, especially with the pretty commonly held belief that this recession could have another leg, why blow all your money right away?

I'd assume you did both, right? Cut costs, but if you still don't have the income to cover even after that, you needed your savings. Its all part of the picture.

 

[jasonxctf]

When I got fired from my job, I didn't go out and spend my savings. I cut costs and tried to make it last as long as possible. I didn't sit around trying to justify why every expense was necessary. From a prudent standpoint we have no idea how long this lasts, especially with the pretty commonly held belief that this recession could have another leg, why blow all your money right away?

 

but that's the problem. people think that govt should act like individuals. nothing could be further from the truth.

 

you don't have guaranteed income over time, they do.

you have a short life cycle, they don't.

your total assets (at some point) will start to go down. theirs will always increase.

you may not get more/more money every year, they typically do.

you can't borrow at rates near inflation, they can.

 

it's a whole different economic formula.

[Cknolls]

but that's the problem. people think that govt should act like individuals. nothing could be further from the truth.

 

you don't have guaranteed income over time, they do.

you have a short life cycle, they don't.

your total assets (at some point) will start to go down. theirs will always increase.

you may not get more/more money every year, they typically do.

you can't borrow at rates near inflation, they can.

 

it's a whole different economic formula.

 

 

Guaranteed income?

[Y2HH]

Guaranteed income?

 

Not only that, but being that they're selling stuff off, their assets are decreasing right there.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not only that, but being that they're selling stuff off, their assets are decreasing right there.

Their assets and their obligations. Which is a good thing.

 

[Y2HH]

Their assets and their obligations. Which is a good thing.

 

It can be a good thing, for them. For the taxpayers/consumers, it's a bad thing. Our taxes will not go down from this, and the fees/costs of the now private industries will rise with no control.

[NorthSideSox72]

It can be a good thing, for them. For the taxpayers/consumers, it's a bad thing. Our taxes will not go down from this, and the fees/costs of the now private industries will rise with no control.

Of course its a good thing for us. Taxes will go down by nature, because obligations go down. Without this money, we would have seen higher taxes. You are right about the fees going up, but that's part of the idea - raising meter fees to be closer equivalent to private parking charges. I'm not sure why anyone would have wanted the government to continue doing meters at prices below the cost it takes to maintain them, that makes no sense.

 

[SouthsideDon48]

this. Frankly parking meters are just an economics 101 textbook example in terms of supply and demand/tragedy of the commons, etc. And in the liberal perspective the fact that higher prices could help move people into public transportation and off cars is a good thing.

But lets be honest here, public transportation is a PITA. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who hates to wait at a bus stop/train station, hates how buses/trains makes a bunch of stops along the way, hates how buses drive slower than the pace of traffic, hates how the buses/trains always seem a little germy, and hates how after you get off the bus/train you gotta walk a block or 2 to get to wherever you gotta go. Such a PITA.

 

At least with a car, you don't have to rely on anyone else, and you can just get in your car and go instead of waiting for a bus/train that might be running late. Also, another thing I hate about public transit is that if I want to go someplace on a whim, I have to wait till the next stop and walk alllllll the way to the place I wanted to go to, then walk alllll the way back to the bus/train stop. Such a PITA.

 

Also, it's a PITA to go grocery shopping while taking public transit.

[kapkomet]

but that's the problem. people think that govt should act like individuals. nothing could be further from the truth.

 

you don't have guaranteed income over time, they do.

you have a short life cycle, they don't.

your total assets (at some point) will start to go down. theirs will always increase.

you may not get more/more money every year, they typically do.

you can't borrow at rates near inflation, they can.

 

it's a whole different economic formula.

 

 

Wow. Just wow. This is the problem with you and people like you. Government doesn't have to be this way, yet, we've made them this way. It's EXPECTED that our government grows and grows and grows, thus by default, taking away from the private sector.

[NorthSideSox72]

But lets be honest here, public transportation is a PITA. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who hates to wait at a bus stop/train station, hates how buses/trains makes a bunch of stops along the way, hates how buses drive slower than the pace of traffic, hates how the buses/trains always seem a little germy, and hates how after you get off the bus/train you gotta walk a block or 2 to get to wherever you gotta go. Such a PITA.

 

At least with a car, you don't have to rely on anyone else, and you can just get in your car and go instead of waiting for a bus/train that might be running late. Also, another thing I hate about public transit is that if I want to go someplace on a whim, I have to wait till the next stop and walk alllllll the way to the place I wanted to go to, then walk alllll the way back to the bus/train stop. Such a PITA.

 

Also, it's a PITA to go grocery shopping while taking public transit.

 

WTF is a PITA?

 

Now, as far as mass transit goes, if you really want to argue the inconveniences, then you need to look at your car's much higher costs, and longer commute times, and parking charges at public OR private garages as well. Let's be fair here.

 

But regardless of that, no one is stopping you from driving and parking. All that stopped is the government artificially keeping the price of parking down, with, by the way, YOUR TAX MONEY.

 

 

Wow. Just wow. This is the problem with you and people like you. Government doesn't have to be this way, yet, we've made them this way. It's EXPECTED that our government grows and grows and grows, thus by default, taking away from the private sector.

 

So you are in favor these privitization efforts, I assume.

 

[Texsox]

Wow. Just wow. This is the problem with you and people like you. Government doesn't have to be this way, yet, we've made them this way. It's EXPECTED that our government grows and grows and grows, thus by default, taking away from the private sector.

 

 

As long as we have tax cuts the government will grow. You told me that.

[southsider2k5]

but that's the problem. people think that govt should act like individuals. nothing could be further from the truth.

 

you don't have guaranteed income over time, they do.

you have a short life cycle, they don't.

your total assets (at some point) will start to go down. theirs will always increase.

you may not get more/more money every year, they typically do.

you can't borrow at rates near inflation, they can.

 

it's a whole different economic formula.

 

Those three things shouldn't be true. Those sort of things becoming "assumptions" is a big part of the problem which leads to the mentality that governments never have to cut back. Remember governments don't exist on their own. They exist at my expense, which means that they are assumed to be taking more and more of my money, every year, and people don't seem to see a problem with that. That line of thinking just blows my mind. Times are tough, so while I cut back, the popular opinion is that the government is OBLIGATED to take more. Wow, just wow.

[southsider2k5]

WTF is a PITA?

 

Now, as far as mass transit goes, if you really want to argue the inconveniences, then you need to look at your car's much higher costs, and longer commute times, and parking charges at public OR private garages as well. Let's be fair here.

 

But regardless of that, no one is stopping you from driving and parking. All that stopped is the government artificially keeping the price of parking down, with, by the way, YOUR TAX MONEY.

 

 

 

 

So you are in favor these privitization efforts, I assume.

 

Pain In The Ass.

[NorthSideSox72]

Pain In The Ass.

Thanks.

 

[Texsox]

Those three things shouldn't be true. Those sort of things becoming "assumptions" is a big part of the problem which leads to the mentality that governments never have to cut back. Remember governments don't exist on their own. They exist at my expense, which means that they are assumed to be taking more and more of my money, every year, and people don't seem to see a problem with that. That line of thinking just blows my mind. Times are tough, so while I cut back, the popular opinion is that the government is OBLIGATED to take more. Wow, just wow.

 

 

No, you maintain if the government cuts taxes, they will have more income. So as long as we follow sound GOP tax practices, the government will grow. They aren't taking more, yet they still grow.

[Texsox]

Pain In The Ass.

 

 

That is usually abreviated t-e-x

 

Thought I'd do it before someone else.

[jasonxctf]

Those three things shouldn't be true. Those sort of things becoming "assumptions" is a big part of the problem which leads to the mentality that governments never have to cut back. Remember governments don't exist on their own. They exist at my expense, which means that they are assumed to be taking more and more of my money, every year, and people don't seem to see a problem with that. That line of thinking just blows my mind. Times are tough, so while I cut back, the popular opinion is that the government is OBLIGATED to take more. Wow, just wow.

 

 

Technically since only 20% of the people in this country pay any "real level" of taxes, it operates primarily on their expense.

 

As population levels continue to grow, so will government. Do we need more teachers, fire fighters, police officers, street/sanitation people as we add more people. Of course. This means that government will have increased revenues. They'll obtain this by either general population growth (fixed % multiplied by a larger group) or an increase in the % itself.

 

Should a government always run a deficit.. of course not. In the good times, you should break even or run a slight surplus, in the bad times, smart economic thinking has shown time and time again, that you should run a deficit and borrow. Economics 101.

 

So then you put yourself into Real Time. Has the Federal/State government done what they were supposed to do in the good times... no. But does that mean that they shouldn't do the economic sound thing in the bad times.... two wrongs dont make a right.

[Y2HH]

I'll say it now -- regardless of how many assets the City of Chicago sheds/sells/no longer holds obligations to uphold, our taxes, be it real estate, sales, income, etc...will *NOT* be going down.

 

Less assets and less obligation should mean they go down, but they will NOT go down.

 

Watch.

[southsider2k5]

Technically since only 20% of the people in this country pay any "real level" of taxes, it operates primarily on their expense.

 

As population levels continue to grow, so will government. Do we need more teachers, fire fighters, police officers, street/sanitation people as we add more people. Of course. This means that government will have increased revenues. They'll obtain this by either general population growth (fixed % multiplied by a larger group) or an increase in the % itself.

 

Should a government always run a deficit.. of course not. In the good times, you should break even or run a slight surplus, in the bad times, smart economic thinking has shown time and time again, that you should run a deficit and borrow. Economics 101.

 

So then you put yourself into Real Time. Has the Federal/State government done what they were supposed to do in the good times... no. But does that mean that they shouldn't do the economic sound thing in the bad times.... two wrongs dont make a right.

 

You are mixing numbers and entities really bad here.

 

Everyone pays sales and usage taxes. I think you are trying to pull the 20% number from federal income taxes, but in reality pretty much everyone who works pays local and states incomes taxes, as the deductions are near minimal. Property taxes are becoming and more and more popular way of generating local income as well, and those apply to almost every single homeowner. Those who do not own homes, pay those taxes on a defacto basis by paying rent to the person who ends up "paying" the taxes. The services you are listing are all stuff done by the lower levels of government, which have been the most aggressive nationwide with tax increases. Also pretty much only the federal government can run an actual deficit. I believe most every state has a balanced budget law of some sort, and local governments mostly do as well.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll say it now -- regardless of how many assets the City of Chicago sheds/sells/no longer holds obligations to uphold, our taxes, be it real estate, sales, income, etc...will *NOT* be going down.

 

Less assets and less obligation should mean they go down, but they will NOT go down.

 

Watch.

Tax increases will be less, and in some cases, taxes will go down. Regardless of how you phrase it, the reality is that if the government (any government) has substantially more money to use, then taxes will be less than if they didn't have that money. So, again, the privitization is a plus for taxpayers in that regard.

 

[kapkomet]

No, you maintain if the government cuts taxes, they will have more income. So as long as we follow sound GOP tax practices, the government will grow. They aren't taking more, yet they still grow.

 

 

You still don't understand the multiplier effect and how that works, do you?

[kapkomet]

WTF is a PITA?

 

Now, as far as mass transit goes, if you really want to argue the inconveniences, then you need to look at your car's much higher costs, and longer commute times, and parking charges at public OR private garages as well. Let's be fair here.

 

But regardless of that, no one is stopping you from driving and parking. All that stopped is the government artificially keeping the price of parking down, with, by the way, YOUR TAX MONEY.

 

 

 

 

So you are in favor these privitization efforts, I assume.

 

Here's the real answer: it depends. If your local government is bleeding that bad and needs a cash infusion to just run basic things, then, yea, I guess you do it. There's a whole lot more cost benefit analysis that should be done - and not just accounting benefit, economic benefit as well. In the future, how much money is this going to cost you for a short term cash infusion?

 

Actually there was an article by a local writer down here just this Sunday and he brought up some interesting points. The big kick (as in and around Chicago) is privatizing highways so that they can get cash now to build more roads. All of these new roads are going to be tolled, of course, but the main point this guy was trying to make is if we would have just bit the bullet and paid a ten cent increase in taxes, the money recieved would be way over the amount that they are getting in short term cash infusions now to build these roads. He made a pretty good argument that no matter when it's done, a tax increase on gas should be/should have been done rather then privatizing all this and turning over that revenue stream to a "for profit" company.

 

I can't wait for all these @$^@#$^ road projects - they are getting ready to spend $1billion right around the north side of the airport... that will be a nightmare.