Indiana under Republican Rule

[bwframe]

... It was offset as I posted above. ..

We seen that post. The successful benefitted at the expense of "the unsuccessful."

 

[bwframe]

But you claimed it was on every single purchase for every single purchase. Also didn't IN balance their budget under his management?

Not to mention again as others have mentioned, capping property tax rates. Which effected property owners/renters/and those who shop at businesses that rent. Which the sales tax increase did effect those, but also tourists, people just traveling through the state, people that come here for business, etc.

Mitch isn't my favorite, but I'm not going to demonize him over this.

Are land owners the only ones who benefit from infrastructure, fire depts, police depts, etc? Why should property owners be the ones to bear the brunt, shouldn't it be spread?

And nope, sales tax doesn't get reduce. But per the IC if the state has a surplus over X it gets refunded to IN tax filers.

Excessive taxation effects everything. It goes to cost of living, which everyone has. Including business, who pass along their own expense to stay in business.

It's a vicious cycle. One where we are led to believe that over taxation is OK because we are "paid back" the surplus.

In the mean time we pay more for everything, while our govt sets on what was once our money. All the while doing their best to try to find a way to spend it.

Ever been to a school board meeting? Hear the discussion of "use it or lose it?"

 

[Ingomike]

We seen that post. The successful benefitted at the expense of "the unsuccessful."

You have a very narrow definition of just who benefits…

 

[bwframe]

You have a very narrow definition of just who benefits…

I used your definition. Quoted your words exactly.

 

[Ingomike]

I used your definition. Quoted your words exactly.

It was a simple post not a thesis…. LOL

 

[Timjoebillybob]

We seen that post. The successful benefitted at the expense of "the unsuccessful."

How so? Pretty much everyone except the homeless pay property tax, either directly or indirectly.

Why should the "successful" be penalized for the benefit of the unsuccessful? You do know that the townships distribute money from the "successful" to the "unsuccessful" by way of rent payments/utility payments/funeral expenses/food/clothing/etc.

Excessive taxation effects everything. It goes to cost of living, which everyone has. Including business, who pass along their own expense to stay in business.

It's a vicious cycle. One where we are led to believe that over taxation is OK because we are "paid back" the surplus.

In the mean time we pay more for everything, while our govt sets on what was once our money. All the while doing their best to try to find a way to spend it.

Ever been to a school board meeting? Hear the discussion of "use it or lose it?"

I can agree with the first paragraph. And doesn't property tax also go to the cost of living? Along with it being possible it's excessive as well? Generally living includes a place to live. As you say a business pass their expenses along to stay in business, same goes for landlords.

Nobody in here said over taxation is OK. Yes the taxpayers do get back excess surplus. Oh and you want to talk about sitting on what was once our money? Check into how much the township trustees are sitting on. I believe the average in 2017 was over 110% of their annual budget. There were a couple counties sitting on 10x their annual budget.

We would be paying more for everything without the property tax being capped. Business pay property tax don't they? Or at least their landlords pay it, and as you stated a business will pass their expenses along. So even things that aren't subject to sales tax such as food would go up. Wouldn't that penalize the "unsuccessful" much more than the "successful"?

Heck at least with the sales tax we pay it once when we buy the item, property tax you pay every year. Which would you prefer, sales tax going up 1 cent on the dollar and only when you originally purchase an item or your property taxes (or rent) going up 2 or 3 cents on every dollar of appraised value that you have to pay every year?

And yes I've heard that saying.

 

[BugI02]

If public schools were providing the education we're told to expect from them, it might be worth paying school taxes while also paying school tuition for your own kids. But it's clearly evident we're NOT getting value from at least some school systems, and we're arguably not getting our money's worth from ANY public school system, based on graduation rates and the knowledge displayed by students and graduates in the service industry today.

I live in a well-heeled suburb with a top notch school system. Its graduates are routinely accepted at many selective universities

I don't have any kids in the system, but I value that quality because it underpins the high value of my house by making the sale of it attractive to a much wider percentage of potential buyers esp. those with school age children. I have lived here 26 years and we voters have never turned down a funding request (part of that owes to a capable, intelligent administration that doesn't seek to load the system with expensive frills)

If I lived in the city itself, I would have a hard time supporting levies due to the poor results of that system in terms of literacy, graduation rates and matriculation. Failure to support a levy would not affect anything that is an important underpinning of the value of a home and the Columbus Public School System is incredibly top heavy with highly paid administrators who do not teach

 

[indyjs]

I am referring to the workers being locked out from selling their stock, but the management sold theirs before it dropped

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I live in a well-heeled suburb with a top notch school system. Its graduates are routinely accepted at many selective universities

I don't have any kids in the system, but I value that quality because it underpins the high value of my house by making the sale of it attractive to a much wider percentage of potential buyers esp. those with school age children. I have lived here 26 years and we voters have never turned down a funding request (part of that owes to a capable, intelligent administration that doesn't seek to load the system with expensive frills)

If I lived in the city itself, I would have a hard time supporting levies due to the poor results of that system in terms of literacy, graduation rates and matriculation. Failure to support a levy would not affect anything that is an important underpinning of the value of a home and the Columbus Public School System is incredibly top heavy with highly paid administrators who do not teach

Most public. school systems of which I have some knowledge - in Tacoma Washington, Pasadena & Houston Texas, Chicago and its suburbs, and here in Indianapolis, most school systems are "top-heavy" with Administration

 

[bwframe]

Most public. school systems of which I have some knowledge - in Tacoma Washington, Pasadena & Houston Texas, Chicago and its suburbs, and here in Indianapolis, most school systems are "top-heavy" with Administration

Gotta have that Equity/LGBTQ/CRT department, right?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I am referring to the workers being locked out from selling their stock, but the management sold theirs before it dropped

I'm not familiar with that. Do you have a link?

 

[indyjs]

IPALCO sale.
Google is your friend

Judge rules against former IPALCO employees

WTHR.com is the news leader for Indianapolis and Central Indiana. Get the best news, weather, sports and traffic information from Channel 13.

www.wthr.com

 

[Timjoebillybob]

IPALCO sale.
Google is your friend

Judge rules against former IPALCO employees

WTHR.com is the news leader for Indianapolis and Central Indiana. Get the best news, weather, sports and traffic information from Channel 13.

www.wthr.com

Thanks much for the link. I was able to find the sale but not the lawsuit. And it seems the info you received was at least partially incorrect. They couldn't "sell" their stock, because it was in a 401k. They could have transferred their investments to other options if they chose to do so. Same as any 401k plan I've had. They chose not to. In their arguments they claimed that the executives should have known and compelled them to divest in IPALCO (soon to be AES) stock. They also claimed willful deceit in that and management had transferred their shares to another option and/or sold off privately held stock. But management were already told they were being replaced after the merger so they had no reason to stay invested in the company. Daniels was on the board of directors but had resigned and sold off his stock when tapped by GW Bush for a directors position.

Oh and if you click reply on the bottom right corner of the post you are responding to, it will quote that post and notify the poster that you replied to them.

Here is the link to the ruling. It's only 9 pgs.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2008/D01-02/C:07-1895:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:op:N:0:S:0

 

[indyjs]

The stock was sure to tank due to the merger. Rank and file had their assets locked. Management could sell before the drop. Peeps close to retirement were screwed. Many were downsized

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The stock was sure to tank due to the merger. Rank and file had their assets locked. Management could sell before the drop. Peeps close to retirement were screwed. Many were downsized

Once again, they could have transferred their stock before the merger. Management (and anyone else including employees) could sell their privately held (not in the 401k) anytime. They chose not to. Did you read the decision? I feel bad for those people, but it's on them.

From the decision.

"IPALCO merged with AES Corporation on March 27,
2001. The merger had been approved by IPALCO’s board
of directors in July 2000 and by the shareholders that
October. AES offered a premium of 16% relative to the
price at which IPALCO’s stock had traded the day before the
announcement. Between July 2000 and March 2001 Merrill
Lynch distributed literature to the Thrift Plan’s partici-
pants and held meetings at which all options, including
moving investments from IPALCO’s stock to one of the
mutual funds, were discussed." bold/italics mine.

 

[xwing]

All I know for sure is I lived under democratic rule of Chicago for 73 years then I moved to the great state of Indiana and have never been happier about a place to live.

+1. Indiana is far from perfect, but it's paradise compared to Illinois!

I also read both the attached (long) articles. While they do make some valid points, the authors seem to hate businesses. Minimal regulation and pro-business policies are a great boon. People can make their own decisions! If you work at a low-paying no-advancement job for your entire career, you only have yourself to blame for not taking the chance or the effort to improve your options. Don't blame the businesses!