Pence is hell bent on destroying Indiana

[sadclownwp]

Of the weapons I use for work I have over $10,000 in the two rifles and the city paid for the $400 pistol.

I can show you plenty of examples where it costs a city (taxpayers) far more to not properly train their police officers than it does to buy the ammo to train them in the first place. We provide quality firearms training for 1500+ officers every year for far less than it would cost the city to pay one settlement if an officer were to use his firearm inappropriately. If you are thinking its open season on ammo and officers can shoot up as much as they want you are incorrect.

Studies have shown the benefits of officers having take home vehicles. The vehicles last longer which saves money and the presence of those vehicles in the community (even if driven off duty) tends to deter crime. We have to pay to drive our vehicles off duty or to use them for part time employment now so it's not free.

I'm fine with the paying for the ammo, so that they can train, just not the firearm. The firearm that people pay for can double as a home protection or off duty firearm. And there is wear and tear on those take home vehicles that taxpayers have to pay for. As far as deterring crime. I would rather people learn to deter crime themselves via the purchase of firearms. But if take home vehicles really are a crime deterrent, then I say in order to take home a vehicle, the officer should be required to live in the worst most crime infested neighborhoods in order to deter the maximum amount of crime. It would only make sense to have the taxpayers money be used where it can do the most good.

And I like police officers, My grandpa was an officer, some of my friends are officers, many of my customers are officers, and some of my coworkers are officers. But I still think that there are spending cuts that they could be making.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Lawrence Peter performed a well-known study in which he established that each person in a hierarchical structure (which includes most businesses larger than single-family operations and most all governments) will eventually be promoted to each higher position he is capable of filling and then be promoted one more time into a job he can't do, thus being promoted to his level of incompetence. When this happens, such a person, rather than being returned to the highest position he can handle will either be left where he is whizzing in the water dish or given a lateral transfer into an often contrived position where he is out of the way which for fun I will call the 'assistant director of dust settling'. If we were to go through our schools (particularly administration, not teachers), our police and fire departments (again, the desk drivers, not the people who work for a living), and our local governments, I am certain we could find plenty of 'assistant directors of dust settling' we could get rid of with either a neutral effect or a net improvement in function of the agency from which they are removed, particularly when it allows for better treatment of those who do their jobs.

Just for an example, I have been advised by a retired officer that the Evansville PD has approximately 40 officers (with enough seniority to do much better than rookie pay) who could not function in public and consequently have desk jobs which were created in order to have someplace to put them where they weren't causing problems being turned loose on the streets. Right there are 40 people who need to be looking for a different job. My guess is that we could find at least a few of these anywhere we might look.

 

[phylodog]

I'm fine with the paying for the ammo, so that they can train, just not the firearm. The firearm that people pay for can double as a home protection or off duty firearm.

Well we didn't pay for our pistols so I guess there goes that complaint

And there is wear and tear on those take home vehicles that taxpayers have to pay for.

Go to a pool car system and the costs are considerably higher

As far as deterring crime. I would rather people learn to deter crime themselves via the purchase of firearms. But if take home vehicles really are a crime deterrent, then I say in order to take home a vehicle, the officer should be required to live in the worst most crime infested neighborhoods in order to deter the maximum amount of crime. It would only make sense to have the taxpayers money be used where it can do the most good.

Maybe they should be made to eat poop as well. They're already paying for the privilege of using the car.


And I like police officers, My grandpa was an officer, some of my friends are officers, many of my customers are officers, and some of my coworkers are officers.

Yeah, I can tell.

But I still think that there are spending cuts that they could be making.

Sure there are. Pretty sure we didn't need a $6,000,000 cricket field, didn't need to donate $17,000,000 to a developer so he could build an apartment building downtown or millions of dollars in bicycle lanes but I agree, I think the police department is getting spoiled. Perhaps officers should begin paying to rent the uniforms they purchased?

 

[TopDog]

This is why the only people who should shoulder the tax burden of keeping schools open and teachers employed are people who have children. And the more children you have, the more you need to shoulder the tax burden of keeping schools open and teachers employed. Cities already employ to many people. The shift needs to go back to the private sector for most things.

+1

 

[olhorseman]

The amazing Carnac predicts: all homeowners personal property, i.e. Furniture, appliances, lawn mowers, etc will be included in the property valuation. Tax cap will stay at 1% but the taxable amount will increase.

 

[sadclownwp]

Sure there are. Pretty sure we didn't need a $6,000,000 cricket field, didn't need to donate $17,000,000 to a developer so he could build an apartment building downtown or millions of dollars in bicycle lanes but I agree, I think the police department is getting spoiled. Perhaps officers should begin paying to rent the uniforms they purchased?

I agree, those were not needed either.

I also should have said the firearm the tax payers pay for can be used as a home protection firearm or off duty firearm, the tax payers don't need to be paying for fringe benefits like that, which is why the officer should have to pay for his own sidearm. But since it is for work, they can take it off there own taxes at the end of the year.

There needs to be cuts from any government entity that gets tax payer funding.

 

[yotewacker]

The tax that Pence is proposing should is a good tax. This business tax is holding back Indiana from getting some large companies. And its not for large companies. It's for any company with inventory.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree, those were not needed either.

I also should have said the firearm the tax payers pay for can be used as a home protection firearm or off duty firearm, the tax payers don't need to be paying for fringe benefits like that, which is why the officer should have to pay for his own sidearm. But since it is for work, they can take it off there own taxes at the end of the year.

There needs to be cuts from any government entity that gets tax payer funding.

The problem with this reasoning is that the officer and his family are part of the public he is hired to protect. While I agree that most public entities have waste that needs cut, indiscriminate cuts always have negative consequences (rather than getting rid of problems) and there is also the issue of chasing down pennies while dollar bills are being carried out the door in wheelbarrows.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Yes, because you certainly don't benefit from the public education system unless you have kids.

Everyone benefits by having the next generation be more productive.

 

[sadclownwp]

The problem with this reasoning is that the officer and his family are part of the public he is hired to protect. While I agree that most public entities have waste that needs cut, indiscriminate cuts always have negative consequences (rather than getting rid of problems) and there is also the issue of chasing down pennies while dollar bills are being carried out the door in wheelbarrows.

Again, I totally agree, I'm saying anyone who get a check from the taxpayers needs to cut back, that is everything from federal government down to the little guy taking care of his brother with down syndrome and no legs who gets a check from the tax payers to do so. Myself included. As a volunteer firefighter, I get a $3 per call "payment" that is supposed to cover the cost of cloths that I might ruin. I don't really think I need that, I didn't become a volunteer firefighter to get payment from it. When I went to school, it was a well known fact that you went into the public sector to help people and have that good feeling, you went into the private sector to get rich.

When i became a firefighter, I got funded by the tax payers with the minimal amount of equiptment needed to do the job. Any extra's I wanted I had to pay for, when I wanted better boots, I had to pay for them myself up front, then take it as a tax deduction. I don't think any tax payer funded job should be any different. And I don't get to take any of my tax payer funded equipment home.

And when my fire dept wants something new that is not in the budget, we throw fund raisers because we know we should not over burden the tax payers for more equipment. Even though some of them will see the benefit from us having that nozzle that will throw water farther.

And the solution to all of this is for anything tax payer funded to have strict cuts, or even be completely wiped out so that things can go back to private sector.

 

[phylodog]

At some point if taxpayers want services they will have to pay for them. My agency has had tremendous budget cuts in the past five years and are operating more than 600 officers below where we should be. The agency didn't pay for the pistols, we don't get overtime, we now have to pay for the use of the cars. I'd say cut backs have been made commensurate with the state of the economy (if not more so) while the city pisses away money on frivolous BS. Sorry, I won't be agreeing with giving up more, the suggestion at this point is driven by spite.

 

[sadclownwp]

At some point if taxpayers want services they will have to pay for them. My agency has had tremendous budget cuts in the past five years and are operating more than 600 officers below where we should be. The agency didn't pay for the pistols, we don't get overtime, we now have to pay for the use of the cars. I'd say cut backs have been made commensurate with the state of the economy (if not more so) while the city pisses away money on frivolous BS. Sorry, I won't be agreeing with giving up more, the suggestion at this point is driven by spite.

I understand completely. You are talking from a self preservation point of view. I am talking about what is needed. But I am still not talking about only police cutbacks, I am talking about all cutbacks. The secretary of the secretary of the head of operations of the Indiana dept of homeland security does not need a secretary. Fema does not need to be around, disasters are a state matter, not a national matter. And we still don't need to be paying for anchor babies. Honestly I think we should take one thing from the french, french citizenship is by blood, and to be considered a french born citizen, at least one of your parents must be proven to be a french citizen. Perhaps we should do this in the US. There are lots of places to cut money, but everyplace money is cut from, will **** someone off, or perhaps cause someone to die. This can't always be helped. It is time for the tough choices.

 

[Mgderf]

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

"It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one..."

 

[phylodog]

I'm not thinking about it from an emotional perspective here. Guess what you get when you make officers buy their equipment? You get officers who buy garbage which fails and the potential for someone to get seriously injured as a result. There is a bare minimum which is expected of a police department. Forcing them to perform below that minimum standard and then *****ing about it has become the past time of a lot of people.

Im derailing the thread too much here so I'll stop.

 

[2A_Tom]

it's funny but I don't know of any business that grows by cutting. They may improve their profitability but generally I have not see a company make cuts while increasing their market share. Companies used to spend in down times while saving during good times. Companies would invest in research and development in a recession. Now it's about cuts and bringing in less experienced employees to help build the business while the experience ones are pushed out.

You want government to grow, WHY?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I understand completely. You are talking from a self preservation point of view. I am talking about what is needed. But I am still not talking about only police cutbacks, I am talking about all cutbacks. The secretary of the secretary of the head of operations of the Indiana dept of homeland security does not need a secretary. Fema does not need to be around, disasters are a state matter, not a national matter. And we still don't need to be paying for anchor babies. Honestly I think we should take one thing from the french, french citizenship is by blood, and to be considered a french born citizen, at least one of your parents must be proven to be a french citizen. Perhaps we should do this in the US. There are lots of places to cut money, but everyplace money is cut from, will **** someone off, or perhaps cause someone to die. This can't always be helped. It is time for the tough choices.

When we hire people to do a job and expect them to work full time (as opposed to the volunteers who keep another job and help part of the time), they are entitled to be paid for what they do. We can significantly reduce the cost of local government by getting rid of people who don't do anything and the elimination of pouring money down ratholes either in form of throwing money at problems as a (non)solution or frivolous luxuries like athletic facilities we absolutely do not need for any reason other than to feed the ego trips of school board members, superintendents, councilmen and mayors, and legislators and governors. We can do this without expecting that our full-time police and firemen should have to resort to sending their kids around the neighborhood to scrape moss off of trees as a vegetable.

I'm not thinking about it from an emotional perspective here. Guess what you get when you make officers buy their equipment? You get officers who buy garbage which fails and the potential for someone to get seriously injured as a result. There is a bare minimum which is expected of a police department. Forcing them to perform below that minimum standard and then *****ing about it has become the past time of a lot of people.

Im derailing the thread too much here so I'll stop.

I can't consider this derailing at all. You have cut to the heart of the matter--there is a huge difference between frugal and cheap. Being frugal will keep your physical circumstances and your checkbook in a reasonable state of being under most conditions. Being cheap simply generates new problems and larger expenses tomorrow in exchange for not doing things right today or correctly prioritizing what we do and do not need. When I work for someone else as an employee (as opposed to a contractor) I expect to have adequate supplies equipment provided or else be compensated the cost of self-equipping, not just being expected to take a tax deduction for a rebate of 15-35% of the actual cost, depending on the tax bracket one occupies.

In the end, I believe that all citizens are equal, and that includes equality in being justly compensated for services rendered. I have a problem with people on the public payroll being paid incredible wages or salaries who do not generate value which justifies what they are paid, but I don't believe any of our police are getting rich from their pay and take great risks in terms of life and quality of life, particularly in maintaining their families with the stresses of the job. While I have been very outspoken regarding my feelings about corrupt or substandard police, those dedicated good officers who do what they do toward making our communities better should not be put in the same basket or punished on account of others. This includes funding cuts. Unfortunately, police and firemen are the first offered up on the chopping block by those who do not want to control the budget in the belief that the majority of the people will scream "NOOOOOO!" and the targets of choice which those who have an ax to grind with a few and are content to take it out on all.

The answer is to cut dead weight out of government. After that is done, the finances will be in good enough shape that we will not need to worry about finding new ways to cut pay or force return of money (like paying for use of .gov equipment), or shaking everyone else down for more tax money. This approach will lead us to more efficient and effective local and state government and also greater personal prosperity by virtue of not needing more tax money. In fact, less should be needed.

 

[Denny347]

Lawrence Peter performed a well-known study in which he established that each person in a hierarchical structure (which includes most businesses larger than single-family operations and most all governments) will eventually be promoted to each higher position he is capable of filling and then be promoted one more time into a job he can't do, thus being promoted to his level of incompetence. When this happens, such a person, rather than being returned to the highest position he can handle will either be left where he is whizzing in the water dish or given a lateral transfer into an often contrived position where he is out of the way which for fun I will call the 'assistant director of dust settling'. If we were to go through our schools (particularly administration, not teachers), our police and fire departments (again, the desk drivers, not the people who work for a living), and our local governments, I am certain we could find plenty of 'assistant directors of dust settling' we could get rid of with either a neutral effect or a net improvement in function of the agency from which they are removed, particularly when it allows for better treatment of those who do their jobs.

Just for an example, I have been advised by a retired officer that the Evansville PD has approximately 40 officers (with enough seniority to do much better than rookie pay) who could not function in public and consequently have desk jobs which were created in order to have someplace to put them where they weren't causing problems being turned loose on the streets. Right there are 40 people who need to be looking for a different job. My guess is that we could find at least a few of these anywhere we might look.

Holy crap, it is like you see the world I work in.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Holy crap, it is like you see the world I work in.

Dave is scary sometimes isn't he?

 

[Denny347]

Dave is scary sometimes isn't he?

I am serious though. This pegs MANY in the crystal palace.

 

[Hohn]

I fail to see how I do. It's not like government schools or compulsory attendance actually change the outcome that would result with no government schools and no compulsory attendance.

I think CTS is trying to argue that we all benefit from having a more educated populace because our economy becomes more productive.

His argument fails, though because
1) The local education doesn't necessarily translate into local economic output-- people move-- sometimes a lot, and sometimes far away.
2) It's FAR from a given that a person graduating from a local government school has meaningful job skill that would contribute to the local economy.



I'd like to address one particular fallacy in the discussion here-- the idea that a tax burden is "shifted" when someone gets an increase or a cut.

Cutting someone's taxes does NOT translate into an increase for someone else-- that's a fallacy. One reason it's fallacy is that it assumes a pie of fixed size and a static economy. If there is one defining feature of an economy, it is that it is NEVER static. As long as people are alive and try to meet their needs and wants, there will be a dynamic economy.

It also doesn't account for the change in a number of people in that class.

Remember when the "Bush tax cuts for the Rich" went through in 2001 and 2003? We were told that this was an unfair handout to the wealthy. Yet the data indicate unequivocally that "the rich" actually paid a LARGER share of the total federal tax burden than before the tax cuts went into effect. In fact, if you look at the share of all federal revenues paid by the top 20% (IRS uses quintiles as unit of analysis), you'll find that there is no period under President Bush after 2001 where that share was lower than the previous year. It went up EVERY year.

Was their "burden" increasing? Or was it that they were making more money and had more taxable income?


Who among us would complain about having a $500k income because of the tax that went along with it?