posted on June 30, 2003 04:23:20 AM new
Okay, starting tomorrow the REPUBLICAN governor of Ohio has helped see to it that we pay 6% in sales tax (was 5%) and 2% more in gasoline taxes. Services are now going to be taxed including dry cleaning, haircuts, dish TV, etc. And to make matters even worse Jerry Springer wants to run for the Senate representing Ohio. Seriously folks, I need to leave this place before I'm taxed out of my paycheck and before the state turns into one big talk show. Recommendations? I was thinking that eventually I'd love to move to Hawaii. A couple years ago, Ohio announced a surplus now suddenly (sound familiar?) there's a deficit for which we (not the government money wasters) must pay. A temporary tax???? Ya, right.
House OKs video slots or sales-tax increase in budget
Fourteen Republicans joined 32 Democrats in opposing the measure.
COLUMBUS — The Ohio House pushed through a two-year, $48.7 billion state budget that allows Ohioans to choose in November between a temporary 1-cent sales tax increase or video slot machines to generate revenue for state coffers.
The House voted 53-46 to approve the spending plan late Wednesday after hours of debate, sending the proposal to the GOP-led Senate, which plans to begin hearings within two weeks.
Five Democrats joined 48 Republicans to pass the new state budget, which must be in place by July 1. Fourteen Republicans joined 32 Democrats in opposition.
Cut in spending
If approved by the Senate, the bill cuts total state spending by about $500 million from the $49.2 billion proposal offered by Republican Gov. Bob Taft.
The bill's proposed spending levels disappointed some GOP members who felt more spending cuts were in order.
State Rep. Stephen P. Buehrer, a northwest Ohio Republican who voted no, said he wanted to curb government spending and institute civil-service reforms.
"Until we do those things, we ought not to ask the taxpayers for new taxes," said Buehrer, the assistant majority floor leader.
State Rep. Mary Taylor, a Summit County Republican who also opposed the measure, said she believed the proposed temporary sales-tax increase wouldn't cure the state's budget ails.
"We're fixing a problem short-term," Taylor said.
Others' views
But other Republicans said the proposed budget plan was the best plan that could emerge under the circumstances.
"I'm not happy with it, but I don't think that anybody is," said state Rep. Jim Hoops, a Napoleon Republican and the vice chairman of the House Finance Committee. Hoops voted for the budget.
"Overall, I think we did the best we could do," said state Rep. Nancy Hollister, a Marietta Republican who also voted for the bill.
Under the proposal, the state sales tax would be increased by 1 cent on July 1. The proposed increase would continue through the budget's second year unless Ohio voters approve a plan in November to place video slot machines at the state's seven horse-racing tracks.
If voters approve video-slot machines, the proposed sales-tax increase would end in the budget's second year, GOP lawmakers said.
The video-lottery terminal provision was not in the bill when the House Finance Committee approved it early Wednesday, but majority Republicans included it by amendment on the House floor.
The proposed temporary sales-tax increase would generate about $1.2 billion annually, while video-lottery terminals, where players can wager on slot or other games on a computer screen, would generate about $500 million per year, according to estimates.
A proposal to reform the state's tax structure was in Republican Gov. Bob Taft's proposed version of the two-year spending plan, but much of it was left from the House-passed version of the bill.
The House-passed bill, however, did extend the state sales tax to services not covered currently, such as self-storage, towing, dry cleaning and laundry, taxis, limousines and charters, satellite TV and some personal services, including tanning and tattoos.
The House-passed bill also restored spending cuts proposed by Taft that would have eliminated some optional Medicaid services for adults including podiatric, dentistry and vision.
In higher education, the House-passed bill restricts tuition increases at Ohio's colleges and universities to 6 percent in each of the budget's two years.
Ohio State University's tuition is capped at 9 percent, under the House bill. State funds for counties, cities, townships and public libraries are protected at 2003 levels for the next two years.
Many Democrats opposed the state's proposed budget, saying it reduces critically needed state programs.
"All they've done is increase spending and raise taxes," said state Rep. John A. Boccieri, a New Middletown Democrat who opposed the bill.
The current two-year, $44 billion state budget runs through June 30.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 30, 2003 05:37:16 AM new
I think what is going on in Ohio is happening in other States as well,even Oregon is talking about sales tax and even keeping what they call a kicker check... sate income money that was surplus....
Many States are having to redo the budgets after all those years of Federal subsidies, which are now drying up...
posted on June 30, 2003 08:06:28 AM new
Exactly, the Federal Government traditionally dispursed a percentage of the taxes collected to each state to fund various programs which are federally mandated. Due the the shrinking economy this administration has reduced the amount of funds sent to the states. The cuts have been across the board and bankrupted a number of states (mine included). The tax roll back for the wealthy has been a major contributor to this as we cannot afford it at this time. I believe the States should increase state income taxes to cover the shortfalls rather than sales taxes which are disproportionately paid by the poor as the wealthy spend less of their money. The Federal Gov't mandates various security measures on the parts of the states yet does not contribute toward it. When you go to a concert the better seats pay the higher price, where is your house?
[ edited by davebraun on Jun 30, 2003 08:07 AM ]
posted on June 30, 2003 08:33:32 AM new
I'm in Cleveland. The main reason I moved here is because it was cheaper to live in the city than the surrounding suburbs. What's also funny is that when our last mayor (White) left office he bragged about how much money this city had. The new mayor was never able to find that money. Instead, she found out that the city has serious financial woes. This is not the first time for Cleveland that one mayor has left a huge monetary mess for another mayor to clean up. A vast majority of Cleveland's residents are lower to lower middle class. It's not exactly the wealthiest place on the planet.
The increase in tax will hurt the ones that can least afford it. This city is littered with corner stores where they spend their money. Most rely on public transporation so the little corner stores make things easier. It's funny how before elections they fill your heard with the no new taxes jargon and then lower the boom on you.
I, personally, think our income tax in this state is high enough to begin with.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 30, 2003 08:35:06 AM new
Come to Illinois where our governors can allow untested semi drivers to hold CDL licenses and kill entire car loads of children but he gets away scott free. Now there is talk about nominating him for the Nobel Prize because he stopped the death penalty here. Oh yea, that was after putting each family of the victims through it again as they plead their cases as to why the person on death row didn't deserve a life sentence, but rather the chair.
Before this goes off into death penalty stuff, let me say it not the fact that he stopped executions, its that he stopped them ALL even when it was know that the people on death row really DID commit the crime.
posted on June 30, 2003 08:56:34 AM new
Don't come to California - crazy taxes and they just keep adding more and a non existant job market.
I can understand Californias budget woes since the drastic drop in tourism begets a drastic drop in income (have you seen room tax rates lately?) but personally, I never envisioned Cleveland as a big tourist destination
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
posted on June 30, 2003 09:06:03 AM new
The states need to fund the cities. The only revenue the city can raise directly is through various fee for business license, refuse pickup, sales tax etc. They cannot create a city income tax. By the feds forgiving the wealthy income tax it places the burden on the lower income people in the form of various sales taxes which are repressive by nature favoring the wealthy. Unless one wishes to give up vital services someone has to pay. The federal Govt has passed this burden onto the states and cities while favoring the wealthy and corporations. Their motto should be "Business Not People".
States and Cities across America are broke. Don't feel like the Lone ranger, school districts are in the red, police and fire are laying off, vital services are threatened including things like public health. The GOP seems to have no problem raising money for various items such as campaigning to preserve the status quo.
posted on June 30, 2003 10:11:53 AM new
Inherently regressive sales and excise taxes take 5.1 percent of income
from the poorest Marylanders but just 0.6 percent of income from the wealthiest—effectively
imposing a tax rate eight times higher on the poorest Maryland taxpayers than on
the rich.
The effective state and local tax rate on the wealthiest one percent of Maryland
families—with average incomes of $1.1 million—is 7.6 percent before accounting
for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, the
effective tax rate is just 5.1 percent.
# The average tax rate on families in the middle of the income distribution—those
earning between $33,000 and $51,000—is 9.5 percent. After the federal offset, the
rate is 8.8 percent, more than half again greater than what the richest pay.
# The tax rate on the poorest Maryland families—those earning less than $19,000—is
9.4 percent, with essentially no federal offset. That’s also more than half again as
much as the effective rate on the wealthiest Marylanders.
And, on top of all this, we have to pay a high percentage of our state income tax to live in Montgomery County.
The other day a woman asked me to sign a petition calling for the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis. Why, I asked. Because he bankrupted the state, she said. When I begged to differ that it was the Bush administration and its buddies at companies like Enron that had put the state into an economic tailspin, she said she was being paid according to the number of petitions signed and didn't really care. But voters should care because Davis is being used as a fall guy for problems that are beyond his control.
Remember Enron and those other scandals that cost folks their jobs and their 401(k) savings? They were a result of deregulation, the mantra of the Republicans. Deregulation was most disastrous for California's energy market, in which a crisis cost jobs and threw the world's fifth-largest economy into long-term disruption. This was not the normal workings of the market but the result of market manipulation by officials of Enron and other energy companies, some of whom are on their way to trial.
~
Californians provide much more to the federal government in taxes than they get back in services. The feds should bail out the states, which cannot indulge in the red-ink financing that has become a specialty of the Bush administration.
It is absurd to blame current difficulties on any state's governor, Republican or Democrat. It is the Bush administration that has mismanaged a successful economy inherited from Bill Clinton. It is the Bush administration that should bear responsibility for the difficulties being experienced by state governments — and it should at least help California as much as it is helping our newest state, Iraq.
posted on July 1, 2003 06:11:30 AM new
Along with our tax increase that begins today so does a decrease in the alcohol level to be considered legally drunk (from .10 to .08). Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing IMO. But why did they lower it? Because the Federal government has strong-armed the states into compliance with what THEY and their special interest groups consider acceptable. If Ohio did not lower it, it would loose Federal funding for highways. Now, due to my body weight (113 lbs) I am considered legally drunk after just two drinks. I think driving while intoxicated is deplorable and I would hope that the book is thrown at anyone who drives in that condition. But, don't tell me that after only two drinks I'm drunk. Far from it. I also don't think it's right for the Federal government to strong-arm the states into doing something with threats of removing funding from already strapped budgets.
In my strongest voice possible: THE ENTIRE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS GOT TO GO!
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on July 1, 2003 07:12:48 AM new
The drinking limit was lowered here in Illinois a few years ago. I have a CDL license, and even if I'm not behind the wheel of a semi, my limit is 1/2 of everyone else's. So, I really don't drink anymore!
posted on July 1, 2003 07:22:33 AM new
No one should get behind the wheel even after ONE drink. Those that say oh it doesn't effect me at all are the same ones that kill people.
and oh yea one more little bit of info. This law was enacted under bill clinton not bush . here is an old piece on that info.
WASHINGTON (AP) _ President Clinton, after a three-year struggle with Congress, signed a bill Monday that would set a tough national standard for drunken driving and, according to proponents, prevent 500 highway deaths a year.
``For me this is a very good day for the United States,'' the president said. He said the measure was ``the biggest step to toughen drunk driving laws and reduce alcohol-related crashes since the national minimum drinking age was established a generation ago.''
The new law requires states to implement a 0.08 percent blood alcohol content standard as the legal level for drunken driving by 2004. States that fail to impose that standard would begin losing millions of dollars a year in federal highway funds.
posted on July 1, 2003 07:50:04 AM new
There is absolutely no excuse to drive a vehicle after drinking any amount of alcohol.
States should implement a ZERO blood alcohol content standard and those found driving after drinking should have their license to drive revoked permanently.
posted on July 1, 2003 07:52:08 AM new
I agree with both of you. I just wanted to point out that often the limit for those that drive on cdl licenses is lower. And the limit was dropped here back when Clinton was in office.
posted on July 1, 2003 08:00:19 AM new
And, by the way, Cheryl, weight has nothing to do with it. I'm not sitting on my hair like some of the cuties here...LOL..., but I am of normal weight. Two drinks would impair my driving ability...maybe in subtle ways but ANY way is unacceptable.
I am under no circumstances saying that the limit should not have been lowered. It's high time in my book. What I am saying is that the states should do it because it's the right thing to do. Not because the Federal government is going to withhold funds from them. I will not drive with even one drink in my system. That's just me. The whole drinking while under the influence thing is what has kept me from attending baseball and football games, concerts and the like. I don't want to be on the road with these people at all!
Sitting on your hair? I remember those days. I had hair that long until about 2 months ago when I couldn't stand it any more. I'm very small at 5'6" and 113 lbs. I've always been the "bean pole" of the family.
Tomyou
It doesn't matter who enacted the Bill. I think it's a good one. The only objection I have to it is the "either you do as I say, or you can't go out and play" thing. Most states as I am seeing from this post are strapped for money. If this is one way to get states to do as the Federal government wants them to, what's next? "You must comply"?
I guess using this was a bad example, but it was the only one I had.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jul 1, 2003 12:04 PM ]
posted on July 1, 2003 08:57:05 AM new
They did the same thing for speed limits on freeways. You have to comply to a standard or loose federal funds. Saving lives is what both of those bills are about. It is not as if they are some radical outlandish steps being taken. The people you put in office voted for them, your states senators and congressmen, so your state is part of the government and helped form and make that rule.Seems as if your state was waiting to the last minute to conform and so some how you decide it is yet another thing to blame on the present administrations when they have ZERO to do with it. I am not a huge fan but figure out who made the rules before you go calling for a head on the chopping block.
LOL about the "hair" thing...I've never encountered so many people who never had a hair cut. Haha!
You say, "don't tell me that after only two drinks I'm drunk" You really can't say that you are not affected by two drinks. In my opinion, you are too drunk to drive.
I am in favor of any effort to get drunks off the road. I applaud Clinton's effort!!!
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jul 1, 2003 09:03 AM ]
You think I want to get rid of the current administration just because of this one thing? I didn't lay blame on anyone. I just made a simple statement in a separate paragraph unattached to anything. Where have you been the last gazillion posts.
Helen
Truth? I'm really a tea-tottler. At least that's what my boyfriend calls me. No alcohol in the house. Not one drop, unless you count the cooking Sherry. You have to be one desperate drunk to drink that stuff. Yuk! The last drink I had was last summer. A beer. I probably would get skunked on one drink now. And all it took was one night of THREE Long Island Ice Teas and three days of being sick to cure me of that nasty habit.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on July 1, 2003 11:02:20 AM new
What a load of crap. It was directly attached to that because you where under the impression it was the bush adminstration that enacted it. I understand your opinion of the administration but just admit you made a mistake on this one. Backpedling to cover your tracks and saying that oh yea that didn't have anything to do with your post in BS. None of the other posts you put here have that "unattached" statement. Your against Bush , fine, no big deal lots of people are. You also had a misunderstanding about that law and thats fine to but at least have the courage to say so instead of filtering in BS statements after you have been called on it.
You even tried to back up on helen with the drinking. Oh "don't tell me two drinks would get me drunk " But she called you on that one so I guess that was unattached also and you didn't mean for it to be taken with the rest of your post either. I think Helen and I have found some common ground. We both have a low tolerance for BS
[ edited by tomyou on Jul 1, 2003 11:14 AM ]
[ edited by tomyou on Jul 1, 2003 11:20 AM ]
posted on July 1, 2003 12:21:45 PM new
First of all, and more clearly now, how can anyone make a judgement that due to your weight you can only drink two drinks? Without know my physcial condition, etc., to me it's hard to say, "Ok, you weigh 113. Two drinks will get you drunk." How do they know this and how do they come up with that estimate? I may be drunk after only one drink. Telling me two drinks or three drinks or four drinks is misleading. You can feel sober but still be drunk in the eyes of the law, can you not? I thought that an imparement in judgement was mind related and not weight related. So if you're skinny, the alcohol goes to your brain quicker? The news said an average man can have four drinks. What's an average man? I know men that can't handle more than two. My boyfriend gets sick on one and he's larger than average (sorry, dear). If anyone can tell me how they came about these weight numbers, I'd appreciate it.
I know who enacted that bill and without knowing who I am or what I know, don't make that judgement. That bill or act or whatever you choose to call it was enacted a while ago. Why is Ohio just now abiding by it? Because the state has bled us dry and cannot get anymore from us to fix roadways that were never done right in the first place. Because unemployment at least in the northern counties is pittifully high and no one has any money to fix the roads that should have been done right in the first place. Because the Federal government would rather spend billions fighting a man they can't even locate now than spend it on the states that need it most to fix highways that should have been done right in the first place. And why is that?
BECAUSE BUSH IS IN OFFICE!
Please forgive my ramblings. I'm getting ready to leave on a much needed 4-day vacation. My first since 2001. I've not spent one whole night out of this house since then. I go to work, come home, work on ebay. It's starting to effect me more ways than you'll know.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jul 1, 2003 12:32 PM ]
