Jackson Jambalaya

Why doesn't the state do like the people have to do. When income drops tighten their belt. When the state takes in less the intelligent thing to do is spend less. This isn't rocket science.

We are heading toward a 10% sales tax. That will be the "solution" the legislature will find.

I guess the state's going to have to put a whip on us taxpayers.

I read Tate wants to fund the government on a user fee based method and eliminate the stepped up tax % brackets.

If I read that right then Tate wants a lady who makes $10000 a year to pay $1000 for her government needs.

And a man making $10000000 will pay $1000 for the same government needs.

So we all pay the same amount for the same services.

But in reality this shifts the burden to those who make less by requiring a larger % of income as compared to a wealthier tax payer.

It's another way to separate those who have from those who have not.

That's great if you are Tate and you are worth $5,000,000.00 because you get to keep donations to your campaign fund but not so good if you are worth close to nothing....as most Mississippiams are.

Keep cutting necessary sercices, making families homeless, the electorate will make you spend that money when you get booted from office......and keep going to church where you are tithing 10% of $5,000,000.00 I know...right?

Personally, I do not object to a State Lottery. It is a tax on the willing. Have no idea why the Casino's would object as I don't understand the nexus. Guess the scratch off people would otherwise be in the Casino?

@5:35 - that's exactly what the legislature did this year. And you hear all those that live off of state salaries or services crying croc tears. Some because they didn't get the 'extra' money that they claim they need to continue their services, but few that are willing to tighten up their belts and cut out the unnecessary expenses (that they oftentimes enjoy).

@5:59 - I don't know what you 'read' but either it is commentary on blog sites, JFP, or the MS Dem Party newsletter. What you describe has not been proposed by Tate or by anybody else in the legislature. Nice try, though.

5:59's post is based on HooDoo. A poorly veiled attempt to claim that woman make far less than men.

The answer to the question of 'who will pay' is found in the answer to the question 'who CAN pay'. And its those of us who are working and have steady incomes.

Since we can't extract the money from the Feds and half of us don't work and/or are medicaid and/or disability, this indeed ain't rocket science.

Every agency director and department head should be instructed to cut his/her (state funded) travel budget and equipment/furniture costs by 50%.

@5:59 -- Bobby Moak? Cecil?? Which one of you are playing this idiot card?

What Tate actually proposed this year was to eliminate the two lower tax brackets - the 3% and the 4% brackets. But that's not to make everybody pay the same rate using the math you put out here in your bulls**t. That meant that those that had an adjusted gross income less than some $30k wouldn't pay any state income tax. Everybody above that rate would pay the same percentage, but that is a percentage of their income. Certainly not the kind of math you must have learned in JPS's grade "F" schools.

Biff Tannen for Gov.

5:35 you can't budget like that.

Just think if you didn't know how much your paycheck was going to be every 2 weeks....you couldn't borrow money to buy a house....you'd be scared to spend a nickel.

We need to look at our leaders and see if they practice what they preach.

First and foremost make campaign money be used only for campaigns. It cannot be a slush fund for bribes as it is now.

Fix that and then you will get people who really want to serve the people in office instead of wanna be millionaires who pass laws to protect their own millions.

Evening out the sales taxes would be a great start. Eliminate the areas that are not taxed - starting with services and professional fees (doctors, lawyers, CPAs,). This certainly wouldn't be a tax on the lower income as the bleeding hearts want to cry when talking about the burden of sales taxes - don't know many poor folks who are paying for lawyers and CPAs, and their medical costs are being paid for by the government anyway so the sales taxes added wouldn't be costing them anything.

While they are at it, maybe include newspapers that have always claimed an exclusive exemption.

Not noted in Bill's column is the corresponding look at the state's spending. Franly, its about time that the legislature took a good look both - cleaning up the tax structure and evaluating what really should be paid for by the government.

Hell, there isn't any difference now than it was before casinos came to Ms. Where does all that money go? Sure not to anything I can see.

I may be wrong but tax revenues, both state and federal are at an all time high. Spending... all-time high also?

Over half of state revenue goes to education and medicaid.

Hmmph.... seems like the wrong questions are being asked on both a state and federal level

8:03 - you can't see where all that casino revenue has gone? Take off your blinders. The state budget has increased 100% since casinos were legalized, and a good part of that money came from the taxes collected from them. Along with local taxes collected by the counties and cities where they are located.

If you can't see any difference between 1992 and 2016 in state expenditures and state services, you will never see anything.

@8:09, as noted above, besides looking at the tax structure (which does not necessarily mean that they are looking for more taxes) the legislature is also studying its spending - agency by agency. At least on the state level this is a beginning.

Tax cuts at this time would be disastrous . Cut spending first. Consolidating school districts
would be a great start .

That $154 million spent on a Road to nowhere sure raises some important questions- on the Coast,thru Wetlands and MDOT lost?.

Tax the shit out of the people living in the suburbs.

Elimination of the 3% and 4% state income tax would only penalize those who are working (at over $14.42 per hour). The rest would get the same free ride they've always gotten.

We can't do much to reverse the numbers on disability, medicaid and welfare (other than bitch about it). And it looks like school district consolidation is in that same category (bitch about it).

What's left? We've got to have essential government services. The legislature needs to take a hard look at itself as well as state agencies. But, can we seriously expect that they will pass a bill to cut their own largess and perks and waste? (Or will we just continue to bitch about it?)

Consolidating schools works ( see those states who are doing well in education). That consolidation means Ole Miss, State, the W, and Southern and all the junior colleges. These little fiefdoms are costing the state a fortune. And, they can't even cooperate to take advantage of economies of scale. ( That's pretty much getting lower prices by buying in larger quantities)...not happening. They are making money off you as well by selling you a degree that is worthless or making you retake courses when you transfer.
The TPs have run off those who can math. It's too inconvenient to have to think.
I just love how the right wants police and military protection and criminals put away and great schools and good roads and bridges , but they don't want to pay for it. The poor want food and shelter and medical care and the right doesn't want to pay for that either. And, you all really believe that poor people are costing you more than wars . Gosh it's bad when people can't do math and get spoon fed myth from those who can play with numbers to fool you.
I can't believe what some of you are willing to believe about economics and budgets and taxes.

Any plan which cuts revenue from state government will necessitate cuts to government spending.

It's like deciding to cut blood supply to a patient and letting organ failure dictate which organs go away first.

It's not leadership.

They have total control and they cannot empanel studies to see where reductions could be apprpriate and allow families to budget for change?

These folks have a rude awakening coming.

August 7, 2016 at 7:44 PM

yes, you can budget like that. you have a "rainy day fund" and prepare to cover times when you don't have income.

this may be foreign to you, but business owners, contract employees, etc all budget based on inconsistent income. I might not have a close on a deal for 8-10 months. I don't get income during that time.

YOU and your backwards thinking are indicative of the problem!

We don't need government budgeting based on what they can fleece from the taxpayer, we need government budgeting ONLY based on what is absolutely necessary.

Aug 7, 7:44 PM "...Just think if you didn't know how much your paycheck was going to be every 2 weeks....you couldn't borrow money to buy a house....you'd be scared to spend a nickel."

That's right!

Not everybody can buy a house... until they get a 'stable' job and/or create a rainy day fund for those inconsistencies... prove themselves worthy of a loan.

Not too many years ago those requirements were squashed so everybody, regardless of their ability to pay, were allowed a mortgage. Didn't work out so well did it?

Raising taxes will never do anything except make poor people hurt. Stop spending. There isn't a tax rate high enough to stay up with the crazy spending habits of politicians.
Raise taxes on the poor, they don't have any money anyway.
Raise taxes on the rich, they will just pass on the cost to the poor people.
The only choice we have is to control spending. Why make something hard out of something so easy?

Nothing will change as long as corruption is legal. Lottery money will be piranha'd by donors at the top and "consultants" & bloated dept staff at the bottom. We will have to pass anti-corruption laws by referendum because you know why.

@1:45 - eliminating the 3 & 4% rates would do exactly THE OPPOSITE of what you state. Obviously, you don't bother to learn anything about an issue before you let your fingers do the talking.

MS Sales tax rates are on a rising scale of income, and includes a basic flat deduction per individual and dependent.

After deductions, you pay 3% on the first $5k of income; 4% on the next 5%; and 5% on income over $10k. To fall in the 5% bracket, one needs to be making a gross income of $40k or more.

The elimination of the 3 & 4% rates means that nobody would pay anything unless they made more than $10k after deductions. Those lower income people would pay NOTHING.

Yes, the state should fund what are truly essential public services. Not said in your comments is the fact that the state should cut completely, not incrementally funding for non-essential services.

That was my point, 5:57. If you multiply the hourly rate I mentioned by the number of hours in a 40 hour per week year, you might learn something yourself about how it works. And the result would be that those wage earners wind up pulling the wagon under the increased burden of the low wage earners who pay none.

I'm not interested in 'lower income people paying nothing' and that's another point I made. Perhaps that's a goal of yours. Why should they NOT pay an income tax on low wages? That's the damned problem now! Too many free-riders, expecting much, contributing little.

Elimination the two lower brackets will only benefit the low wage earner and compound the burden on those making more than thirty thousand or so per year. See how that works? So, you're in favor of sticking it to the guy who makes a little more.

And while you're prancing, perhaps you will list the non-essential services being performed by the state. Don't simply make reference to them, in passing. State what they are. List them. Shit or get off your pedestal.

The two things many people on this thread are ignoring: discretionary income and the opportunity for upward mobility.

Trickle down economics just does not work - because for it to work, a person making $10 million a year, lets say that person was taxed $3 million dollars, they still have $7 million left in discretionary income. Compare that to someone who made $30,000 that same year, how much further does their income go? What goods can they buy with their remaining discretionary income?

In Mississippi our views are so messed up towards taxation and what is fair? Case in example, look at ad valorem taxes and the inconsistencies from county to county. What kind of sense does it make for a person in Hinds County who is trying to be budget conscious buys a new Honda civic and pays $800 for the first year car tag as opposed to a person buying a C-class Mercedes in Oktibbeha county and they paid $600? If we are basing the birthday tax on sticker value of the vehicle, how does that make sense? It's an inconsistent tax.

These tax panel meetings seem pro-active, but nothing will be accomplished because this past session was enough evidence to show these legislators are only concerned with the wealthy and few corporations in this state and we are all left footing the bill.

So....to summarize:

Half the legislature is only interested in spreading the burden so that those making over 40k a year don't pull the entire wagon, alone. And the other half is only interested in making sure 55% of Mississippians get a free ride on taxes.

Is that about it?

8:50, you are getting closer to the truth. None of them care about spreading the burden and making it easier on anyone. Their interest is not making sure anyone gets a free ride.
There interest is more like, they do not care what a person makes, they just want a larger % of it. They will give a free ride to anyone who will keep them in office. It isn't their money they are using to bribe people to vote for them.

Politicians have it made. They can pocket all of the money they want, give all of their friends and family money, use money to bribe voters, and have their own set of laws. People have got to the point they do not care and expect the people they elect to steal from the voters. People vote for their party. Doesn't make any difference how crooked the person may be.

7:13am

Yes, your view on taxes and economy is most certainly messed up.

"Trickle down economics" is a boogy phrase. It's a label meant to do nothing but confuse.

Trickle down economics in reality is the only way things work. The more money that is spent by the private citizens on services/products from other private citizens, the more robust the economy.

The trickle down part is that those with the acumen to run and/or start businesses will employ others. The trickle down part is that those who have discretionary income will spend that income on both luxury and regular items more freely, which employs others.

The problem you have is that you are a communist that thinks everyone is equal. They are not. We need people to serve, people to pick up garbage, to fix cars, to repair damaged hearts, to give massages, to teach, to farm. etc etc etc.

Your type of thinking is why we are where we are. Raising minimum wage because people working the lowest paying jobs can't afford things like the middle class only takes those things further away from them AND erodes the middle class. Any time a government artificially alters the free market, there are consequences. Newton's third law applies even to economics.

In the United States the culture has grown into solving the problems of symptoms instead of concentrating on the underlying cause. We see this in medicine and we see this in everyday opinion and action, ie - guns, minimum wage, social, etc etc

@ August 9, 2016 at 10:24 AM

I made a sh*t load of typos in my original post, so I wasn't very clear. But @10:24am you are an airhead for automatically labeling me a "communist"

You say, "Trickle down economics in reality is the only way things work. The more money that is spent by the private citizens on services/products from other private citizens, the more robust the economy."

In response I question, which private citizens and on what services and products? How many damn Ferrari's can Donald Trump purchase? How many mansions can he own to spur growth? You need Joe Plumber to be able to buy toilet paper, Susie Teacher to buy clothes at JC Penny, Tyronne the grill cook at McDonalds to have the ability to go down to Watson Ford and buy a Ford Focus and still have the ability to pay for basic living necessities, rent, lights, groceries, and transportation cost. When those people have purchasing power, then our economy thrives - not when Donald Trump gets another 767

You say, "The trickle down part is that those who have discretionary income will spend that income on both luxury and regular items more freely, which employs others."

In response, that was my whole original point but you ignored CLEARLY when I said, "What goods can they buy with their remaining discretionary income?"

You say, " We need people to serve, people to pick up garbage, to fix cars, to repair damaged hearts, to give massages, to teach, to farm. etc etc etc."

In response to that point I say, those are the people who make up the majority of our so-called "robust" economy. When they cannot make purchases, their buying power is nil, they need the ability to take trips, have gas to go teach, or pay for services like garbage removal, or even pay to get their heart repaired? The money is not circulating properly, for a robust economy. We have elected officials who have eliminated services that help move our economy.

No way am I saying everything should be government run, but there were buffers that promoted upward mobility, while moving free trade for the private sector.

Current wages do not match the rate of inflation at this time. The wealth gap is real. VERY REAL.

@ August 9, 2016 at 10:24 AM

You say , "Your type of thinking is why we are where we are. Raising minimum wage because people working the lowest paying jobs can't afford things like the middle class only takes those things further away from them AND erodes the middle class. Any time a government artificially alters the free market, there are consequences. Newton's third law applies even to economics."

That's lazy thinking! Because you do not want to overpay someone working fries at McDonalds. Because you do not want complacency for a job market. Tyronne or Bessie Ann working fries at McDonalds does not have the save liability as Jay Shon the store manager. So they do not deserve as hefty a salary, but as cost of living increases, they should be receiving annual increases to match that should they stay loyal to the business. Companies are not doing that. Wages have been going up for Administrators and Executives, but not for low level workers and mid-level managers.

Which goes back to my original point, discretionary income for blue color workers and mid-level managers. We need blue color workers to have the ability to pay for apartments, small homes, economy vehicles from Chevy, Ford, and Dodge. We need Chevy, Ford, and Dodge to keep their production plants and parts in America. Improve collective bargaining on behalf of every day workers, you will see an increase in productivity.

12:05; Bessie and Tyrone's demand for $15.00 an hour is going to be answered by pink slips, robotic servers and orders placed from a kiosk, not by a more robust 'collective bargaining agreement'.

The prices of apartment rent and a Ford Focus will be determined by the market, something you find nauseous. Those prices are not determined by wage increases or the clamoring of union stewards.

What evidence to you offer that wages do not go up for lower level and mid level employees? Are you totally unaware of the number of employers who have annual performance reviews and pay ranges for each occupation in the staffing pattern? Are those terms foreign? Do you really think it all boils down to the cast system, Trump's airplanes and keeping a boot on the necks of the downtrodden?

You have watched entirely too many Daily Shows, listened to way too many Bernie 'follow the bouncing ball' lectures and paid for way too many correspondence courses. Not to mention that you have never owned nor run a business nor met a payroll nor understood the concept of setting wage rates based on job tasks and the complexity of job duties.

Your previous 'typos' are not your only problem. Its that you're wired to think socialism is a productive economic system. Nobody owes me or you discretionary income. That concept ended when your allowance was cut off at age fourteen.

People who are stuck in a minimum wage job all of their life have no one to blame but themselves. Everyone has the chance to get an education. Some choose to get one and some choose not to get one. Those who do not prepare themselves for life will have to pay for it the rest of their life. Other people should not have to pay for them.

@ August 9, 2016 at 12:05 PM

"Lazy thinking" you say?

Please try to follow logical thinking. It has nothing to do with want, whether what I or you want. It's factual.

It is private business. It doesn't matter if administrators or executives are getting paid more. What has happened is that your kind (meaning communist) has created a wholly new America whereby we have duped everyone into thinking they have to have a college education. That has now grown to communist saying that the taxpayer should pay for college.

Most "jobs" require vocational training, not extensive education. We have experimented with this notion of over-education and guess what? The U.S. is behind all other industrial countries.... even with our excess education. That's because 78% of a person's post high school education does nothing to assist in their eventual job. So, what happens? As the push to a service only society, pressure mounts for those who have letters behind their names to obtain jobs that the average uneducated person would normally have.

The cultural norm is the slippery slope. Acceptance of feel good measures in place of common sense and critical thinking is the epitome of "lazy thinking."

And now, back to your supposed original comment. We agree that the modern U.S. economy has bastardized the middle class. We don't need for anything except for the government to get out of the way of business (with exception). Having started and owned numerous businesses, I can tell you now that starting a business today is not worth it.

We no longer appreciate, allow reward, or cheer for those who succeed. "We" just ask where is ours.

Free market with major controls works. The government is the one responsible for stifling competition in the marketplace and it continues to do so under a progressive agenda. Republican and Democrat alike. Their brand of progressivism is all that's different. Both parties have grown to worry only about winning elections, not improve the country.

@ And They Vote... said..

"What evidence to you offer that wages do not go up for lower level and mid level employees?"

Then answer this question, what would you call a person who made $38,000 a year 2016? Entry level, mid level, or senior employee?

@ August 9, 2016 at 3:17 PM


You say, "It doesn't matter if administrators or executives are getting paid more."

How the f*ck does it not matter, when it accounts for operational cost!!!!??? When an Administrative cost account for 5-10% of operational cost, it does matter! That's just flat out incoherent greed!

"And they vote" said "Nobody owes me or you discretionary income." That's a stupid statement to say, because how the hell do you expect the system we have in place to stay when that kind of mentality will make the sh*t go belly up.

Look I could care less if this economy goes belly up, because you have idiots that want to rip people off, then when someone gets them they want the government to come in and save them. That's the hypocrisy of it all. They want Uncle Sam to save'em when its them getting screwed and then they want'em out the way when they are scheming on the rest of the sheep. People like yourselves will not get how screwed up our economics are, until the pitchforks and fire sticks start marching up State Street.

These so-called free market advocates are pure comedy. Don't know the difference between communism, socialism, and capitalism, but hurl labels around easier than a Double Yellow Amazon Parrot on repeat! LOL!

Look capitalism is a GOOD thing. Its not the end all of humanity as we know it.

Lets face facts, the working poor and middle class do not have the buying power equivalent to the 50's, 60's, 70's.

There's poor, barely poor, and then rich in America in 2016. With the rich accounting for 90% of the wealth. There's no denying it, going around it, it is what it is.

My biggest concerns are, how do we get back to to the system that allows for the the poor to become middle class, and allow the middle class to recover if they hit a rough patch and fall into the poor house?

Are we truly in a Butler economy, where a majority of American jobs are in the service industry and if we are admitting we are now in a service economy, why continue to pay those workers bottom of the barrel wages, if they are now the backbone of our economy?

How do you propel service industry people to leave that industry, to open up a business in the private sector?

Our economy has evolved, our values have evolved, but has society accepted this change as a whole?

roll back the government...

...most problems solved

4:20 Knew this question has no answer when he asked it:

"Then answer this question, what would you call a person who made $38,000 a year 2016? Entry level, mid level, or senior employee?"

That's over $18 an hour. Your question is nebulous and has no answer, as framed. It depends on the occupation. If he's working at a liquor store I'd have to say he's a senior counter-attendant who knows his wines and is a part-owner.

If she's working in a hospital lab, I'd suggest she's mid level about to top out.

If he's twistin' wrenches at the tractor place, he's probably on his third raise already, doing fine and still in training.

If he's in his first accounting position, he no doubt just graduated from college and started out higher than most.

If she's working at the Clarion Ledger, she's screwing somebody and is over-paid.

5:121, and if he is working at some fast food place I would say he is helping himself out of the cash drawer and will soon be without a job and wearing an orange suit.