Kings Island and Mason go to war over admission and parking taxes

I don't think the majority of people care at all about the value proposition of government actions other than "whats in it for me." The entitlement mentality has grown exponentially over the past 2 decades. And politicians have been more than willing to feed it -- buying votes from their respective contituencies in the process.

And the government has shown it can move very quickly in two regards: the number of things it can regulate (and the volume of statutes/regulations such as 2000+ pages for the healthcare bill) and increasing our debt. Our debt has been multiplied by 3-4 times in the past 10 years (with much of that increase coming in the past 2 years). And current projections (which historically are significantly understated) have the debt almost doubling in the next 10 years (before addressing social security/medicare deficits). But its not enough as folks want us to spend more money we don't have.

Hate crime legislation makes no sense.

Hey everyone --

I was the one who orchestrated the protest at the Mason Municipal Building Monday night. I was really worried about doing it since I'd never really done the protest thing before, but over all it went really well. We got a lot of high-fives and thumbs up as people were walking in. In fact, several of us went out to eat afterward and we had a couple of Mason residents approach our table and thank us for our efforts to help save their city from the tax.

I'm not going to sit here and run down the reasons why the tax is an absolute fraud. That's all laid out on KIC. You can check that out another time if you wish to.

Inside the meeting, about 30 spoke out against the tax and only two in favor of it. The two in favor were far from credible. The first one (who spoke towards the beginning--maybe first) who started off his monologue by admitting he hadn't read the tax ordinance and went on to say that they should pass it on account of the fact that he's tired of hearing about it and followed it up with the oh-so-classy catchphrase, "get-r-done." I'm not making this up.

The 2nd woman who spoke in favor of the tax had the unfortunate responsibly of speaking immediately following a representative from A Kid Again, which is a charity that Kings Island has been known to sponsor. She more or less backed off of her speech as she was giving it.

Undoubtedly, the supporters of the tax on the council will muster up as many people as they can to speak in favor of it so yeah -- we'll be back Feb 8th.

Ryan

^Keep up the good work, and Godspeed!!

The thing that really gets me (as a former Deerfield Twp resident) is my understanding that part of the "deal" for KI annexing into Mason was the stipulation of no admissions taxes!!

If this was something never official, and agreed upon by former politicians and owners then so be it, but at the same time, when will the taxing end?

Raising taxes during an economic Depression is not a good idea.

Correction: raising taxes on the middle & lower classes (the "engine" of the economy) during an economic depression is not a good idea.

Raising taxes on anyone during an economic depression is not a good idea. Trackwalker had it right the first time.

This is the problem with taxes based on economic activity: when economic activity slows, tax revenue falls. Instead of living within the reduced revenue (which is what the tax-paying entities are forced to do) taxing entities tend to respond by increasing tax rates to make up for the shortfall. The result is to further reduce economic activity, which further reduces tax revenue.

The other problem is that when the taxing entity makes up for reduced revenue during an economic slowdown by raising or expanding taxes, those taxes are almost never reduced or eliminated when economic growth resumes. And if you've ever driven through Mason (I'm talking about the part between the Interstates, not just around Kings Island) you can see that they clearly have enjoyed plenty of local money to spend.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

If you increase - or, more accurately, simply restore to their pre-Bush levels - certain high-income brackets' tax rates, you can generate a significant amount of revenue, without harming economic activity in any significant way - after all, exactly how much is the top 1% of the Nation shopping at Walmart?

Alternatively, putting that cash into middle- and lower-income folks' pockets gets them spending again, which gets businesses making money again, which gets that top 1% their tax "investment" back in a huge way through increased revenue/economic activity from their businesses.

I'm not suggesting that tax increases or cuts are universally good or bad, just that blanket statements either way are disingenuous at best.

We will need a combination of large tax increases and large spending cuts because for too long, government has used debt to prop up our economy/standard of living (which cannot continue forever). Both will have negative impacts on the economy. And letting the Bush tax cuts lapse will provide additional revenues but even by the most generous/leftist estimates, our projected annual deficits will continue to be huge. And thats before we look at social security issues that start in 5 years or so. So that additional revenue isn't enough. We will either need additional taxes (presumably on the "rich" as the proverbial favorite target) or spending cuts and probably both. Though don't count on politicians making too many spending cuts as there isn't much power to be had in limited government.

When it comes to classes and income, it's all pretty much relative. How do we define "rich" "middle-class" and "poor?" Not to mention all the additional breakdowns like "upper middle class." What's the difference between "upper lower class" and "lower middle class?"

Then you throw in all the variables like family/household size, and location. A single person making 50K might be considered comfortable. But a family of 5 with that same income might have to do without some things. Then throw in how far 50K gets you in central Pennsylvania vs. Manhattan.

I'm positive that there's somebody out there looking at djDaemon thinking he's rich and should be paying more taxes.

As far as spending, our local newspaper published an article today saying that the one small city in the area is projecting a $20,000 surplus in their budget for next year. You can bet there will be dozens and dozens of people with ideas for either several hundred thousand in tax cuts, or several hundred thousand in additional spending. And government tells the public they don't know how to save or manage money.

Bear, that's one city that's the exception to the rule.

RatherGoodBear said:
When it comes to classes and income, it's all pretty much relative.

Well, duh, but when you're talking about taxing the top 1% or so, that's relative to about 305 million of our Nation's 308 million residents.

Do you really think you're going to collect a trillion or so dollars by raising taxes on the top 1%? You'd be surprised at the amount of people who think they will.

So, if a certain single action will not solve the entire problem, that action isn't worth implementing? I'd suggest this is one of the main problems in politics today - everyone wants a be-all, end-all solution, and if its not, its crap.

DJ, I think that poltics has deeper problems than that. First of all, EVERYBODY wans their say, and it ends up costing more than it should've in the first place.

Second, most polticos are so outta touch with whom the represent.

Those are just the tip of the iceburg, but since this isn't a poltics BBS, I'll say away from those.

I wasn't making a dissertation on politics in the US, I was simply responding to Bear's comment, and how it reflects a very lame argument and/or mindset used all-too-often.

That depends on what your argument is, dj. If the argument is that all rich people are evil and we should punish them by taking more of their money, so the rest of us will feel better, that's one thing.

If the argument is that we have all these programs we're trying to fund, deficits we have to pay off, etc., and we need to get more revenue, the idea that you'll collect enough from the top 1% to cover all of that, it's incorrect. Yet, some variation of that is what gets presented all the time in the papers, online, and on TV.

Dude, what are you even talking about? How in the hell do you get either of those impressions from what I said? No, I'm not claiming taxing the top 1% will completely fund planet Earth. And no, I've got nothing against the top 1% of earners.

But hey - if making ridiculously extreme straw man arguments is an enjoyable hobby for you, keep on keepin' on, I guess.

DJ, I was talking about the last part.

I'd suggest this is one of the main problems in politics today - everyone wants a be-all, end-all solution, and if its not, its crap.

Ithough that it was on topic. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

Daemon, do you even read your own posts before hitting the submit button? You're the one who said to increase taxes on the top 1% and give that money to the lower classes so they will spend it and get the economy moving again. Well I suppose our economy could rebound just from a lot of people running to Walmart and Dollar General to buy stuff made in China. And think of all the $7.25/hr cashier jobs that will be created!

The Walmarts around my neck of the woods start cashiers off at about $10 an hour, plus benefits. That's all I have to add.