The Millionaire Cop Next Door

[JBusch8899]

As for parks and sports, where is that in the constitution? Why can't private enterprise take them over?

Parks existed, and were maintained long before the Constitution being ratified, and probably never crossed the Framer's minds. One thing the framers knew, that not every single concept of government was to be documented within the Constitution, nor should it. Some parts of government, need be decided by it's political subdivisions.

 

[hornadylnl]

Parks existed, and were maintained long before the Constitution being ratified, and probably never crossed the Framer's minds. One thing the framers knew, that not every single concept of government was to be documented within the Constitution, nor should it. Some parts of government, need be decided by it's political subdivisions.

again, why can't private enterprise take over the parks? I'd be happy to pay an admission charge to my local park if it meant I got to pay less in taxes. These things are a net drain on the community or private individuals would build them.

 

[JBusch8899]

again, why can't private enterprise take over the parks? I'd be happy to pay an admission charge to my local park if it meant I got to pay less in taxes. These things are a net drain on the community or private individuals would build them.

Individual business do create parks, but you're missing the point.

Parks also benefit the taxpayer by one or more means to increasing one's homeowner values, reducing insurance, create an area for flood plain control, an asset to effect a reduction to crime, etc. ....all of such that creates value for a community, and to a community's residents.

Even if someone chooses to not to otherwise utilize a park, the benefit from it's existence embraces all.

 

[Indy317]

Even if someone chooses to not to otherwise utilize a park, the benefit from it's existence embraces all.

Here are some benefit's of government parks:
-Lawsuits
-Crime
-Costs associated with the above

Parks have negative benefits as well. When property created, a park isn't that much of a drain. As far as why don't private people have parks: Simple, lawsuits. Too many folks would be scared to open a small, basic park due to the lawsuits. You likely won't have enough admission fees to cover liability insurance, all the other costs, and still make a decent living. This would be reduced if there was a nationwide coop of park owners, as this stuff could be purchased in bulk, etc.. However, that likely won't happen now, as government has pretty much taken control of small, neighborhood park creation. Thrill rides and large water parks are being mostly left to large corporations, but even some governments are diving into the water park thing. Thankfully this is a local issue, for now. If you don't want to pay for water parks, don't live in Plainfield or Carmel.

The problem with government parks though is the same with K-12 spending. As soon as one entity has one, all the others want the same thing. Greenwood was trying to jump on the water park bandwagon, as a pool just wasn't enough. At that time, there were plans for a private water park hotel next to what was to be a Cabela's. Well, I recall the parks director claiming that they would need both because some folks couldn't afford the private one, blah blah blah.

Government is all about empire building. Every unit within government wants to build their empire. Police, fire, EMS, parks, street, etc. Sometimes you will get a frugal person that runs these units, but understand that the larger the unit, the more the head of the unit can go back and argue for a bump up in pay.

 

[Eddie]

While I agree that the Federal Government has no business using our tax dollars to create public parks I have no problem with parks being created on a state and local level.

Unlike the Federal Government, there is no restriction on States, Counties and Towns setting aside land and spending their money on parks or choosing not to do so if that is their preference.

I would prefer that my own community not waste tax dollars on parks until all the roads are paved and the water and sewer system is in good working order.

 

[JBusch8899]

.....I would prefer that my own community not waste tax dollars on parks until all the roads are paved and the water and sewer system is in good working order.

That might require years, or possibly never.

If it weren't for parks, children living in condition as below, would never have the opportunity to go outside and play. Television is already bad enough. Take away the parks, the problem becomes insolvable.

 

[hornadylnl]

That might require years, or possibly never.

If it weren't for parks, children living in condition as below, would never have the opportunity to go outside and play. Television is already bad enough. Take away the parks, the problem becomes insolvable.

To reverse that, how about I demand that the government build a 3G cell tower so I can have a good cell and data signal out in BFE? There are trade offs no matter where you live.

 

[JBusch8899]

To reverse that, how about I demand that the government build a 3G cell tower so I can have a good cell and data signal out in BFE? There are trade offs no matter where you live.

I wasn't aware that cellular communications were as essential as healthy exercise and play to a child's overall health and welfare.

 

[Joe Williams]

I wasn't aware that cellular communications were as essential as healthy exercise and play to a child's overall health and welfare.

So, you feel you have the right to lord it over him, and decide for him what it is his kids really need? Or is it that you don't think country kids deserve the advantages and quality of life that modern technology brings to the city folk?

Kids in the country already have plenty of opportunity for exercise and play. Perhaps, since you support using government dollars to improve lives, you should support relocating city kids to the country.

 

[JBusch8899]

So, you feel you have the right to lord it over him, and decide for him what it is his kids really need? Or is it that you don't think country kids deserve the advantages and quality of life that modern technology brings to the city folk?

Kids in the country already have plenty of opportunity for exercise and play. Perhaps, since you support using government dollars to improve lives, you should support relocating city kids to the country.

No, I'm not. It was a facetious reply to the 3rd Gen Cell Tower statement, and nothing else.

However we all have values, and as such, which would nearly all of us decide? Would we prefer our children have green space, play, and fresh air; or cellular technology?

 

[hornadylnl]

No, I'm not. It was a facetious reply to the 3rd Gen Cell Tower statement, and nothing else.

However we all have values, and as such, which would nearly all of us decide? Would we prefer our children have green space, play, and fresh air; or cellular technology?

The point is there are advantages and disadvantages to any place you choose to live. Myself, I'm going to live in BFE to get the hell away from people. By that, I realize I probably won't ever have high tech capabilities like the big cities do. I grew up by where I'm building and there was no cable. I was almost out of the house when my dad bought one of those huge satelites. It was just a fact of life that a cable company wasn't going to run miles and miles of cable just to service a few houses.

If you set up house in a concrete jungle for your kids, what kind of priority are giving your children to begin with? Why are parks a worthy thing to subsidize but other things aren't? There's no way in hell I'd have a house in the above picture.

 

[Eddie]

The point is there are advantages and disadvantages to any place you choose to live. Myself, I'm going to live in BFE to get the hell away from people. By that, I realize I probably won't ever have high tech capabilities like the big cities do. I grew up by where I'm building and there was no cable. I was almost out of the house when my dad bought one of those huge satelites. It was just a fact of life that a cable company wasn't going to run miles and miles of cable just to service a few houses.

If you set up house in a concrete jungle for your kids, what kind of priority are giving your children to begin with? Why are parks a worthy thing to subsidize but other things aren't? There's no way in hell I'd have a house in the above picture.

This is why I say to leave as many decisions and as much of the tax money as possible on the local level. Let the town board decide whether they need a park or a cell phone tower. Don't have a faceless bureaucrat decide to write a grant to fund local airport improvement; give the money back to the people and let them decide how to spend it.

I feel much more comfortable with my town board spending my tax dollars because I can go over to their house and tell them how I feel about their choices. If I don't like what the fed is doing its often a challenge just to figure out who made the decision.

 

[hornadylnl]

I agree that most spending needs to be decided on at the local level but the grant process has totally screwed that up. The local officials think they need something so they apply for the grant. They usually get approved and if not, the project has gained enough steam that they get the people to want it anyway.

Still though, I see really stupid spending by the local governments around me all the time. The county spent nearly a decade fighting on whether to rebuild or replace a bridge. You had the history nuts wanting to preserve the old one and most people wanting to build a new one. I couldn't care less about preserving all these old buildings and bridges. We can't keep every piece of history. These people are wanting to take down old bridges and set them up in parks for display. As if that's what's going to spark tourism and money to podunk, Indiana.

Our government is corrupt from Washington all the way down to your smallest government entity.

 

[Eddie]

I agree that most spending needs to be decided on at the local level but the grant process has totally screwed that up. The local officials think they need something so they apply for the grant. They usually get approved and if not, the project has gained enough steam that they get the people to want it anyway.

Still though, I see really stupid spending by the local governments around me all the time. The county spent nearly a decade fighting on whether to rebuild or replace a bridge. You had the history nuts wanting to preserve the old one and most people wanting to build a new one. I couldn't care less about preserving all these old buildings and bridges. We can't keep every piece of history. These people are wanting to take down old bridges and set them up in parks for display. As if that's what's going to spark tourism and money to podunk, Indiana.

Our government is corrupt from Washington all the way down to your smallest government entity.

But at least you can catch the local ones out in front of the grocery store and tell them how you feel.

We had the same issue come up with an old bridge. They told the local historical society that if they wanted to pay to maintain the bridge they could have it. A private citizen paid to dismantle and store the bridge and the county put up a new one. Not everybody was happy but it all got hashed out face to face in a series of public meetings.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Pensions are fiscally untennable, for the most part, and require constant vigilance to ensure they remain fully funded.

A pension will also pay out at a greater rate than the market will, so even if the pension does start out fully funded, it will soon fall behind.

Also, with a low retirement age, you will add pensioners faster than you can grow the business or increase taxes.

It's just not a good idea. A 401k with employer match is much more fiscally responsible, especially for a government.

Currently, Federally insured pensions have reached $1T in unfunded liabilities.

 

[Eddie]

Pensions are fiscally untennable, for the most part, and require constant vigilance to ensure they remain fully funded.

A pension will also pay out at a greater rate than the market will, so even if the pension does start out fully funded, it will soon fall behind.

Also, with a low retirement age, you will add pensioners faster than you can grow the business or increase taxes.

It's just not a good idea. A 401k with employer match is much more fiscally responsible, especially for a government.

Currently, Federally insured pensions have reached $1T in unfunded liabilities.

Very good point! A Defined Benefit Plan guarantees the employee a set of benefits when they retire. Defined Benefit Plans can be affected by things like inflation and changes in the stock market. Defined Benefit Plans for small groups can also be hit hard if too many employees get an early retirement or too many live past their normal life expectancy.

Defined Contribution Plans; plans like the one ATO describes above, only require a present time contribution from the employer on a quid pro quo basis. In a defined contribution plan the employee earns the pension as a portion of their wage and the employee bears the risk of whatever happens afterwards.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ok, so lets put all public employees on 401k's and do away with their pensions. Gnashing of teeth begins in 5.4.3.2.1.......

 

[Eddie]

Ok, so lets put all public employees on 401k's and do away with their pensions. Gnashing of teeth begins in 5.4.3.2.1.......

That is actually a more responsible approach because you would be promising something that you could deliver on. If you tell someone you'll put $100 in a 401k every payday then that's just like a payroll cost. If you promise them a set salary and insurance when they retire you don't really know if you'll be in shape to pay out those benefits when the time comes.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The pension sword cuts both ways. A pension is only a promise. Whoever holds that pension can change it or default on it at any point in time.

So, governments could refuse to pay pensions, or reduce pensions.

A 401k is money in the "bank". No one can just arbitrarily take that from you like they can with a pension.

 

[kedie]

Ok, so lets put all public employees on 401k's and do away with their pensions. Gnashing of teeth begins in 5.4.3.2.1.......

No gnashing here. I think I'd be ok with the 401k.