Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: Wisconsin's Property Taxes Drop for First Time in 12 Years

  1. #1
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560

    Wisconsin's Property Taxes Drop for First Time in 12 Years

    Milwaukee, Wisc. - According to Wisconsin's Department of Revenue, property taxes on homes in the state of Wisconsin have decreased for the first time in more than a decade.

    Governor Scott Walker's pledge to balance the budget without raising taxes was a key plank of his 2010 campaign, and his fulfillment of that pledge will be a major campaign theme leading up to the June 5 recall election. “Our reforms have reversed a decade of property tax increases from previous administrations,” Walker said in a statement on Monday. “For the first time in over ten years, the average property taxpayer will have more money in his or her pocket than the year before.” Walker's office noted that property taxes had risen by 43 percent since 1998, and "the average homeowner would have paid an additional $700 over the biennium" without the 2011 budget reforms.

    The property tax decrease is largely attributable to a reduction in state spending on local school districts, according to Todd Berry of the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers' Alliance.

    "On average, property taxes went down one percent for schools," Berry tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "That basically held everything close to flat." Although Milwaukee, Madison, and some other districts will see property taxes increase this year, property tax cuts throughout the rest of the state--cuts made possible by Walker's reforms--will offset the increases. (Berry notes that although the median home property tax declined 0.4%, all property taxes increased 0.2%. But 0.2% is still well below the rate of inflation.)

    In order to close the state's $3.6 billion deficit, Walker reduced state aid to school districts--the biggest part of the state budget--by about $900 million. Walker also limited collective bargaining so that local school districts could absorb the cuts by requiring teachers to contribute more for their benefits. The two leading Democrats vying to replace Walker have refused to say how they would have balanced Wisconsin's budget.

    At a press conference today, Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, the frontrunner in the Democrats' gubernatorial primary, was asked about the property tax news. He didn't dispute the report that property taxes had decreased statewide. But, Barrett told reporters, "I can tell you here in the City of Milwaukee, our school taxes went up. And they went up primarily because of the funding of the school choice program.”

    Barrett did not mention, however, that Milwaukee schools are currently operating under a collective bargaining agreement that was locked in prior to Walker's reforms. Collective bargaining effectively gives the Milwaukee teachers' union the power to choose layoffs and higher taxes over cuts to their benefits.

    On April 4, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that after "robust discussions and three days of voting, members of the Milwaukee teachers union have rejected by nearly a 3-to-2 margin a proposal to contribute about 2.6% of their salary to Milwaukee Public Schools next year to help reduce burgeoning class sizes."

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2873064/posts

    I am happy for the citizens of Wisconsin who now can use more of the productive assets they have earned as they wish.

  2. #2
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Please explain how you were so wrong. Thanks.



    SeriouslyWrong posted this in Jan. 2011. "i wouldnt dismiss ANY of his (mr. schiff's predictions)
    for 2011" He said ANY. But what happened is that he got ALL those predictions WILDLY WRONG. Those are the facts and as you notice he cant defend or refute THESE FACTS.


    The predictions of Peter Schiff were for a "CATASTROPHIC" market crash in early 2011. His prediction was for "HYPERINFLATION" in 2011. Not normal or high inflation but HYPERINFLATION. His prediction was for gold to rise to $12,000 or the Dow to fall to 1,400 within the next 2 years.
    His prediction was for interest rates on 10 year notes to be at "4% at the beginning of 2011 and
    rise to 5% or even 6%% in 2011 or 2012. His prediction was that the dollar would collapse in 2011. And on and on and on....

    HE GOT THIS ALL WRONG AND MORE!

  3. #3
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Have you have been able to research these facts?
    Please explain. Thanks.

    I post this because this an example of the kind of economic theories
    that Mr. SeriouslyWrong believes in and clearly they arent as successful
    as he has been pretending.


    "In other words, Peter Schiff may be a classic case of a stopped clock: he's been predicting a market decline FOREVER and when the market has declined he's hailed as a genius by his cult fans."

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1068...hiff-right-now

    Now, had you listened to Peter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or even 3/4 of 2007, you lost your shirt. Had you placed bets based on Schiff's market calls, you lost everything you wagered.

    The S&P (.INX) went from 1054 in May of 2002 (the date of the interview) to 1561 in Oct. 2007, a 48% gain and the Dow (.DJI) rose 40%.

    Banking stocks, the primary victim of the housing bust, went up (JP Morgan (JPM) 36%, Bank of America (BAC) 41%, Wells Fargo (WFC) 39% , Wachovia (WB) 31% and American Express (AXP) 51%) during that time frame (dividends excluded which would dramatically add to results).

    Bottom line? Had you listened to Mr. Schiff at anytime before Oct. 2007, you lost...big. To those who did, there is little consolation in the praise being heaped on him today.

    Milton Freidman said, "markets can stay dislocated longer than you can stay solvent." For those who bet with Schiff between 2002-2007, they know the statement well.

    Why is it a big deal? After all, Berkshire's (BRK.A) Warren Buffett claims he cannot time the market and often watches share prices decline in investments (like recent investments in Goldman Sachs (GS) and GE) before a rebound. How is this any different?

    For one, Warren's loss is limited to his investment. He buys 1 share of stock "a" at $25. $25 is the most he can lose.

    Now, if we listen to Peter and "short" stock "a" at 25, our loss has no limit. If it goes to $100, we lose $75. In shorting, we are only limited in our upside. If "a" goes to zero, "Schiffers" profit $25.

    Buffett's strategy is an investing one and Schiff's is a trading and timing one.

    Buffett followers can hold their shares, collect their dividend and wait for the rebound. Schiff followers collect no dividend and watched for over 5 years as their bet went wrong. How many stuck around? How many shorted into every market drop or "presumed" top over 5 years, only repeatedly losing money as the market kept rising and Schiff kept pounding his message home?

    Schiff should not be getting the praise he is getting today for being "so right" after saying the same thing and being "so wrong" for the previous 5 years.

  4. #4
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Lloyd, please. I'm not talking to a wall anymore. $hit, you don't read ANYTHING. You can't and won't accept that I have benefitted personally from Schiff's investment advice. You won't answer the question of the consequence of ever growing national debt even though you agree it is unsustainable. You have no interest in exploring the basis for Schiff's predictions, and trying to understand the point. All you want to do argue politically - you being left and me being right (which I am). Sorry, you've lost me with your low level thinking, but that's what should be expected when a chemist with a successful business career discusses issues with a phucking cameraman.

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    You havent responded to the facts as I posted them. If you are unable to answer what i posted then you are being dishonest in your praise of Mr. Schiff. Respond to the specifics of what I posted. You have a double standard when it comes to asking me to respond to your queries. Whenver I present evidence of where you are wrong on the facts your modus operandi is to simply to avoid facing those facts.

    Your other disengenious method when confronted with facts that disagree with your economic theories is to pretend that somehow because of my profession I am less able to disucss economic theory and political ideas. Its evidence of "low level thinking" and is juvenile at best. Instead of insulting peoples profession why dont you simply respond to the facts as i have presented them.

    Obviously you arent able to counter those specific facts. Please answer them and stop with the silly personal attacks. You are not showing yourself in a good light whehter you realize it or not.



    "Just let this sink in when thinking about whom Mr. SeriouslyWrong chooses as his hero for economic and financial advice. It should help you evaluate his judgement as pertains to a whole host of issues (especially economic).


    The predictions of Peter Schiff were for a "CATASTROPHIC" market crash in early 2011. His prediction was for "HYPERINFLATION" in 2011. Not normal or high inflation but HYPERINFLATION. His prediction was for gold to rise to $12,000 or the Dow to fall to 1,400 within the next 2 years.
    His prediction was for interest rates on 10 year notes to be at "4% at the beginning of 2011 and
    rise to 5% or even 6%% in 2011 or 2012. His prediction was that the dollar would collapse in 2011. And on and on and on....

    HE GOT THIS ALL WRONG AND MORE!

    You would have lost your shirt if you bet with him.

  6. #6
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    A "wall" for mr. SeriouslyWrong are facts that dont jibe with his predictions.
    I think its rather obvious why he cant and wont address these specific FACTS.
    If he is wrong about Mr. Schiff his entire economic model falls down. He has
    a lot riding on continuing to lie about this.




    "In other words, Peter Schiff may be a classic case of a stopped clock: he's been predicting a market decline FOREVER and when the market has declined he's hailed as a genius by his cult fans."

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1068...hiff-right-now

    Now, had you listened to Peter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or even 3/4 of 2007, you lost your shirt. Had you placed bets based on Schiff's market calls, you lost everything you wagered.

    The S&P (.INX) went from 1054 in May of 2002 (the date of the interview) to 1561 in Oct. 2007, a 48% gain and the Dow (.DJI) rose 40%.

    Banking stocks, the primary victim of the housing bust, went up (JP Morgan (JPM) 36%, Bank of America (BAC) 41%, Wells Fargo (WFC) 39% , Wachovia (WB) 31% and American Express (AXP) 51%) during that time frame (dividends excluded which would dramatically add to results).

    Bottom line? Had you listened to Mr. Schiff at anytime before Oct. 2007, you lost...big. To those who did, there is little consolation in the praise being heaped on him today.

    Milton Freidman said, "markets can stay dislocated longer than you can stay solvent." For those who bet with Schiff between 2002-2007, they know the statement well.

    Why is it a big deal? After all, Berkshire's (BRK.A) Warren Buffett claims he cannot time the market and often watches share prices decline in investments (like recent investments in Goldman Sachs (GS) and GE) before a rebound. How is this any different?

    For one, Warren's loss is limited to his investment. He buys 1 share of stock "a" at $25. $25 is the most he can lose.

    Now, if we listen to Peter and "short" stock "a" at 25, our loss has no limit. If it goes to $100, we lose $75. In shorting, we are only limited in our upside. If "a" goes to zero, "Schiffers" profit $25.

    Buffett's strategy is an investing one and Schiff's is a trading and timing one.

    Buffett followers can hold their shares, collect their dividend and wait for the rebound. Schiff followers collect no dividend and watched for over 5 years as their bet went wrong. How many stuck around? How many shorted into every market drop or "presumed" top over 5 years, only repeatedly losing money as the market kept rising and Schiff kept pounding his message home?

    Schiff should not be getting the praise he is getting today for being "so right" after saying the same thing and being "so wrong" for the previous 5 years.

  7. #7
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    You havent responded to the facts as I posted them. If you are unable to answer what i posted then you are being dishonest in your praise of Mr. Schiff. Respond to the specifics of what I posted. You have a double standard when it comes to asking me to respond to your queries. Whenver I present evidence of where you are wrong on the facts your modus operandi is to simply to avoid facing those facts.

    Your other disengenious method when confronted with facts that disagree with your economic theories is to pretend that somehow because of my profession I am less able to disucss economic theory and political ideas. Its evidence of "low level thinking" and is juvenile at best. Instead of insulting peoples profession why dont you simply respond to the facts as i have presented them.

    Obviously you arent able to counter those specific facts. Please answer them and stop with the silly personal attacks. You are not showing yourself in a good light whehter you realize it or not.



    "Just let this sink in when thinking about whom Mr. SeriouslyWrong chooses as his hero for economic and financial advice. It should help you evaluate his judgement as pertains to a whole host of issues (especially economic).


    The predictions of Peter Schiff were for a "CATASTROPHIC" market crash in early 2011. His prediction was for "HYPERINFLATION" in 2011. Not normal or high inflation but HYPERINFLATION. His prediction was for gold to rise to $12,000 or the Dow to fall to 1,400 within the next 2 years.
    His prediction was for interest rates on 10 year notes to be at "4% at the beginning of 2011 and
    rise to 5% or even 6%% in 2011 or 2012. His prediction was that the dollar would collapse in 2011. And on and on and on....

    HE GOT THIS ALL WRONG AND MORE!

    You would have lost your shirt if you bet with him.
    Wrong, we discussed Schiff's predictions several times in the past. Has anyone ever heard you say "amazingly accurate" to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

    No. No comment at all. Nothing. Zip, Zero, Nada.... "Tick tock" as you might say. You are so partisan, you don't even recognize the existance of these FACTS. They don't exist in your mind. It never happened.... Take the conspiracy route and say it was "staged" LOL. At least that way, all would know that you do realize it exists.

  8. #8
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Back to the topic

    Wisconsin recall is high-stakes bet for unions

    By SAM HANANEL and SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Unions are facing a make-or-break moment in their campaign to drive Wisconsin's Republican governor from office.

    If unions and their Democratic allies prevail in the recall — just over a year after Gov. Scott Walker signed legislation to curb collective bargaining rights for most public workers — it would send a powerful warning to other politicians who might try to limit union rights. Unions also might find it easier to turn out more voters in November for President Barack Obama in this battleground state.

    A Walker victory would be a stunning setback for organized labor.

    "If we lose, it's a shot in the mouth," said Greg Junemann, president of the Professional and Technical Engineers union and a Milwaukee resident. "We can survive it, but we'll be reeling."

    Unions have experienced mixed results over the past year in trying to beat back efforts in dozens of states to restrict bargaining rights, pass right-to-work laws or limit how unions collect dues.

    They enjoyed a major victory in November when Ohio voters in a statewide referendum repealed a law limiting collective bargaining rights for the state's public employees. But they fell short in an earlier recall campaign to wrest control of the Wisconsin Senate from Republicans and suffered a major defeat when Indiana this year became the first state in more than a decade to pass right-to-work legislation.

    Recalling a sitting governor would be a major feat, something that's happened only twice before in U.S. history.

    "After devoting so much effort, energy and funds to the recall, unions have to show positive results or it will be judged to be a sign of a weakened labor movement," said Gary Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "If they can't win in one of the most liberal states, where can they win?"

    The recall primary in Wisconsin is May 8, and the general election is June 5.

    Such massive, costly campaigns have taken a toll on unions, diverting resources they could have spent helping political allies or organizing new members. Unions spent nearly $30 million turning out votes to repeal the Ohio measure and more than $12 million on the Wisconsin state Senate recall effort.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/business/...bet-for-unions

    Who is winning so far?

    "A Public Policy Poll out today shows Wisconsin Governor pulling ahead of his Democrat challengers in the coming recall election"

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...?feed=rss_home

  9. #9
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    I think you well know that I have said he got this prediction right, but then i proceeded to explain and show factually that he has been predicting the same exact thing for ten or more years before that and predicting that every year since. He is a doomsdayer so once in a blue moon he will get something right. Economies move up and down. Im sorry you want to hold onto one prediction and ignore the dozens he got wrong consistently from decade to decade.


    You havent addressed the facts i posted above. Why not?

    Im partisan? lol. What about you? I dont think you are examining your own motivations in refusing to acknowledge the facts I have presented. I understand that your economic theories are based on facts (mr. schiffs honesty and accuracy) i have shown to be untrue. Its unfortunate that you are afraid to acknowledge HERE that I have a point about Mr. Schiff's many incorrect predictions.


    Your way of dealing wtih the FACTs i have presented HERE is to lash out with rather juvenile personal attacks about my profession, and my work ethic etc. One of these days you might examine your methods because they really dont help to make you look like a serious analyzer of ideas.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 04-23-2012 at 03:09 PM.

  10. #10
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    You havent addressed the facts i posted above. Why not?

    Im partisan? lol. What about you? I dont think you are examining your own motivations in refusing to acknowledge the facts I have presented. I understand that your economic theories are based on facts (mr. schiffs honesty and accuracy) i have shown to be untrue Its unfortunate that you are afraid to acknowledge HERE that I have a point about Mr. Schiff's many incorrect predictions.

    Your way of dealing wtih having been shown up is to lash out with rather juvenile personal attacks about my profession, and my work ethic. One of these days you might examine your methods because they really dont help to make you look like a serious examiner of ideas.
    I think you need a time out.

    "Wrong, we discussed Schiff's predictions several times in the past. Has anyone ever heard you say "amazingly accurate" to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

    No. No comment at all. Nothing. Zip, Zero, Nada.... "Tick tock" as you might say. You are so partisan, you don't even recognize the existance of these FACTS. They don't exist in your mind. It never happened.... Take the conspiracy route and say it was "staged" LOL. At least that way, all would know that you do realize it exists."


    BTW, I've already acknowledged Schiff predictions in another thread literally months ago. I acknowledged them recently by posting this link. http://www.economicpredictions.org/p...ions/index.htm.

    I doubt you even looked, and you wonder why one would question your work ethic.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •