Daniel Weintraub: Why Dave Jones opposes the Kings' arena deal

[D-Mass]

I just grabbed my last bank statement and two credit card statements. My taxable goods purchased in the County in the last month was approximately $650.

So, for me, that's $650 X 0.0025 = $1.62 extra per month.
Annual added tax to improve my quality of life = $1.62 X 12 = $19.44 (excluding periodic big ticket item purchases).

I will have to file for bankruptcy, for sure.

No spreadsheets needed. Just the PC calculator and my list of what was and was not taxable.

BTW, the whole exercise to come up with how much I really spent on monthly taxable goods took 2 minutes and 45 seconds.

So why can't a simple calculation like this be posted in the Bee for all to see? All people hear from the Bee is that this is a bad deal for Sacramento. I don't know anybody who would look at your simple estimate and still see this as a bad deal.

Shoot...I would pay that just to have the railyards cleaned up with NOTHING to be put on them.

 

[VF21]

I just grabbed my last bank statement and two credit card statements. My taxable goods purchased in the County in the last month was approximately $650.

So, for me, that's $650 X 0.0025 = $1.62 extra per month.
Annual added tax to improve my quality of life = $1.62 X 12 = $19.44 (excluding periodic big ticket item purchases).

I will have to file for bankruptcy, for sure.

No spreadsheets needed. Just the PC calculator and my list of what was and was not taxable.

BTW, the whole exercise to come up with how much I really spent on monthly taxable goods took 2 minutes and 45 seconds.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. You did it your way and came up with an annual expense of $19.44 extra. I took about 20 seconds and came up with $15.00 a year more.

The main point is, either way, it's not going to break anyone. I know you're not in the lower income, so you represent the middle class person impact. I gave information about the lower income, since that's the end of the spectrum Jones was using.

We're on the same side of this issue. I'm trying to use examples that most people will be able to follow without having to grab their bank statements, credit card bills, calculators, etc. As I mentioned before, the key to educating the voters is to "Keep it simple, stupid" or K.I.S.S. Don't make it any more complicated than you have to, and more people will listen and understand.

Bottom line in all of this (regardless of how we present it ) is that Dave Jones was wrong and I'm reasonably sure he knew he was wrong. He didn't care. He's trying to frighten people who don't understand into thinking they'll be unable to purchases necessities, they'll be facing huge increases in costs for the few elective purchases they make, etc.

That, to me, in unconscionable. If you're really trying to look out for the people, you don't scare them to death with "facts" that simply do not stand up to the light of day.

And, on that, I'm pretty sure we can agree.

 

[1kingzfan]

I'm trying to use examples that most people will be able to follow without having to grab their bank statements, credit card bills, calculators, etc. As I mentioned before, the key to educating the voters is to "Keep it simple, stupid" or K.I.S.S. Don't make it any more complicated than you have to, and more people will listen and understand.

The point of my original post, which apparently got diverted somewhat, was to make folks think about ALL the things they pay for that are taxable, especially things that they may not pay for each and every month.

A summary way to figure out an added tax amount is just great and is demonstrative for all here. But don't forget to also subtract other big ticket items before calculating the estimated extra tax, like car notes, car insurance, and credit card monthly payments

I'm sorry if I offended anyone here for suggesting to spend a couple minutes to get a handle on what you actually spend.

Bottom line in all of this (regardless of how we present it ) is that Dave Jones was wrong and I'm reasonably sure he knew he was wrong. He didn't care. He's trying to frighten people who don't understand into thinking they'll be unable to purchases necessities, they'll be facing huge increases in costs for the few elective purchases they make, etc.

That, to me, in unconscionable. If you're really trying to look out for the people, you don't scare them to death with "facts" that simply do not stand up to the light of day.

And, on that, I'm pretty sure we can agree.

And we do.

 

[kennadog]

And I'm sorry if my post caused some of the comments. Altho I know it will hurt poor people on the taxable items they have no choice on whether to buy or not, I was still saying that the more income a person has, the more total dollars they will pay. And yes, most of the big necessities are not taxable, but there are quite a few items that are.

I am not saying this to oppose the tax, altho I wish it could have been financed by more than just a sales tax. It is the only deal we have to vote on, tho. And the other half a billion can go to all those other things that are needed, including programs that help lower-income households.

I figure that the proposed increase would cost me maybe an extra $10-15 a year. So I would be contributing $5-$7.50 for the arena.

Total $150-225 over 15 years or $75-112 for an arena over 15 years.

And here's where we can play the present value of dollars game. The taxpayers get an arena right now, and pay back the loan in cheaper future dollars. Altho that won't totally defray the interest on the loan. That's partly why lenders charge interest.

 

[1kingzfan]

And here's where we can play the present value of dollars game. The taxpayers get an arena right now, and pay back the loan in cheaper future dollars. Altho that won't totally defray the interest on the loan. That's partly why lenders charge interest.

Yikes!

That's brilliant, kennadog!

If anyone wants to play the "present worth" game with which parties are "really" paying what, those slightly greater tax dollars being paid by County residents in Year 15 aren't worth squat in present dollars. Naturally, then, as you stated, a complete analysis also includes interest costs on the arena loan, but so be it.

Moral of the story: If some columnist wants to start evaluating the "deal" in terms of present dollars, he/she has to look at every part of the deal (what EVERYONE is paying and WHEN) before drawing some conclusion about "real" percentages and fairness of the deal. That includes the Maloofs' tremendous loss of the time value of money for paying back the $70+ M loan early.