I was told, here on DU, that "user fees" are not considered taxes. Seems kind of like a false parsing of language.

Maybe Ferguson will do all of us a big favor, besides showing us the discrimination against black people, perhaps it will become the recognition that the only people who pay taxes are the little people, just like Leona Helmsley said, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

It seems its going to be difficult to change this, the folks who write the laws are put in office by the money of the wealthy.

That way we can incorporate all the minor extortions that might go into the funding.

Another related problem is how parcel taxes just get passed along in rent: even where apartments are rent controlled, rent boards happily allow rent adjustments upward to take into account the increased taxes. So this, too, gets passed to the poorest person in the equation. The landlord, meanwhile, is usually getting free housing and people paying for his/her lifestyle, just because he/she had the means to invest in a large property at one time.

The Federal progressive income tax, and some State income taxes, while they offset some of the disparity, come nowhere near to offsetting the total taxation load, and as you point out, there are the off the books transfers as well. It is unfair that someone could buy a large property simply because they are 10 years older than someone else, and in that 10 years, a massive increase in property values coincided with a decrease in wages (I'm speaking generally, not about Ferguson). This seems to be a built in feature of our economic system.

The idea that the entire town of Ferguson is funded by an economic punishment model directed only against the poorest is exactly the opposite of what I was led to believe about our system, and I still have trouble wrapping my mind around it.

We are now in an information era, and acess to this information is still asymmetric. The wealthy know more about us, than we know about them. Nevertheless, it should be possible, in theory, to make every individual's expenditures a function of one's yearly income, including capital gains, i.e., "sliding scales". Curiously, privacy laws seem to prevent full access to this information, while doing nothing to prevent the collection of the same data by government entities. If it wasn't, an apple might cost a wealthy person $1000, while a poor person, $0.50. That could offset the regressiveness of sales taxes (though it still wouldn't help with ticketing and warrants and associated fees to resolve them). My understanding is that there are laws that demand all customers are charged equal amounts, even though that's currently being broken down by different pricing in different markets by the same retail-store corporations, and that seems to be legal.

I wish I had more solutions. I agree with you that poor people shouldn't be targeted and financially punished simply because they have less than others. The idea of everyone having a minimum income seems like one remedy that could be applied, though just like the wealthy have done for years and years, an entire spectrum of fixes are going to have to be applied for the next few millennia.

But I'm not an economist, so I'm not able to follow the thought much beyond that.

Also, perhaps because my mobility was limited by some chronic disabilities, I became more aware of various penalties involved in just the time it takes to get from place to place. Suddenly I noticed that public transportation wasn't subsidized for the poor. Suddenly it was more important to be near the city center where all the public services were located, but that's also where housing costs are more expensive. Suddenly I had a lot of appointments that were conflicting with each other sheerly because of the time it was taking to get from place to place. Suddenly the concept of a long commute to work became excessively draining because the mobility issues I was already having were excessively draining.

To be rich is to be nimble, to be flying around "above" petty taxes, to be going to where you will make the most money. At least that's what it seems like. To be poor is to be tied by the ankle to a particular place while everyone exploits you and picks your pocket.

sales taxes.

Problem: people in Berkeley do not drink soda, lol.

Soda consumption is down in the US altogether.

nt

So they have to use what they get from property taxes and local taxes of those who work. Some state taxes may filter down. So what is left? Maybe a toll road or some fees for registering cars. What they need to do is attract wealthy people to move there and businesses.

Only poorer people get stuck in one place.

Generally, when I read, "attract wealthy ... businesses", it generally means giving special deals not given to others, like lower taxes. That seems to be more the same the same problem, not less.

It drives me crazy that "attract business" means give aways to the wealthy.

The "employment" these businesses offer seem to be increasingly on exploitative terms: long term temp jobs and the like, while the companies mainly outsource from abroad.

"city jobs" too. they have a network to help each other get them. everyone else pays.

There are two many ways people form patterns and groups above and beyond their geographical location. However, poor people are the least mobile, the most trapped in place. That's why they pay the most. Ironically, that goes for sales taxes, too.

For mostly nonviolent driving related offenses.

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger

Can you imagine the level of harassment that was going on? I can't.

And this is how the PD reacts to its citizens' anger:




Anyone who thinks this is just about Michael Brown is ignoring the true issues at hand.

...in terms of getting jobs, getting into college, government clearances, licenses, loans - I'm sure these "official records" curtail just about every aspect of these people's lives.

Just so the local 1% can have a town under them they can rule...? Geez.

nt