newsobserver.com projects - Barry Boardman - Comments

Re: Stimulus costs less

RebilVox — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:02:32 -0500

The state cannot lose something that it never had in the first place. Anticipated income from taxpayers may end up being more or less than anticipated, but to count it as a loss implies that it was somehow the property of the state from the beginning (that was then cruelly stripped away by mean old tax decreases). Subtle distinction, but one that seems to typify the current government approach to our money.

Re: Stimulus costs less

FFC1304 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:29:52 -0500

let NC be the FIRST state to embrace the technique of the FAIRTAX.org !!!

Re: Stimulus costs less

FFC1304 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:26:56 -0500

Why dont they do the patriotic and NOBLE thing and abolish NC state income taxes altogether? Its time for a CHANGE, remember?

Re: State collections down 6.1 percent

isittrue — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:40:04 -0500

Does the 6.1% include falling revenues for the NCDOT - that is, the revenue NCDOT receives from the gas tax, car sales, and regisrations? If not, how much is that revenue stream down?

Re: State revenue down 6.1 percent

bniolet — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:30:00 -0500

It means tax collections are down 6.1 percent from expectations for this year. Sorry for the lack of clarity. — BLN

Re: State revenue down 6.1 percent

dmarps — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:17:28 -0500

The headline and trhe story are not clear on what "State revenue down 6.1 percent" means. Are revenues down 6.1 per cent from last year or 6.1 per cent below estimates for this year?

Saying "down 6.1 per cent" implies down from the past year. Revenues could be down 6.1 per cent from the state's estimates or plans and actually be above last years'.

Of course saying "Down 6.1 per cent" implies down from the past; if that's not the case, you could well be making the situation sound worse than it is, which the state politicians prefer, of course. That enables them to ask for even more tax and fee increases.

From many years in business management, I can tell you that a six per cent reduction of costs from one year to the next can be done, especially after years of increasing expenditures. There will be weeping and wailing, but is is achievable if management wants to do it.

Re: State revenue down 6.1 percent

profbam — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:32:49 -0500

Departments of the State of NC have been asked to draw up budgets for next year that include a 10% permanent cut. Most have operating expenses that are 2% - 4% of total budget, the rest is salaries and benefits. The ONLY way to make 10% cuts is to terminate currently filled positions. Those folks will stop paying taxes, reduce spending at stores, collect unemployment and Medicaid, and otherwise increase the demands on the State's social network.

The only alternative is rotating furloughs in order to save in salaries the necessary amount of money. State personnel are demoralized as is. It WILL get worse.

Re: State revenue down 6.1 percent

informed — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:57:39 -0500

"if it doesn't get worse"

There's no question it will get worse, what is unknown is how much worse, since no one is using the word "mild" in this downturn.

Re: State revenue down 6.1 percent

chilled — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:20:21 -0500

That's much better than other states...we can handle 6%,if it doesn't get worse...

Re: State revenue down 5 percent

tangoz — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:12:47 -0500

The voters in this state that voted for the same people who have created this mess should take a long hard look in the mirror. Our Democratic politicians not only have borrowed billions over the last few years, they have neglected to reign in government spending. Maybe in two years the voters will decide to make a few changes, nah why would I think that?