Who do you want as the next Governor of Ohio?

[Disclaimer]

Well hot damn, I'm salary... now I just need to convince my boss that it's not gonna cost them any more if I take a couple extra days vacation each year. A couple extras days for me means a lot more than someone who gets 12 weeks+ already.

[kawi kid]

Ben is right.... salary is salary

[Disclaimer]

Would you take the same salary for MORE vacation days, or less? It's your tax dollars folks.

[Beegreenstrings]

Gotta go republican

[Disclaimer]

Cost to secure Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich's home withheld

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20110102/UPDATES01/110102001/1002/NEWS01

COLUMBUS (AP) — Officials aren't commenting on the cost of securing Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich's private home.

Kasich and his family plan to stay in their home in Westerville, outside

Columbus, rather than moving into the state's governor residence. This

means taxpayers will foot the bill for security improvements to their

house.The Columbus Dispatch says the State Highway Patrol —

which protects the governor — won't comment on the costs. A Kasich

spokesman also refused to discuss the security arrangements.A

patrol spokesman tells the newspaper that money for the upgrades will

come from a $6.4 million fund used for the governor's patrol guards and

other security.Kasich is the first governor to live outside the governor's home since the 1970s.

And if you're curious, the last governor that lived outside the home was -

The house has been occupied by Ohio's governors ever since, except for 1975–1983, the third and fourth terms of Governor James A. Rhodes.

(He had lived in the house during his first two terms, from 1963–1971,

but then acquired a Columbus residence of his own and remained there

after his return to the governorship.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Governor%27s_Mansion

Mr. Rhodes was a Republican as well, and the guy in charge when the Kent State shootings went down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Rhodes

I wonder why they're withholding costs? What would this guy from the party of fiscal responsibility possibly be hiding? Hmmmm.....

[C-bus]

I'm a little miffed about this. Part of the job, in my opinion.

[Bad324]

I'm a little miffed about this. Part of the job, in my opinion.

agreed. I sort of like the guy but like most politicians, I'll never agree with everything they do or say

[jbot]

that's a bunch of bullshit. that's like the president NOT living in the white house, or taking his wife on a dinner date several states away because his world class chef isn't good enough.

[eggs]

Maybe he just wants to work form home

Actually i really don't give a flying fuck where he lives, He just needs to do a good job (hopefully)

[Bad324]

Maybe he just wants to work form home

Actually i really don't give a flying fuck where he lives, He just needs to do a good job (hopefully)

I don't care where he lives either but the deal about it is how much extra it costs and is going to cost for him to live there

[eggs]

I don't care where he lives either but the deal about it is how much extra it costs and is going to cost for him to live there

Good point, I forgot..hey aren't going to disclose that info .

And i wonder if when he is no longer gubner..if he gets to keep the upgrades

[Disclaimer]

Look at it this way... Governors Mansion is paid for - done, one house bought awhile ago by the taxpayers (along with the millions of others last year -- but that's in another thread) with all the amenities required for the governor.

Kasich's personal house will need 'x' dollars in upgrades, and I'd surmise that our tax money is paying for his mortgage for at least the time that's he's governor. If they need to rewire the house for surveillance, reinforce walls, make additions... I don't know how he'll give those upgrades back to the taxpayer. In fact, he'll get a taxpayer upgraded house, taxpayers paid mortgage, and no-tax on the first $500k of profit from selling it when he moves.

Win-win-win for Kasich.

Lose-lose-lose for taxpayers.

That's the GOP way. Looking out for himself over the 'general welfare' of the people he was elected to serve.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To recap, so far he's proposed less school days for children, and decided to live in his own home and hidden the cost to the taxpayers. Great start for Ohio.

[Disclaimer]

I'm just saying Kasich isn't off to a stellar start so far...

But feel free to find all the wasteful programs the last gov-elect spent money -- I'd like to read them.

Edit: Upgrading his personal house would be a wise move for someone who wants to eliminate the Estate Tax... http://willsandwealth.blogspot.com/2010/08/ohio-estate-tax-strickland-vs-kasich.html

By all accounts, John Kasich, the Republican candidate for Ohio governor, supports the elimination of the Ohio estate tax, or "death tax," as he and other Republicans often refer to it. This position has been reported by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and on Kasich's own website.

....

As to this current structure, and as you might recall from previous posts, the Ohio estate tax is imposed on net estates over $338,333 at a rate of 6%, and then the rate increases to 7% on amounts over $500,000. Proceeds from life insurance are generally not subject to estate tax, and amounts passing to charities or to a surviving spouse are also not subject to estate tax. The tax is imposed on the "net estate," so debts and expenses are deductible. Ohio tax laws, like federal tax laws, provide a "stepped up basis" so that any unrealized capital gains at the time an individual passes away are effectively wiped away.

As you also might recall from previous posts, of the tax collected on any given estate, 80% goes to the municipality in which the decedent resided. According to the Plain Dealer, a repeal of the estate tax would "cut around $240 million from local governments," so presumably the Plain Dealer is calculating the total annual revenue generated by the estate tax to be in the neighborhood of $300 million.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There's a budget deficit issue in Ohio, and it's fairly severe. The only way to fix the issue is for the state's revenue to exceed its spending by a wide margin. Before I jump on the Kasich bandwagon and support the elimination of the estate tax (and, for that matter, the elimination of the state income tax, which provides 40% of the state's budget and which Kasich is in favor of repealing), I need to see how he plans on raising additional revenue, and what government spending and programs he plans on eliminating.

I have no doubt that there is wasteful spending that could easily be cut, but when Strickland had to go through a round of budget cuts last year, I remember reading stories like this one, from the Dayton Daily News, about how the state's public library system was in grave danger when its budget was reduced by $112 million in 2010 (from $458 million in 2008, to $360 million in 2009, to $248 million in 2010). For me, that story highlighted the point that not all government spending is wasteful, and budget cuts can mean the funding of valuable programs will be reduced or eliminated altogether.

Edited January 3, 2011 by JRMMiii

[cg2112]

The governor cannot write anything into our state constitution, or do anything even remotely like writing something into the constitution. Hell, he can't fix a typo, much less write a private corporation into it.

[cg2112]

There's nothing semantic about it. He doesn't have the power to approve an amendment, either. There's no such thing as executive approval of a constitutional amendment. He has no power to approve, veto, or otherwise cause an amendment to be passed or not to be passed. An amendment to the state constitution can only be made if three-fifths of the General Assembly (House and Senate) vote in favor of placing the proposed amendment on a ballot, and the people then vote to adopt the amendment.

[C-bus]

I'm just saying Kasich isn't off to a stellar start so far...

But feel free to find all the wasteful programs the last gov-elect spent money -- I'd like to read them.

Edit: Upgrading his personal house would be a wise move for someone who wants to eliminate the Estate Tax... http://willsandwealth.blogspot.com/2010/08/ohio-estate-tax-strickland-vs-kasich.html

What kind of an asshole would believe the government shouldn't be entitled to your already-taxed assets once you die? The estate tax is nothing more than state-sponsored thievery. Punish those who've made good decisions and have contributed to society while continuing to reward the parasites. The American way.

[Disclaimer]

What kind of an asshole would believe the government shouldn't be entitled to your already-taxed assets once you die? The estate tax is nothing more than state-sponsored thievery. Punish those who've made good decisions and have contributed to society while continuing to reward the parasites. The American way.

You're right. Pardon me. I guess I was just having a weak moment trying to recall what "good decisions" people like

and Tony Hayward made that contributed to society. Though I suppose Tony does have a legitimate "contribution".

Here I thought you didn't want to reward the parasites, but if they're parasites from dead people who made good decisions 60 years ago, then it's ok. If my daddy was awesome, but I'm a pinhead, then I should be entitled to not have to work for anything.

Edited January 4, 2011 by JRMMiii

[cg2112]

What kind of an asshole would believe the government shouldn't be entitled to your already-taxed assets once you die? The estate tax is nothing more than state-sponsored thievery. Punish those who've made good decisions and have contributed to society while continuing to reward the parasites. The American way.

It doesn't punish those who have made good decisions and who have contributed to society. It's an inheritance tax - the person who made the good decisions is dead.

It's more like income to the person receiving the inheritance. When you get income, you pay tax on that income. If your parents give you $3 million dollars while they're alive, you've got to pay taxes on that.

My primary objection to the inheritance tax is more or less the idea that it's just bad taste to tax money coming from your dead dad.

[C-bus]

You're right. Pardon me. I guess I was just having a weak moment trying to recall what "good decisions" people like

and Tony Hayward made that contributed to society. Though I suppose Tony does have a legitimate "contribution".

Here I thought you didn't want to reward the parasites, but if they're parasites from dead people who made good decisions 60 years ago, then it's ok. If my daddy was awesome, but I'm a pinhead, then I should be entitled to not have to work for anything.

I'd say the Hiltons have contributed significantly via payroll, property, and capital gains taxes. But after that, the government is entitled to more? Paris Hilton supports more parasites in a year than you and I will in a lifetime. Her contribution, though purely financial, is indeed significant.

[Disclaimer]

No no no... you can't get away that easy.

You said "the Hiltons" - referring to her granddad. The rest of the family is just riding coattails. What's their incentive to be anything more than lucky parasites?

Paris herself only supports more people than you and I because she inherited and spends more money each year than you or I.

A parasite is a parasite regardless of their net worth. What incentive does Paris, or any of her heirs have to be anything more than f*(kups when they'll be trust-fund babies all their lives. They don't contribute to the betterment of society, all they do is consume frivolously.

At least the parasites you're referring to spend everything they get. There's not a lot of people on welfare that have a huge lump of cash in the bank. The gov't gives them money, they spend it right away on goods, normal goods (bread, milk, cigarettes, gas, heat, electric, mortgage/rent) - stimulating the economy...70% of which is based on consumer spending.

Paris contributes to people that are already rich socialites - club owners, Bentley Automobiles, and basically gets paid by people to show up places... that's the opposite direction.

Edited January 4, 2011 by JRMMiii

[C-bus]

I'd say the Hiltons have contributed significantly via payroll, property, and capital gains taxes. But after that, the government is entitled to more? Paris Hilton supports more parasites in a year than you and I will in a lifetime. Her contribution, though purely financial, is indeed significant.

Rich people don't build the Bentley, wait the tables, transport the liquor. I am only arguing the government's entitlement to already-taxed assets. Paris is a humorous example, what about the farmer who inherits his family property now worth $800,000 because 75 years after purchase, someone builds a Nordstrom a mile away. Now this farmer has to give up the family farm that he has worked his entire life or come up with the coin to pay the taxes? My goal is to negotiate life making ethical decisions and have enough after I die to give my kids and grandkids a piece of my legacy. The global concept of helping those who need help is not foreign to me nor do I shy from it. However, when the reality of many of their situations hit,it's a different issue. Do you know how many employees over the years have asked for their hours to be cut so they don't lose their benefits? How many people rush out to do their taxes so They can capitalize on their "earned income tax credit" where they get more back in tax refund than they ever paid simply because They didn't pull out sooner.... and the waste it on crap.....parasites. Lost a job, down on your luck, trying to get back on your feet, need some interim help..... not a parasite. I don't want there to be any mistake with what I am referring to.

[Disclaimer]

I wonder how many "Paris Hiltons" there are compared the "Farmer land heirs", both are outliers from the norm, but I'm sure there one side is greater than the other. Plus, may of those "farmers" gets LOTS of other gov't subsidies, but that's another discussion I suppose.

And in the farmer example, then I guess you'd have to determine how much land is really necessary for one person to own. There again, your grandpappy or whoever made an investment and made money off the land, but if you don't farm, what are you going to do with 20,000 acres? I mean, it's America so you're free do with your money what you want, but anytime it changes hands (eg. via death, or sale) it's a chance to reevaluate it's worth. Either way, I guess anytime someone inherits something, especially if it's sizable I dunno how you can complain -- it's still something they got for free, like rich-mans welfare.

[cg2112]

http://governor.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=1692

You're right. I apologize. However' date=' he ran on a campaign against gambling, then said he'd cut services if it didn't pass. Any governor that supports a ballot initiative to amend the constitution and have private corporations written into them is a shitbag. And anyone that supports his support of such an initiative is also a shitbag. I couldn't care less if someone wants to gamble themselves into poverty. I don't give a damn what happens to them, but supporting legislature that provides a monopoly in the market was not the right thing to do. I guess it's alright, though. Any losses you incur while gambling are a tax deduction... that ought to be good for the state's budget, eh?[/quote']

The state constitution does not provide a monopoly, nor are there any private corporations written into it. The constitutional amendment which allows four casinos in the state makes no mention whatsoever of any private corporation.

I would agree with you - a governor who supports giving any kind of preferential treatment of specific private corporation within the state constitution is kind of a shitbag. But it didn't happen here. In fact, the constitution specifically prohibits a monopoly - no casino operator may own more than two casinos in the state at any time.

As far as the claim that Strickland said he'd cut services if it didn't pass - that makes no sense. He was on fliers opposing the amendment. At the same time, he was actively campaigning for governor.

Are you saying that while Strickland was actively campaigning against the casinos, he was also actively threatening to cut services if the amendment didn't pass? In the same campaign of the same election?

I am only arguing the government's entitlement to already-taxed assets. Paris is a humorous example, what about the farmer who inherits his family property now worth $800,000 because 75 years after purchase, someone builds a Nordstrom a mile away.

That's a common misconception. The assets are not already taxed.

Monetary transactions are taxed as they are received.

For instance, your company makes money, it gets taxed. Then they pay you money, and when you get that money, it is taxed. The fact that your company was already taxed for their income does not mean that you will not get taxed for yours, simply because it comes from the same dollars.

Inheritance is much the same - your grandfather was already taxed on his earnings. That doesn't mean that when you inherit his millions, you shouldn't get taxed on your new earnings. Your grandfather was taxed on HIS earnings. You are being taxed on YOUR earnings.

Further, a person who inherits a family property worth $800,000 will be just fine. At least, at the federal level, $800,000 is way below the bracket for any estate tax. In Ohio, there would be a 6% tax. That's a burden, certainly, but nothing like the 55% the feds used to take.

Edited January 4, 2011 by cg2112

[Disclaimer]

I would really like an animated troll gif

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2011/01/20/ohio-governor-lacking-diversity-in-appointments-ap-says/

Race War!!!!

[C-bus]

I would really like an animated troll gif

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2011/01/20/ohio-governor-lacking-diversity-in-appointments-ap-says/

Race War!!!!

I heard kasich Just installed separate (but equal) drinking fountains at his office. seriously though, straight white guys have no business in public positions of authority.