About Me

My photo
Go out with you? Why not... Do I like to dance? Of course! Take a walk along the beach tonight? I'd love to. But don't try to touch me. Don't try to touch me. Because that will never happen again. "Past, Present and Future"-The Shangri-Las

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

My last post mentioning Larry Langford, honest

It's "Mission Accomplished" for Larry; he's been allowed to put a big tax burden on the poor with a regressive tax, no one seems to care, and now he better provide all the stuff he's promised to supply (rotsa ruck). I want lower crime, better education, and economic prosperity in Birmingham as much as anyone, but there's a difference between loud promises and actual accomplishments. Would it have killed us to put the tax burden on folks who can afford yachts, rather than people who can't afford rowboats?

5 comments:

Jonathan said...

The fact is that most B'ham residents are not wealthy (all of the wealth is in the suburbs), so any tax will be regressive. But, at least Langford is doing SOMETHING. That's certainly better than the NOTHING that has been done in the past. B'ham has the potential to be a really nice city, and to be a more regionally relevant city. Let's hope this money is put to good use, and that Langford can get the state to kick in a little also.

Aaron White said...

I doubt that ANY tax would be regressive. I walk around my neighborhood (Forest Park) and see magnificent houses. These people could pay higher income tax. And most of them didn't vote for Langford; once again it's the poor who have voted overwhelmingly against their own interests. Raising taxes is always problematic, but it's possible to fine tune a progressive tax to protect the poor.

Not that Langford could fine tune anything.

Aaron White said...

By "doubt that any tax would be regressive" what I mean is, "doubt that any and all taxes would be regressive."

Jonathan said...

The fact that Langford won in a landslide should tell us that the city is in really bad shape, and really needs and wants a change, and that's why the voters didn't mind giving up a little (higher taxes) in order to get something in return. If fact, back when MAPS was proposed, and went up for a vote about 10 years ago, the citizens of B'ham approved it... it was the people outside the city who voted it down. B'ham needs to spend money in order to improve... and the citizens have shown that with their votes.

Aaron White said...

The fact that Langford won in a landslide tells me that Birmingham voters will vote for a big mouth who makes inflated promises he won't keep as long as he name-checks God a lot and gives amusing sermons. Birmingham needs change, but what kind of change? Sloppy planning, some of the highest regressive taxes in the country, jacked-up business licence fees, naked croneyism and bad math? Let the party begin.

Okay, I'm done with the Langford thing. Time for him to put up or shut up (although sadly he's likely to do neither).