I was the recipient of Win's word while grabbing a drink in Allyn's Lodge Sat. I was't even sure it was Win ( he wasn't wearing a helmet) but did hear him say the ropes wer coming down ( or already down) for Spills and Ripcord..
So thanks Win, it made the last few runs of the day great and all natural snow to boot!

Read his letter on VR as well. Well look, every time taxes go up , especially in a Red state, you are never going to see them go down.
You all remember the Killington story about succeeding and becoming part of NH because they send $20M to Montpelier and got $1M back in school aid. . .or some such nonsense.
Have seen my non-resident taxes even in Fayston head north 20% since 2003. Money is never the answer for better services from the government. Improvement comes from the private sector because we have to feed and house families. Gov, when failing, has no competition to take it's meal away, they just ask for more bread - and we give it.

Until we have another Boston Tea Party, belly up to the tax bar with a full wallet.

This is the problem with lower taxes nationally. . . . .as soon as it was done by Reagan in '82, the income to the Fed almost tripled. . .Congress then just spent 4 times that amount.
Same thing with Bush cuts - Treasury has had record income this year- deficit is down from $500B to $150B. 5 years before that was projected to be, and during a war to boot.

Keep the cash locally and hence the control of it's spending. Until then vote ( early and often)!

Not to get completely O/T, but that must be the most selective use of data I've ever seen.

You do realize that Bush inherited a govt that ran surpluses a few years in a row, right? The $500B deficit was almost entirely of his own making.

Now back to your regularly scheduled skiing conversation.

Tin Woodsman wrote:

Not to get completely O/T, but that must be the most selective use of data I've ever seen. You do realize that Bush inherited a govt that ran surpluses a few years in a row, right? The $500B deficit was almost entirely of his own making. Now back to your regularly scheduled skiing conversation.

Thanks Tin. I'd just like to add that when prices for products and services go up (see the price of gas) also known as inflation, the cost to the government increases as well. Hence the need for increased tax rates when incomes are steady. So if you want the roads paved and plowed, teachers salaries paid etc., you have to pay for it.

The key issue is actually who determines the tax rate and who feels the pain. In Vermont a very large number of voter are immunized from the impact of high property taxes in towns like Warren and and therefore more likely to tolerant an inefficient tax system. Milton Friedman, the great economist, once said that people spend other people's money differently than they spend their own. The property tax system in Vermont is broken, and it will have some dire consequences in the long run if it is not addressed. Student enrollment in the State has gone down materially and yet expenditures have gone up significantly and there is no evidence that this has had any effect on the quality of education. This is a complicated issue, but when a town like Warren has a school budget of $2.8 million, collects nearly $10 million is property taxes and sends $6 million to Montepelier and only gets a small percentage back, one has to question the system. Stowe by the way lends $19 million to Montepelier.

As Tin said, "enough" of that! It rained a lot last night. It was very firm up top today. I only wish more people had been out because human grooming would have been great. I demoed some skis and the factory edges had now trouble out there. We are resuming snowmaking after 8pm tonight on mid-mountain. We will get some snow tonight. The week forecast is looking good, and I am predicting another good weekend. So plan to be out on the slopes.

My Warren real estate taxes are up 60% in a 4 year period, without any additions, renovations or improvements. That is an unsustainable rate of increase. Win's point in his VR letter was that there was a significant increase in the gross revenue raised in Warren from real estate taxes due to Claybrook, but the money went to Montpelier, not to Warren. No one really cares about the problem because it lands heaviest on non-resident owners, who personify the meaning of "taxation without representation". As one of the chief sources of revenue in a state (and valley) with insignificant business generation, tourism needs to be nurtured, not punished. Nonresident owners are a major part of tourism revenue. Nuf said...

The main thrust of my original message was to point out the Win's word feature on the Bush website, which described last weekend better than anything else I've read, but which is buried in the website and appeared to be obsolete on the home page when, in fact, it was fresh. If Win keeps writing informative stuff it should be highlighted on the website.

We ski to avoid thinking about taxes and other problems beyond human solution.

win wrote:

The key issue is actually who determines the tax rate and who feels the pain. In Vermont a very large number of voter are immunized from the impact of high property taxes in towns like Warren and and therefore more likely to tolerant an inefficient tax system. Milton Friedman, the great economist, once said that people spend other people's money differently than they spend their own. The property tax system in Vermont is broken, and it will have some dire consequences in the long run if it is not addressed. Student enrollment in the State has gone down materially and yet expenditures have gone up significantly and there is no evidence that this has had any effect on the quality of education. This is a complicated issue, but when a town like Warren has a school budget of $2.8 million, collects nearly $10 million is property taxes and sends $6 million to Montepelier and only gets a small percentage back, one has to question the system. Stowe by the way lends $19 million to Montepelier. As Tin said, "enough" of that! It rained a lot last night. It was very firm up top today. I only wish more people had been out because human grooming would have been great. I demoed some skis and the factory edges had now trouble out there. We are resuming snowmaking after 8pm tonight on mid-mountain. We will get some snow tonight. The week forecast is looking good, and I am predicting another good weekend. So plan to be out on the slopes.

I don't know anything about the particulars of VT local and state tax policy. I wasn't commenting on that, but on the general complaint about rising governmental spending. While Friedman may have been correct, the last 25 years have proven that, at least on the federal level, tax cuts have not restrained spending nor made government more efficient.

Howie, admit it: you've had a crush on Hillary since Whitewater.

Anyway, bottom line on Uncle Milton is this: fewer federal tax dollars collected means less federal spending means less waste, and as you point out a potential cut in federal services - - but that scenario does not pre-suppose reduced availability of resources at the local level whether from local taxes (staying local within the comunity), donations, private sector funds, etc. Not Utopia but neither is it Whitewater.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program...

boze wrote:

Howie, admit it: you've had a crush on Hillary since Whitewater. Anyway, bottom line on Uncle Milton is this: fewer federal tax dollars collected means less federal spending means less waste, and as you point out a potential cut in federal services - - but that scenario does not pre-suppose reduced availability of resources at the local level whether from local taxes (staying local within the comunity), donations, private sector funds, etc. Not Utopia but neither is it Whitewater. We now return to our regularly scheduled program...

That's what I love about you. You never let the facts get in the way of what you believe.

Read this article. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/tax-cuts The theory is simply not true. You can continue to believe in this fantasy to all our detriment.

....don't even get me going on Warren village Grand List assessment inequities.....

Tin,

That deficit was headed there either way - the small ( surprisingly with 2000 market crash and 9/11) reccesion was coming. . .and those surpluses, even though projected, were for one reason and one reason only - a ( somewhat) conservative Congress installed in '94. They are the only body allowed to spend money- presidents can only propose, Congress has last word. They bring home bacon for re-election because voters decide on 'what-did-he-do-for-me, instead of what's fiscally responsible nationally.

This is why I think a lot of folks threw out the previous Congress (even though they were mostly RHINO's)
I'm a Freidman beleiver myself. I'm guessing these guys never skied though. . . . . .

Besides, we've never been in a war and not had deficit spending. I'm still not sold on the fact that too cheap money from the feds have caused a good part of the problem. I'm guessing these guys don't ski either. . . . . . .

Anyway, you're right, back to snow in forecast almost EVERYDAY, and at 3000'? Even more!

jwt wrote:

Tin, That deficit was headed there either way - the small ( surprisingly with 2000 market crash and 9/11) reccesion was coming. . .and those surpluses, even though projected, were for one reason and one reason only - a ( somewhat) conservative Congress installed in '94. They are the only body allowed to spend money- presidents can only propose, Congress has last word. They bring home bacon for re-election because voters decide on 'what-did-he-do-for-me, instead of what's fiscally responsible nationally. This is why I think a lot of folks threw out the previous Congress (even though they were mostly RHINO's) I'm a Freidman beleiver myself. I'm guessing these guys never skied though. . . . . . Besides, we've never been in a war and not had deficit spending. I'm still not sold on the fact that too cheap money from the feds have caused a good part of the problem. I'm guessing these guys don't ski either. . . . . . .

The recession in 2000 was the mildest on record. It barely deserves the name. And those surpluses weren't just projected - they were achieved. You pointed out that the administration should be given a pat on the back for cutting taxes and increasing revenue. Well, the economy has grown for 7 years since they've been in office - it would be a miracle if tax revenues weren't at an all-time high.

I'm as big a fan of traditional Liberalism (big L) and limited govt as anyone. But when tax cuts become the end unto themselves instead of a means to an end, then you've got a problem. If Bush was so alarmed at the tide of red ink his tax cuts and irresponsible policy initiatives (Rx for the elderly etc..), then why didn't he exercise his veto even once prior to 2006? Do you think all of these policy and budgetary changes happened against his will. Let's not be naive here.

This only serves to underline the point that it is dangerous to have the same party controlling Congress and the White House. Ideology and ballwashing come to the fore instead of good policy resulting from compromise.

Ahem:

http://forums.skimrv.com/viewtopic.php?t=37

Note especially:

Quote:

Political Posts: Political posts are not allowed. Any political topic that is started will be immediately deleted. Any thread that degenerates into a political debate will result in either the political posts within the thread being deleted, or if all other points regarding the initial topic have been made, the thread may be locked. The administrator and moderators reserve the right to edit or delete any topic containing a political post at any time.

Greg wrote:

Ahem: http://forums.skimrv.com/viewtopic.php?t=37 Note especially: Quote: Political Posts: Political posts are not allowed. Any political topic that is started will be immediately deleted. Any thread that degenerates into a political debate will result in either the political posts within the thread being deleted, or if all other points regarding the initial topic have been made, the thread may be locked. The administrator and moderators reserve the right to edit or delete any topic containing a political post at any time.

Thank You. I was waiting for this......

freeheel_skier wrote:

Greg wrote: Ahem: http://forums.skimrv.com/viewtopic.php?t=37 Note especially: Quote: Political Posts: Political posts are not allowed. Any political topic that is started will be immediately deleted. Any thread that degenerates into a political debate will result in either the political posts within the thread being deleted, or if all other points regarding the initial topic have been made, the thread may be locked. The administrator and moderators reserve the right to edit or delete any topic containing a political post at any time. Thank You. I was waiting for this......

So....say! That Win Smith- what a guy, huh?

Greg wrote:

Ahem: http://forums.skimrv.com/viewtopic.php?t=37 Note especially: Quote: Political Posts: Political posts are not allowed. Any political topic that is started will be immediately deleted. Any thread that degenerates into a political debate will result in either the political posts within the thread being deleted, or if all other points regarding the initial topic have been made, the thread may be locked. The administrator and moderators reserve the right to edit or delete any topic containing a political post at any time.

Thanx Greg.

Beat me to the punch... I have a lot I wanted to say on this, but this is not the forum for it. I looked this morning and decided I had to put an official stop to it... but first I had to go skiing.


By the way, skiing this morning was quite nice. I didn't dare to try Organgrinder, which I would guess was ice bumps under a little fresh, but the cruisers had some of the fresh mixed in and a lot to be found on top, here and there.

Nice.