Weekend Link Dump 11/8-9 Simon Says
by Ice Cream on Nov 8, 2008 9:46 AM PST
58 comments
Simon Says promotion falls short of world record.
Other Simons say: "I'm sorry! I'm sorry!"
"Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio?"
"Mickey Mantle wet his bed 'til he was 16 years old?"
"Eaahh!"
"I want to apologize to her and the fans of Milwaukee."
"I'm thirsty. Give me a cup of tea!"
"If only I had been born Italian. All the best Yankees are Italian."
Dump away.
Ha! You're out.
I didn't say, "Simon says...".
3 recs |
58 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Simon says, "California's budget mess could affect A's 2009 ticket prices"
The A’s announced back in September that ticket prices would not increase in 2009, and will actually go down in a few sections.
But now there’s a problem. In Governor Schwarzenegger’s latest tax proposal, he not only wants to increase the state sales tax by 150 basis points, but it looks like he also wants to apply that tax to some things that it has not applied to before…including tickets to sporting events.
The Governor is proposing $4.7 billion in new revenues for the current budget year in the form of:
A Temporary Sales Tax Increase: A temporary increase in the state sales tax (from 5 percent to 6.5 percent) will generate additional sales tax revenues of $3.5 billion in 2008-09 for the General Fund. It will also effectively protect significant education funding. At the end of three years, the state sales tax would revert to 5 percent.
Broadening the Sales and Use Tax to Include Certain Services: Effective February 1, 2009, the sales and use tax rate will be applied to appliance and furniture repair, vehicle repair, golf, and veterinarian services. Effective March 1, 2009, the sales and use tax rate will be applied to amusement parks and sporting events. This is expected to generate additional General Fund sales tax revenue of $357 million in 2008-09.
[blah blah more revenue proposals]
So you are conceivably talking about the sales tax on A’s tickets going from zero to 10.25 percent. (The current rate in Alameda County, with the local add-ons, is 8.75 percent; Schwarzenegger’s proposal would raise it to 10.25 percent.) That is, uh, significant. We’ll see what comes out of this special session of the Legislature, but for those of us who attend games, obviously this is an issue to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.
by Soaker on Nov 8, 2008 2:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Variation
Could Schwarzenegger instead put a “suck tax” on Bobby Crosby’s salary, retroactive to when it was signed?
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Nov 8, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that would have piggybacked nicely on SF'S Prop K
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Nov 8, 2008 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which was?
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Nov 8, 2008 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, sales tax
The tax which manages to be simultaneously worse than income tax and NO taxes. So, needless to say, it’s the only tax that everyone in politics seems to support.
General sales taxes should be constitutionally abolished as a concept.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 8, 2008 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't agree more.
Although we’re both subjecting ourselves to a CGV here…
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Nov 8, 2008 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh? What was that?
My brain cells are fading, I’ve got no idea what this CGV thing is.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Nov 8, 2008 8:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The most regressive tax possible in these circumstances
Depresses purchasing power, and simultaneously taxes lower-income people disproportionately.
This is the “Smoot Hawley” of the 21st century!!
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Nov 9, 2008 10:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the concept of sales tax.
Everyone who consumes then pays.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 9, 2008 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's exactly what you do not want...
partly because it’s a regressive tax, which is both immoral and foolish, and partly because the absolute last thing you want to do in an economic downturn is to discourage consumption.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 9, 2008 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like it because it is fair.
Even if you are on welfare you pay and to me that’s not the least bit immoral. Noone deserves a tax free life IMO.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 9, 2008 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me get this straight
A deal between two people is made and a third party steps in and takes additional money off the top for a product they neither made nor sold themselves is fair? They also take money from both parties already for both the right to live there and to work there? So essentially you don’t see a problem with this third party to take money from all ends?
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Nov 9, 2008 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
{shuts off DMOAS' internet}
{disconnects DMOAS’ home road from the Interstate system}
{sells DMOAS’ kids Chinese formula with melamine}
{allows the British Navy to impress DMOAS on a frigate}
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Nov 9, 2008 11:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+ ∞
I hereby annoint this the best comment in the history of AN commentary.
On the other hand, it’s pretty early. I could be overreacting. For whatever reason, the wee hours calm (purple darkness, blinkering lights, low level traffic murmurs) tends to paper over my usual tone of dismissive irony with wide-eyed rhapsodic waxing.
I might check in later, having eased a bit further into the day, and conclude that it’s like the fourth or seventh best comment. Still top-notch, though.
{Renders DMOAS’ savings account uncomfortably precarious}
{Routes DMOAS’ 911 call to local Kinko’s}
{Un-flushes DMOAS’ toilet}
by 74mk on Nov 10, 2008 6:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
{Makes ad for extra room}
{Calls 911 to have copies made}
{Waits for simian-smell friendly roommate}
{Wishes that someone was smart enough to contact freecreditreport.com}
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Nov 10, 2008 7:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow... strong argument
PT: Sales Tax is unfair. IM4Oakgal: Sales tax is fair.
PT’s point – which, for the record, I completely agree with – is that a sales tax falls disproportionately upon low income people (who actually have to spend most of their income to live) and discourages consumption by those who can afford to make a choice.
Both of these things are bad, and the “everyone pays the same rate so it’s fair” argument is as absurd in this context as it is in the income tax context.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Nov 9, 2008 5:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why does a sales tax...
especially discourage consumption? An income tax also discourages consumption because it also reduces the amount of money one has. By eliiminating income tax one encourges productivity, hard work, getting ahead, because these activities are not taxed. We’d have a more productive and prosperous society without an income tax. Presumably,the poor would participate in this expansion of hard work and prosperity. A result of increased prosperity would be increased spending.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 9, 2008 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I kinda agree with you
we have a sales tax in my country, and i never heard anybody saying that they won’t buy something because of the tax.
by jahs34 on Nov 9, 2008 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of very nice assumptions, none of which turn out to be remotely true in real life
People work hard because they have to. If you do not work, you will not have any money and your life will suck miserably. Surprisingly enough, it turns out most people aren’t real thrilled with that option.
Once you’re past the point of actually having to work hard to survive, it makes very little difference what the marginal tax rate is. People still sought out big incomes even when the marginal rate was 90%, because at that kind of income level, you’re doing it for fun, or because you like your job, or because you want to be famous— not because you give a damn about dollar # 7,327,498 of the year.
Or to put that even more simply— the marginal utility of a dollar suffers from the same diminishing returns as any other commodity does. It’s societally efficient to tax the rich more heavily because you end up with a society with more utility and, thus, happier people.
As for the consumption thing, the reason why income taxes are preferable to sales taxes in economic slumps is that they primarily bite savings and investment dollars, not consumption dollars. Savings and investment are good things in the abstract, but you want more of them when the economy is booming and credit is tight, instead of when the economy is slumping and interest rates are fractions of a percent.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 9, 2008 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
People work hard because they have to. If you do not work, you will not have any money and your life will suck miserably. Surprisingly enough, it turns out most people aren’t real thrilled with that option.
I have worked a long time in a large school district and many people work very hard and many people do not. Whether one works hard (or applies oneself) is a matter of character. The people who work hard have many motivations – to say “they had to” is simplistic and in my opinion largely untrue.
Once
you’re past the point of actually having to work hard to survive, it makes very little difference what the marginal tax rate is. People still sought out big incomes even when the marginal rate was 90%, because at that kind of income level, you’re doing it for fun, or because you like your job, or because you want to be famous— not because you give a damn about dollar # 7,327,498 of the year.
Actually, it is true that some individuals will work hard even if tax rates are high, but once again that is a result of their character and values. For instance, they want to excel in the work environment and be recognized as the best by their peers and superiors.
Granting that point, does not change the fact that the vast majority will fail to exert themselves if the monetary gain is essentially confiscated. It is simply true that if you want less of a behavior, tax it more (cigarette smoking, drinking. financial success).
As for the consumption thing, the reason why income taxes are preferable to sales taxes in economic slumps is that they primarily bite savings and investment dollars, not consumption dollars. Savings and investment are good things in the abstract, but you want more of them when the economy is booming and credit is tight, instead of when the economy is slumping and interest rates are fractions of a percent.
Savings and investment are more than good things in the abstract. They are absolutely essential to providing the capital for building the future economy and the consumption which will derive from the standard of living that economy may provide. Lower savings and investment will lead to a lower standard of living in the future. To encourage more savings and investment a consumption tax is preferable. In a recession, in order to keep consumption from declining at an unfavorable rate, a TEMPORARY supplement to the poor (think Earned Income Credit) may be advisable.
I know that this is a baseball blog and we should not be discussing these topics here. The recent economic slump has put me in an odd mood and it seems it has affected you too.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 9, 2008 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to go for the low-hanging incorrect statements
An income tax also discourages consumption because it also reduces the amount of money one has.
False. An income tax might reduce consumption but only a tax on consumption discourages it. If you have $40 burning a hole in your pocket and I steal $20, you’ll still consume with the other $20. If, however, there is a 100% sales tax, you may decide to buy nothing.
The people who work hard have many motivations – to say "they had to" is simplistic and in my opinion largely untrue.
Irrelevant. Income tax doesn’t depend on what kind of employee you are, just on your salary. Since you’re talking about a school district, there are undoubtedly teachers who teach because they love it, and devote all their energy. Others teach to have a job that pays (altogether too few) bills. The income tax rate has no bearing on these attitudes.
The vast majority will fail to exert themselves if the monetary gain is essentially confiscated.
False. Please provide any evidence you have that someone who already makes enough to get into the top tax bracket decides not to try to increase their earnings because of the tax rate. Once you’re there, “compensation” is a matter of ego rather than need.
To encourage more savings and investment a consumption tax is preferable.
False. You’re absolutely right that savings are important (and the lack of savings both in fact and in culture is a large part of today’s problems). You’re absolutely wrong that a general consumption tax is the right way to encourage savings. More targeted taxes (say, luxury vehicles) may make some sense. Tax-sheltered savings are great.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Nov 9, 2008 8:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't even know where to start with you...
Just a few remarks:
One’s disposable income (after income tax) effects one’s consumption. If you don’t believe that then your mind is set and there is no reasoning with you.
Discussing people’s differing motivations to work hard was a reply to Paul’s blanket statement that people work hard because they have to. I think you missed my point.
“The vast majority will fail to exert themselves if the monetary gain is essentially confiscated.”
What can I say, this is Economics 101. If you don’t believe that then visit the former Soviet Union where the workers said “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.” They said this because no matter how much they were paid the Government did not supply consumer goods to purchase. Hence their money could not be used to satisfy their needs. The same siuation that will apply if one’s income is taxed away.
You’re absolutely wrong that a general consumption tax is the right way to encourage savings
Whether it is the “right way” to encourage savings and investment is not what we were discussing. We were comparing the effect of an income tax vs a consumption tax on savings and investment. Again my statement: “if you want less of a behavior, tax it more” is pure Econ 101. If you tax the “income” earned fom wages and investment, you will have less wages and income.
You are free to believe, or not believe, what you want, but my position is supported by orthodox economic theory and yours, well, just isn’t.
I don’t think we are going to have a meeting of the minds, anymore than I will with Paul. Clearly our ages and life experiences are different. Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 9, 2008 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Orthodox economic theory is no more correct than orthodox baseball theory
It’s rather a similar situation, actually, in that traditional economic analysis is based on a variety of assumptions about reality which seem sensible on their face but turn out to be hopelessly flawed in practice.
I’m not even going to bother with the ridiculous straw man argument about Communism. Perhaps you would like to make an argument against Polynesian kleptocracy as well? There are plenty of other crappy political-economic systems which no one is advocating here…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 9, 2008 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll be honest, I read until you entirely missed my first point then stopped.
There is a (very important) different between the impact of an income tax and a sales tax on consumption. The former reduces the supply of money to consume with. The latter reduces the demand to consume.
If you don’t agree with that, I think you’re wrong. The fact that you completely failed to acknowledge the difference, however, means I don’t feel any further desire to discuss economics with you.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Nov 9, 2008 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if...
“The former reduces the supply of money to consume with. The latter reduces the demand to consume.”
I said the same thing, However,is your point that reducing the supply of money to consume has less effect than reducing the demand to consume? If so, why? if you don’t want to discuss economics with me that’s fine in my book because I think that you get a little curt and emotional and that isn’t fun to deal with on my part.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 9, 2008 11:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with sales tax is that it actually
encourages savings over spending, especially in a bad economy, but pretty much in general. If you have a $100 and you have 0% interest sales tax, that $100 dollars = $100 to spend while a little over $100 in savings. If you have a %10 interest sales tax, that $100 = a little over $91 to spend whereas the savings remains a little over $100 in savings. Income tax might reduce the overall total of what you have as a base, but the higher the sales tax the more profitable it is to save over spend. In a bad economy, anything that discourages spending is likely to do a lot more harm that good.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
by DMOAS on Nov 9, 2008 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As I said:
“In a recession, in order to keep consumption from declining at an unfavorable rate, a TEMPORARY supplement to the poor (think Earned Income Credit) may be advisable.”
When times are good, more savings are preferable to more consumption.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 9, 2008 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the government needs to start handing out massive quantities of Bronte novels
Did you overpay for those eggs? @('.')@
by monkeyball on Nov 9, 2008 4:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If we're going that route, perhaps California could outsource its prisons to Russia
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 9, 2008 7:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That would certainly
address recidivism very nicely.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Nov 10, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Income tax should be abolished.
Sales tax should be the standard.
by methodrampage on Nov 10, 2008 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, look what I missed by
spending all day in the Holliday threads.
Looks like the main tax debate has run its course. I would just add that if your only objection to the sales tax is that it’s regressive (and I realize Paul objects primarily for other reasons) but you like it for other reasons, it’s pretty easy to correct for the regressivity by putting a big exemption on the low end. That’s essentially the logic behind the “FAIR Tax” promoted by Huckebee et al earlier this year. (And yes, I know there are other problems with the FAIR Tax, the main one being that they massaged the numbers in order to pretend it raises more revenue than it actually does.)
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Nov 10, 2008 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm of the simple opinion
That since I’m the one working, hard or not so hard, for my money I should be able to choose if I spend it or if I save it. Plus I don’t give two shits about anyone else I don’t personally know or care for.
by methodrampage on Nov 11, 2008 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll give you one thing:
That certainly is a simple opinion.
by 74mk on Nov 11, 2008 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just got to see two college football upsets
of undefeated team in one week.
Last week, Texas Tech beating Texas
Just now, Iowa beating Penn State by one point, with one second to go.
by OaklandSi on Nov 8, 2008 3:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Looks like Alabama might lose, too.
All tied at 21 now. I have a sinking feeling that two teams I despise, Texas and Florida, are going to end up playing for the national championship.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Nov 8, 2008 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Looking forward to watching Cal at USC
an upset woud be great, although I’m really expecting it
by OaklandSi on Nov 8, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's why it would be an upset
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 8, 2008 5:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
looks like two very good defenses
and two exciting but error-prone offenses.
by OaklandSi on Nov 8, 2008 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Alabama would lose, too...
…but they win in OT. Julio Jones is something special.
(I’m a Crimson Tide fan, so I am happy. And a little drained right now.)
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Nov 8, 2008 5:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am also, of sorts.
My wife and her family grew up in Birmingham, although all of them seem little concerned with the rolling of the Tide.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Nov 8, 2008 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
SEC title game looks like a Championship Game play-in
between Alabama and Florida.
In other news: Congratulations, Pac-10 officiating crew. You just made the worst call I have ever seen in my life.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 8, 2008 7:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, in fairness to the refs
the crew went back to the play and reconstructed what the call they made was (it sure wasn’t clear from the referee’s description). And, while it was somewhat ticky-tack (they got a wide receiver as an ineligible man downfield because he was covered up on the line of scrimmage) and could have been overlooked given that the guy was noticeably behind the other receiver, it was not utterly farking insane like it seemed at the time. So I’ll have to rescind the assessment of “worst call I’ve ever seen.”
Officiating was still pretty bad, though.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 8, 2008 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not ready to give Alabama many points
They just barely beat a team with Willy Taveras playing QB. Not only did they get two thirds of their points off of turnovers, they couldn’t stop an offense that clanged roughly 75% of their passes from scoring 21.
Pathetic effort, I feel confident that if they make it anywhere near a truly elite team they get ruined.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Nov 8, 2008 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gears of War 2
I don’t particularly care for shoot-em-up video games, but I know there are a few here on AN, so I thought I’d pass this along. With the recent release of Gears of War 2, The (Raleigh) News & Observer did an interview with Cliff Bleszinski of Epic Games. Cliff is Blez’s brother.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Nov 8, 2008 5:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
interesting
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Nov 8, 2008 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did travis buck have much injuries in 2008?
"It's like déjà vu all over again." -yogi berra
by Cheezombie on Nov 8, 2008 7:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Uh, yeah... he played only 87 games this season
In particular he missed a huge chunk of the season with a poorly handled concussion.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 8, 2008 8:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Contest in India produces two possible ML pitchers
I say possible, because they can pitch, but don’t the rules of the game.
Probably would balk all over the place:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081106&content_id=3668333&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
If all the ML teams are interested, I would bet that the “Cleveland Indians” have an immense advantage over the other clubs. Say in 20 years, they change their mascot from “Chief Knock-a-homa” to a guy in a turban!
Imagine a “dress like an Indian” promotion in Cleveland, where everyone wearing either a Nehru jacket and ‘that hat’ or a sari, gets free admission!!
Officially awaiting the 2009 season.
by One won lost won on Nov 9, 2008 10:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
In case you didn't know - he's a White Sox fan.
Don’t look so proud of that hat!
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on Nov 10, 2008 8:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
< Resists fleshing out Moneyball/Smallball joke >
au contra ire
by JediLeroy on Nov 10, 2008 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bocachica-wow-wow
Former major leaguer Hiram Bocachica hit a solo home run in the top of the fifth inning and former New York Yankees pitcher Alex Graman recordedthe final six outs for the save as the Lions won their 13th Japan Series title.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on Nov 10, 2008 8:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
