Vote Yes Commercials

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote:Originally posted by Rico

In today's Tulsa World there is an article regarding how the TYpros came to endorse the "River Tax"...

They sent 3000 members a survey...

10% responded...

60% of the 10% were in favor of the "River Tax"...

Mister Roby came to the conclusion that this was enough to endorse the "Tax"...

Roscoe P. Coletrain would love this math...

300 member of 3000 responded.....

Of the 300 responses 180 members were in favor of the Tax...

So let's see... 180 members in favor... that took the time to fill out a possible question sheet of what was probably 10 questions or so....  

That comes out to a "Majority in Favor" of the Tax according to Mister Roby....

He says in the article "had the results come back the opposite they would not have endorsed the "Tax"....

180 members of 3000 is  approximately 6 percent....

Boy that is enough to "Endorse just about anything isn't it....


The Mayor had a "Mentoring" Month.... Quite possibly Mister Roby missed his opportunity to brush up on his math....

My favorite part of the article was:

"Roby said the survey did not address the specific public funding plan that voters will consider Oct. 9 but did attempt to gauge members' interest in the river and their willingness to raise taxes for river development."

Not only was funny math used, the survey was based on a generalized question about river development and how to pay for it - not on this specific River Tax plan.

To go back to the mayor/president analogy - instead of voting for specific persons, it would be like responding in favor of "Should we have a mayor?"; and someone then saying all who responded yes are in favor of mayoral Candidate X.

The TYPros organization was a creation of the Metro Tulsa Chamber of Commerce. While the membership includes many varied viewpoints, the LEADERSHIP is carefully Delphi'd for PRE-SELECTION to promote the Metro-Chamberpot Party Line:  TAX ME MORE.....

The Metro Chamber receives $2 million a year in OUR lodging tax dollars to promote "economic development", which means, it promotes:  Nothing.  

This is $2 million per year in funding that the Metro ChamberPots do NOT have to collect from their membership.

They've received our taxes for the past 30 years.

Have they actually developed ANYTHING with the $60 million??

In return, they re-create as needed their front-organization, Citizens for Tulsa / Citizens for Tulsa County, to promote every tax increase or tax renewal, in effect reycling our Tax Dollars to RAISE our taxes:  

--The Kaiser River Tax,

--Vision 2025,

--Third-Penny Sales Tax Renewals,

--Tulsa Street Bond Issues, and,

--TPS Bond Issues.  

The same PAC is the perpetual political voice of the controlling Twelve Tulsa Oligarch Families.

What a neat SWINDLE........WE pay for the privilege of continually raising our taxes.

[:O]

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote:Originally posted by Rico

In today's Tulsa World there is an article regarding how the TYpros came to endorse the "River Tax"...

They sent 3000 members a survey...

10% responded...

60% of the 10% were in favor of the "River Tax"...

Mister Roby came to the conclusion that this was enough to endorse the "Tax"...

Roscoe P. Coletrain would love this math...

300 member of 3000 responded.....

Of the 300 responses 180 members were in favor of the Tax...

So let's see... 180 members in favor... that took the time to fill out a possible question sheet of what was probably 10 questions or so....  

That comes out to a "Majority in Favor" of the Tax according to Mister Roby....

He says in the article "had the results come back the opposite they would not have endorsed the "Tax"....

180 members of 3000 is  approximately 6 percent....

Boy that is enough to "Endorse just about anything isn't it....


The Mayor had a "Mentoring" Month.... Quite possibly Mister Roby missed his opportunity to brush up on his math....

My favorite part of the article was:

"Roby said the survey did not address the specific public funding plan that voters will consider Oct. 9 but did attempt to gauge members' interest in the river and their willingness to raise taxes for river development."

Not only was funny math used, the survey was based on a generalized question about river development and how to pay for it - not on this specific River Tax plan.

To go back to the mayor/president analogy - instead of voting for specific persons, it would be like responding in favor of "Should we have a mayor?"; and someone then saying all who responded yes are in favor of mayoral Candidate X.

Sounds like one of the problems with this plan as I see it.

Yes they had public involvement and asked the public what they wanted.

But its one thing to sit around dreaming up things you would like. Its quite a different matter to say, What do you want to actually spend your money on, with this budget, right now? Wish lists and Priority lists are different things.

[Tony]

The IDEA was approved -- the nuts and bolts are proving to be more expensive than Tulsa Taxpayers are willing to bear  -- the main problem is proposals within proposals ad infinitum --

Had any real thought or a REAL PLAN with factual construction estimates, timelines, sanity check points  --- been put before the VOTERS and then adhered to -- this proposal might have flown  -- instead the targets just keep on changing --

A shotgun approach to TAXES -- with birdshot for ammo.

[Tulsa4Life]

Tony, I sure have heard a lot out of you since this river tax issue has come up... Tulsa World and here.  I just want to know what you have done to get your ideas out to the people that were behind this plan... have you contacted anyone to voice your opinions?

[sauerkraut]

I can't vote on this issue since I don't live in Tulsa. I am a big Tulsa fan since I'm in the city alot. I'm not sure how I stand on this issue. I normally vote down all tax hikes, but  this is for the river, Tulsa's only national resource. I am kind of-sort of- favoring a "YES" vote. The tax hike is not much and Oklahoma already has a 9% sales tax and another 1/8% won't make much of a impact, and it seems like it'll do alot of good for the city. JMO.

[Tony]

The only way there has been ANY opposition ALLOWED for this so called "plan" is thru Editorial comment -- I attended EVERY INCOG supposed OPEN meeting -- the only comment allowed was by paper ballot at those pep rallies -- there were no opposition voices allowed to be heard -- I was "interviewed" by a News 9 Reporter after the Jenks meeting but the spot wasn't used.

So not anymore - I am fed up with the whole lot of the PRO folks --

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

The only way there has been ANY opposition ALLOWED for this so called "plan" is thru Editorial comment -- I attended EVERY INCOG supposed OPEN meeting -- the only comment allowed was by paper ballot at those pep rallies -- there were no opposition voices allowed to be heard -- I was "interviewed" by a News 9 Reporter after the Jenks meeting but the spot wasn't used.

So not anymore - I am fed up with the whole lot of the PRO folks --

go to the TulsaNow meeting on September 18th, 2 for and 2 against in an open forum.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

The only way there has been ANY opposition ALLOWED for this so called "plan" is thru Editorial comment -- I attended EVERY INCOG supposed OPEN meeting -- the only comment allowed was by paper ballot at those pep rallies -- there were no opposition voices allowed to be heard -- I was "interviewed" by a News 9 Reporter after the Jenks meeting but the spot wasn't used.

So not anymore - I am fed up with the whole lot of the PRO folks --

I call BS.
The naysayers are ALWAYS heard in this city... ALWAYS...

[Tony]

HMMM did you attend even ONE INGOG meeting? Call BS I wasn't really against this proposal till I saw how misleading and devious the planning group were -- I can fight just as dirty -- while they MAY have fooled a FEW of you younger crowd by takin a better than thou highroad --

Who called this pep rally this week? the pro river group -- just like typing on here its fartin in the wind --

But at least we have the opportunity to rebut on a forum that is read.

[USRufnex]

Hey, I never got interviewed by a tv station about my views...

yet anti-tax activists gripe and complain about EVERYTHING.

How old do you think I am, Tony?

Look it up.

--Ruf

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Your post says that the vote no people can't afford to make a fancy commercial. Why not?

Mainly because most of us in what I guess you would call the "vote no" campaign make about $40,000-$50,000 a year.  TV ads are not an option, radio ads are pushing it, small town newspaper might be doable.  Afterall, that's our core audience.

Ted

www.notulsarivertax.com

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Your post says that the vote no people can't afford to make a fancy commercial. Why not?

Mainly because most of us in what I guess you would call the "vote no" campaign make about $40,000-$50,000 a year.  TV ads are not an option, radio ads are pushing it, small town newspaper might be doable.  Afterall, that's our core audience.

Ted

www.notulsarivertax.com

There is both a senior rebate and a rebate for working income familys (married with a gross income up to I believe $50,000 per year).

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

There is both a senior rebate and a rebate for working income familys (married with a gross income up to I believe $50,000 per year).

And that amounts to an interest-free loan to the government.

I think there is also a senior/low income rebate on Vision 2025 tax, and possibly other taxes too.  It is ridiculous, to have to pay the money up front, then apply for a rebate.  More damned paperwork to shuffle.  And the pro-tax side knows that a large percentage will not bother with the rebate because of the hassle or lack of understanding of the process.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

There is both a senior rebate and a rebate for working income familys (married with a gross income up to I believe $50,000 per year).

And that amounts to an interest-free loan to the government.

I think there is also a senior/low income rebate on Vision 2025 tax, and possibly other taxes too.  It is ridiculous, to have to pay the money up front, then apply for a rebate.  More damned paperwork to shuffle.  And the pro-tax side knows that a large percentage will not bother with the rebate because of the hassle or lack of understanding of the process.

There is a Vision 2025 rebate for seniors that require a simple one page application and verification of eligibility.  Presently the County Treasurer sends the next year's application to all who applied the previous year and new applications are readily available.

Many years ago, the original 3rd penny sales tax program had a rebate provision however the subsequent renewals did not include it and I don't know of others that have included such.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

There is both a senior rebate and a rebate for working income familys (married with a gross income up to I believe $50,000 per year).

And that amounts to an interest-free loan to the government.

I think there is also a senior/low income rebate on Vision 2025 tax, and possibly other taxes too.  It is ridiculous, to have to pay the money up front, then apply for a rebate.  More damned paperwork to shuffle.  And the pro-tax side knows that a large percentage will not bother with the rebate because of the hassle or lack of understanding of the process.

There is a Vision 2025 rebate for seniors that require a simple one page application and verification of eligibility.  Presently the County Treasurer sends the next year's application to all who applied the previous year and new applications are readily available.

Many years ago, the original 3rd penny sales tax program had a rebate provision however the subsequent renewals did not include it and I don't know of others that have included such.

                                            If this were truly a progressive tax it would not be collected on food or medicine, instead of this regressive tax rebate scheme that reminds me of the EMSA opt out cop out.