Please read my post again as the $100,000 is a reference to inflation's affect on these figures; politicians like to start with a high figure knowing what inflation will do for them. Realize when you buy anything today, if you think in 1960's dollars you would have to think of 1/10 of today's price i.e. what $10.00 today buys is what $1.00 in 1960 would buy. As far as all income should be taxed equally, I am referring to types of income in that dividend income should be taxed the same as earned income, and not tax brackets which is what you are referring to. Certainly those that earn $100,000/year should pay higher taxes and a higher rate as they reach the higher figure as compared to the $50,000 earner, but I hope you agree it does not matter how you earn that money either as investment income or earned income by labor. All should be subject to same tax rates.
Beware of the political hacks that promote class warfare such as this. Most of us do not make the figure of $1,000,000 a year at present, but keep in mind that in 1960's dollars that million is only $100,000, still a respectable sum, but much more attainable esp. if both husband and wife work. Inflation is those hacks favorite form of robbing us working peasants. In another generation's time a million will not be such a big figure unless government in this country does what other countries have done and come out with a NEW dollar that will have one less zero on it thus a NEW $1.00 bill would equal an OLD $10.00 bill. All income should be taxed equally except for capital gains which should be indexed to inflation and then taxed equally. Instead, look for and support those politicians that want to limit taxes and government spending.
The cost of living in Maine is high, higher than in other parts of the country and it is not because of location. Much blame has to be laid at the costs imposed on all, citizen and businesses, by our legislature and city governments. Refusal to import electricity from Canada is a prime example of Maine cost of living being high. Taxes are a big villain-- loolk at the cost of registering a vehicle in Maine and compare to other States. The motor vehicle inspection that costs $12.50 or so does not pay a mechanic for the time to do an actual inspection and does nothing but rob citizens of $12.50. This pays for only 7 or 8 minutes of a mechanic's time, hardly enough to write the sticker and report. I'm not advocating a raise in cost here, but abolition; studies have shown States with no inspections fare just as well in safety. Maine has to lower its tax rates to attract industry, those industries that pay a better wage. Governor Lepage has the right ideas and the people of Maine should continue supporting him and not listen to his detractors who only want to continue in their cushy jobs and could care less for the average citizen and taxpayer.
After reading this all I can conclude is that Mr. Rooks is a very partisan Democrat and is representative of the most serious illness in the American political scene. This is what drove an excellent Senator, Senator Snowe, to throw up her hands in disgust at the current political scene. This newspaper (and others) would be well advised to take a neutral and less partisan look at the political arena. Give us an unbiased view.
There are many good apartments in Lewiston owned by responsible property owners; more so than so called slums. While Lewiston has so called slum lords they are few in numbers and there is no need for anyone to patronize them. Tenants have a responsibility to make an intelligent choice and not rent these units just like landlords have a responsibility to only rent to responsible tenants who will maintain their units properly and not disturb their fellow tenants. The problem in the twin cities is there are so many apartments that we should not be using taxpayer funds to help these developers line their pockets with our hard earned dollars. If the project is not viable, do not build it.
If there are tenants in need, use section 8 vouchers paying the local level of established rents so these folks can get help; this would help those in need, save tax dollars as current rents go for less than these new units, and the local owners would benefit. All these boondoggles do is create more of a surplus of apartments and feed the so called absentee ownership of rental properties as many of these so called developers are not local.
Didn't mayor McDonald run against more public housing? What is this if not more public housing? Lewiston is doing all it can to encourage more public housing and to finish off the private owners of rental housing. How can the private owner (landlord) expect to compete with give away housing? How can the city expect private landlords to maintain their properties when the city policies create huge vacancy rates?
Definitely the only reason any developer does this type project is the taxpayer money that our politicians so easily give to their favored recipients. None of these projects are economically feasible on their own.
The big problem with these projects in the twin cities is that their exists a glut of rental housing and a very high vacancy rate. These projects increase the vacancy rate and the owners of vacant apartments cannot afford to keep them up aggravating the problem of bad housing.
Another problem is that these new units in many instances do not rent to local tenants, but to people from far away; if we import additional low income people from away we aggravating the welfare situation in the area.
A better use of taxpayer money would be for the City to negotiate with the property owner(s) and either have them bring their properties to code or to sell them to the City at a fair price established by the City's assessed valuation of the property. The City feels property is worth what it assesses it at, and if owner thinks City is wrong they can ask for a re-evaluation and pay taxes at that rate and when process gets to this stage value has already been set. I would not think this property is assessed at the amount to bee given to the developer.
At $1,250,000.00 for 5 units, the price per unit is $250,000.00. Will anyone making $68,000.00/year be willing or able to pay such a price? And don't forget that this is the cost of building the units with no profit in it for developer. One can buy a very nice private home in the twin cities for much less than this.
This is another boon doggle that will only fly because of the government grant to the developer and most probably a subsidized loan to the buyer which means that taxpayers are again forced to pay for others to make a profit and get cheap housing. At some point the taxpayers of this country will have to tell politicians we have had enough of this foolishness. If developers cannot come up with viable plans to make an honest profit, we must tell them to stop raiding taxpayer monies.
Please read my post again as
Please read my post again as the $100,000 is a reference to inflation's affect on these figures; politicians like to start with a high figure knowing what inflation will do for them. Realize when you buy anything today, if you think in 1960's dollars you would have to think of 1/10 of today's price i.e. what $10.00 today buys is what $1.00 in 1960 would buy. As far as all income should be taxed equally, I am referring to types of income in that dividend income should be taxed the same as earned income, and not tax brackets which is what you are referring to. Certainly those that earn $100,000/year should pay higher taxes and a higher rate as they reach the higher figure as compared to the $50,000 earner, but I hope you agree it does not matter how you earn that money either as investment income or earned income by labor. All should be subject to same tax rates.
Beware of the political hacks
Beware of the political hacks that promote class warfare such as this. Most of us do not make the figure of $1,000,000 a year at present, but keep in mind that in 1960's dollars that million is only $100,000, still a respectable sum, but much more attainable esp. if both husband and wife work. Inflation is those hacks favorite form of robbing us working peasants. In another generation's time a million will not be such a big figure unless government in this country does what other countries have done and come out with a NEW dollar that will have one less zero on it thus a NEW $1.00 bill would equal an OLD $10.00 bill. All income should be taxed equally except for capital gains which should be indexed to inflation and then taxed equally. Instead, look for and support those politicians that want to limit taxes and government spending.
The cost of living in Maine
The cost of living in Maine is high, higher than in other parts of the country and it is not because of location. Much blame has to be laid at the costs imposed on all, citizen and businesses, by our legislature and city governments. Refusal to import electricity from Canada is a prime example of Maine cost of living being high. Taxes are a big villain-- loolk at the cost of registering a vehicle in Maine and compare to other States. The motor vehicle inspection that costs $12.50 or so does not pay a mechanic for the time to do an actual inspection and does nothing but rob citizens of $12.50. This pays for only 7 or 8 minutes of a mechanic's time, hardly enough to write the sticker and report. I'm not advocating a raise in cost here, but abolition; studies have shown States with no inspections fare just as well in safety. Maine has to lower its tax rates to attract industry, those industries that pay a better wage. Governor Lepage has the right ideas and the people of Maine should continue supporting him and not listen to his detractors who only want to continue in their cushy jobs and could care less for the average citizen and taxpayer.
Rooks
After reading this all I can conclude is that Mr. Rooks is a very partisan Democrat and is representative of the most serious illness in the American political scene. This is what drove an excellent Senator, Senator Snowe, to throw up her hands in disgust at the current political scene. This newspaper (and others) would be well advised to take a neutral and less partisan look at the political arena. Give us an unbiased view.
There are many good
There are many good apartments in Lewiston owned by responsible property owners; more so than so called slums. While Lewiston has so called slum lords they are few in numbers and there is no need for anyone to patronize them. Tenants have a responsibility to make an intelligent choice and not rent these units just like landlords have a responsibility to only rent to responsible tenants who will maintain their units properly and not disturb their fellow tenants. The problem in the twin cities is there are so many apartments that we should not be using taxpayer funds to help these developers line their pockets with our hard earned dollars. If the project is not viable, do not build it.
If there are tenants in need, use section 8 vouchers paying the local level of established rents so these folks can get help; this would help those in need, save tax dollars as current rents go for less than these new units, and the local owners would benefit. All these boondoggles do is create more of a surplus of apartments and feed the so called absentee ownership of rental properties as many of these so called developers are not local.
Didn't mayor McDonald run
Didn't mayor McDonald run against more public housing? What is this if not more public housing? Lewiston is doing all it can to encourage more public housing and to finish off the private owners of rental housing. How can the private owner (landlord) expect to compete with give away housing? How can the city expect private landlords to maintain their properties when the city policies create huge vacancy rates?
To Mr. Breton, the definition
To Mr. Breton, the definition of $68,000 as low income is not my definition, but that of your elected officials in Washington.
Definitely the only reason
Definitely the only reason any developer does this type project is the taxpayer money that our politicians so easily give to their favored recipients. None of these projects are economically feasible on their own.
The big problem with these projects in the twin cities is that their exists a glut of rental housing and a very high vacancy rate. These projects increase the vacancy rate and the owners of vacant apartments cannot afford to keep them up aggravating the problem of bad housing.
Another problem is that these new units in many instances do not rent to local tenants, but to people from far away; if we import additional low income people from away we aggravating the welfare situation in the area.
A better use of taxpayer money would be for the City to negotiate with the property owner(s) and either have them bring their properties to code or to sell them to the City at a fair price established by the City's assessed valuation of the property. The City feels property is worth what it assesses it at, and if owner thinks City is wrong they can ask for a re-evaluation and pay taxes at that rate and when process gets to this stage value has already been set. I would not think this property is assessed at the amount to bee given to the developer.
At $1,250,000.00 for 5 units,
At $1,250,000.00 for 5 units, the price per unit is $250,000.00. Will anyone making $68,000.00/year be willing or able to pay such a price? And don't forget that this is the cost of building the units with no profit in it for developer. One can buy a very nice private home in the twin cities for much less than this.
This is another boon doggle that will only fly because of the government grant to the developer and most probably a subsidized loan to the buyer which means that taxpayers are again forced to pay for others to make a profit and get cheap housing. At some point the taxpayers of this country will have to tell politicians we have had enough of this foolishness. If developers cannot come up with viable plans to make an honest profit, we must tell them to stop raiding taxpayer monies.
Why did it take so long for
Why did it take so long for him to get caught? Is Governor Lepage's team so much more competent than previous administrations?