[rankhornjp]

AMENDMENT 2: Adds $10 tag fee on private passenger vehicles to fund statewide trauma care expansion.


BALLOT QUESTION: Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to impose an annual $10 trauma charge on certain passenger motor vehicles in this state for the purpose of funding trauma care?

Summary: This creates a $10 tag fee that can only be spent to fund trauma care and cannot be diverted to the general fund for other purposes. All motor vehicles designed to carry ten or fewer persons, including pickup trucks, motorcycles, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans will pay the fee. The trauma charge would be collected together with license tag and registration fees.

Pro: This provides a new and necessary funding source for Georgia's trauma care system that will be protected from other uses.

Con: The new funds may encourage the legislature to reduce its other funding streams; and large passenger vehicles, like buses, are exempt from the fee.


AMENDMENT 3: Allows the State to execute multiyear contracts for long-term transportation projects.


BALLOT QUESTION: Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to allow the Georgia Department of Transportation to enter into multiyear construction agreements without requiring appropriations in the current fiscal year for the total amount of payments that would be due under the entire agreement so as to reduce long-term construction costs paid by the state?

Summary: Currently, a state agency cannot enter into contracts with private vendors if the contract requires payments beyond the funds available for that fiscal year. This means that unless an agency has funds in hand for a 5-year project, like a road project, it can only contract year-to-year. This amendment would allow the General Assembly by statute to let the Department of Transportation enter into construction agreements without obligating present funds for the full amount of the obligation.

Pro: Many contractors and states prefer multi-year contracts because they allow for bonuses for early completion, increase competition among bidders and allow for better transportation planning.

Con: This will allow DOT to agree to a project it may not be able pay for in the long-term.


AMENDMENT 4: Allows the State to execute multiyear contracts for projects to improve energy efficiency and conservation.


BALLOT QUESTION: Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide for guaranteed cost savings for the state by authorizing a state entity to enter into multiyear contracts which obligate state funds for energy efficiency or conservation improvement projects?

Summary: Currently, the constitution prohibits a state agency from entering into contracts with private vendors that obligate funds the agency does not already have committed. This amendment will authorize "energy performance contracts." These contracts basically let a state agency use debt to finance energy efficiency and water improvement projects at state buildings, and the vendors who build the projects guarantee payments back to the agency based on realized savings (lower energy costs, less water used), which is achieved by the cost savings resulting from the improvements.

Pro: State agencies can upgrade to more energy and water efficient buildings by using a debt instrument that is underwritten by the very vendors who promise the savings. If it works, the agency has lower costs. If it doesn't, the agency has guaranteed payments to make up the loss.

Con: It creates a new debt instrument for state government.


AMENDMENT 5: Allows owners of industrial-zoned property to choose to remove the industrial designation from their property.


BALLOT QUESTION: Shall the Constitution o f Georgia be amended so as to allow the owners of real property located in industrial areas to remove the property from the industrial area?

Summary: The proposal amends the provisions of the Constitution relating to industrial areas which exist in only two counties in the state: Chatham County and Jeff Davis County. Currently, the counties face restrictions on the ability of these areas to participate in the municipal services provided near their locations. This restriction is a hold-over from the 1983 constitutional revision.

Pro: Property owners who currently have the responsibility for certain services will be permitted to join a neighboring city and reduce its costs.

Con: Unknown.


STATEWIDE REFERENDUM: Provides for inventory of businesses to be exempt from state property tax.


BALLOT QUESTION: Shall the Act be approved which grants an exemption from state ad valorem taxation for inventory of a business?

Summary: This Act provides that all tangible personal property constituting the inventory of a business shall be exempt from state ad valorem taxation. If approved by a majority of the voters, the Act becomes effective on January 1, 2011, and applies to all tax years beginning on or after that date.

Pro: Georgia is one of only 14 states that currently imposes an inventory tax. The amount raised by such a tax is minimal for the state, and nominal for most cities and counties.

Con: Certain cities and counties do rely on the inventory tax, which means a wholesale repeal could lead to a rise in the millage rate in those areas, particularly those school districts.

 

[gsusnake]

Well that's gonna be easy. No on Amendments 1-5, yes on the referendum.

 

[RepeatDefender]

Even easier for me, no on all the above

 

[gsusnake]

Even easier for me, no on all the above

Why penalize businesses for carrying inventory?

 

[seajay]

Even easier for me, no on all the above

Why penalize businesses for carrying inventory?

That's my question????

 

[mb90535im]

To make up the shortfall, shift this tax burden away from business to .....?

 

[gsusnake]

To make up the shortfall, shift this tax burden away from business to .....?

How about we cut spending? That'd work.

High taxes on business stymie growth. When a business has to pay extra tax (which is what the inventory tax is) they have less money to use to grow their business. Now, basic business teaches us that businesses can grow by hiring employees, buying capital assets, renovating, increasing their product lines, increasing inventory (which is currently discouraged by the very tax in question), etc. ALL of these things cause money to be injected into the economy. Why on earth would anyone want to penalize a business by levying an extra tax?

Cut taxes on businesses and encourage growth. It's as simple as that.

 

[seajay]

To make up the shortfall, shift this tax burden away from business to .....?

How about a 40% pay cut across the board for all government workers? While they are at it a 40% reduction in the handout checks to all the lazy moochers.

Just a reminder to those who don't remember and an FYI for those who don't know. Business' do not pay taxes. Any tax paid by a business is passed on to the people who buy the good or services from them in the form of higher prices. So if you just shift it from business to the people who actually pay it then it would be a wash. Cut spending by cutting wages and benefits of government workers and the worthless.

 

[elorei]

How about a 40% pay cut across the board for all government workers?

Just how much do you think government employees make? My wife has a degree and 3 certifications to do her job, a job that must be done. She is a supervisor in her department, and works harder than most in the private sector doing the same kind of work; yet gets paid about 65% less. She takes pride in what she does, though, and feels she gets to make more of an impact working publicly than privately.

You really want to cut her pay to 19k a year? She would be forced to leave and go to the private sector (or work for the fed instead of county). Who is going to do her job for under 20k? It isn't like she is making a fortune at her whopping 32k.

 

[JiG]

How about a 40% pay cut across the board for all government workers?

Just how much do you think government employees make? My wife has a degree and 3 certifications to do her job, a job that must be done. She is a supervisor in her department, and works harder than most in the private sector doing the same kind of work; yet gets paid about 65% less. She takes pride in what she does, though, and feels she gets to make more of an impact working publicly than privately.

You really want to cut her pay to 19k a year? She would be forced to leave and go to the private sector (or work for the fed instead of county). Who is going to do her job for under 20k? It isn't like she is making a fortune at her whopping 32k.

Pay is not the total amount your wife makes. She's probably got excellent benefits that are worth a good deal.

If the .gov can find someone to do your wife's job for 20k (plus benefits), then your wife is overpaid.

 

[ookoshi]

To make up the shortfall, shift this tax burden away from business to .....?

How about a 40% pay cut across the board for all government workers? While they are at it a 40% reduction in the handout checks to all the lazy moochers.

There are plenty of government workers that are already underpaid to do stuff we actually need them to do, like police, firefighting, etc. Randomly pissing on all government workers is kinda ridiculous.

 

[elorei]

Pay is not the total amount your wife makes. She's probably got excellent benefits that are worth a good deal.

If the .gov can find someone to do your wife's job for 20k (plus benefits), then your wife is overpaid.

They can't. Kind of my point. They were lucky to get her, most people with her amount of education make considerably more working in the private sector. You aren't getting a lot of resumes from folks with specialized degrees that took the time to go to school for another 3 years for multiple certifications that will work for 20k, if you can find any at all.

We aren't talking about the girl at the counter at the DMV, here. We are talking about the people that make sure when you go to make an appeal that your old court records are still around, that there is a disaster plan in place, that all those deeds of your property exist somewhere, etc.

As for her benefits, they aren't all that special compared to working privately. Or maybe you are talking about the "benefit" of no raises allowed, no cost of living expense increases, no hiring of anyone whatsoever even if someone retires/quits (thus placing more work on the remaining workers). Or maybe the furloughs? Those benefits?

 

[seajay]

How about a 40% pay cut across the board for all government workers?

Just how much do you think government employees make? My wife has a degree and 3 certifications to do her job, a job that must be done. She is a supervisor in her department, and works harder than most in the private sector doing the same kind of work; yet gets paid about 65% less. She takes pride in what she does, though, and feels she gets to make more of an impact working publicly than privately.

You really want to cut her pay to 19k a year? She would be forced to leave and go to the private sector (or work for the fed instead of county). Who is going to do her job for under 20k? It isn't like she is making a fortune at her whopping 32k.

Pay is not the total amount your wife makes. She's probably got excellent benefits that are worth a good deal.

If the .gov can find someone to do your wife's job for 20k (plus benefits), then your wife is overpaid.

I find it very hard to believe that someone working for the government makes less (especially 65%) than someone in the same job in the private sector. The numbers just don't add up that way when every report says just the oposite. Not only does the government employee make 65% more than the private sector they have much better benefits. Their retirement plan is through the roof. So yes I want to cut all government employee wages and. That includes the federal government as well. I also want to cut the massive benefits they are so willing to take. I have nothing against you and/or your wife. If your wife could make 65% more in the private sector then why is she still working for the government? The whole line of reasoning doesn't make sense. I am not buying the she would be forced to go to work in the private sector for 65% more as being such a bad thing. I'm not sure what she does but I would bet if the government were reduced to it's rightfull size her department could be evaporated so they would not even need any of the employees. No employees=no supervisor. The whole problem is government is far too big and their wages and benefits far outweigh the private sector for the same job. Well over half the government employees could be eliminated and the ones that remain could be reduced to the wages they were intended to have. They are a public service business and should be dedicated to such if they want the job like it was for the first 150 years of this country. Otherwise get a real job.

I agree with Jig... If her job is really one that would just have to be there when the size and functions of government were scaled back to what is absolutely required then why not find someone who really wants to serve the public and not just take it for the ultra high wages and benefits.

 

[elorei]

How about a 40% pay cut across the board for all government workers?

Just how much do you think government employees make? My wife has a degree and 3 certifications to do her job, a job that must be done. She is a supervisor in her department, and works harder than most in the private sector doing the same kind of work; yet gets paid about 65% less. She takes pride in what she does, though, and feels she gets to make more of an impact working publicly than privately.

You really want to cut her pay to 19k a year? She would be forced to leave and go to the private sector (or work for the fed instead of county). Who is going to do her job for under 20k? It isn't like she is making a fortune at her whopping 32k.

Pay is not the total amount your wife makes. She's probably got excellent benefits that are worth a good deal.

If the .gov can find someone to do your wife's job for 20k (plus benefits), then your wife is overpaid.

I find it very hard to believe that someone working for the government makes less (especially 65%) than someone in the same job in the private sector. The numbers just don't add up that way when every report says just the oposite. Not only does the government employee make 65% more than the private sector they have much better benefits. Their retirement plan is through the roof. So yes I want to cut all government employee wages and. That includes the federal government as well. I also want to cut the massive benefits they are so willing to take. I have nothing against you and/or your wife. If your wife could make 65% more in the private sector then why is she still working for the government? The whole line of reasoning doesn't make sense. I am not buying the she would be forced to go to work in the private sector for 65% more as being such a bad thing. I'm not sure what she does but I would bet if the government were reduced to it's rightfull size her department could be evaporated so they would not even need any of the employees. No employees=no supervisor. The whole problem is government is far too big and their wages and benefits far outweigh the private sector for the same job. Well over half the government employees could be eliminated and the ones that remain could be reduced to the wages they were intended to have. They are a public service business and should be dedicated to such if they want the job like it was for the first 150 years of this country. Otherwise get a real job.

I agree with Jig... If her job is really one that would just have to be there when the size and functions of government were scaled back to what is absolutely required then why not find someone who really wants to serve the public and not just take it for the ultra high wages and benefits.

Your ignorance is astounding. Though, mine was, also; until I actually learned what all she did. There are currently 2 people in her entire department. TWO. One left for retirement 2 years ago, and with the hiring freezes, she can't be replaced. And you are so incredibly wrong about how much she would get paid privately.

The national mean for her exact job is over 45k a year, for Atlanta it is over 60k. Now, the one place you are right is that working for the fed she would be making a ton more money. Fed archivists' mean is 78k.

As for why she remains where she does for less pay, she enjoys the job, and her boss. It is worth it to her to be appreciated, by her colleagues and the public. Just because money is the only factor to you, does not mean it doesn't make sense, just that it doesn't make sense to you. It took me a while to get it, too. Especially since we are still paying for some student loans.

As for your "get a real job" quip, you have no idea what her job entails, how much work it entails, or the first thing about how to do it. You could not do it, I could not do it. Most of America can not do it. She is dedicated to her work, and thus works for less pay. You countered your own argument. You say she would never work there for less pay, then expect her to be a public servant and work for less pay (which she already does). Which is it?

 

[sirkut]

The past 2 government jobs I've worked at made considerably less than those of the same position in the private sector... in fact for me to get "raises" out of them I moved to a private sector company.

 

[seajay]

Still not buying it. Every report I have ever seen says just the reverse. People who work in government jobs make 65% more than those doing the same job in the private sector. They also have very outstanding benefits and retirement plans that do not exist within the private sector.

The whole point is the employees, wages and benefits for government workers should be cut across the board to get the stupid spending under control.

 

[elorei]

Still not buying it. Every report I have ever seen says just the reverse. People who work in government jobs make 65% more than those doing the same job in the private sector. They also have very outstanding benefits and retirement plans that do not exist within the private sector.

I can source my statistics, can you? Or are you just making stuff up as you go? Let's see your proof.

Here is some of mine. I can go more detailed if you want, into actual reports from archivists, instead of the DOL.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes254011.htm

 

[sirkut]

Still not buying it. Every report I have ever seen says just the reverse. People who work in government jobs make 65% more than those doing the same job in the private sector. They also have very outstanding benefits and retirement plans that do not exist within the private sector.

The whole point is the employees, wages and benefits for government workers should be cut across the board to get the stupid spending under control.

Maybe as an average but as a software developer the pay is pretty wide between government and private sector.

 

[Liberty.45ACP]

Notice how Gov always makes it about who is going to take the hit? Businesses or Individuals? Never Gov! They always work to keep the battle over $ away from Gov. Divide and conquer.

Penalizing businesses because they carry an inventory is ludicrous. Money to Gov is a loss. Gov is a non-productive entity and a drain on the economy. There is very little if anything that Gov does that can't be improved through privatization.

 

[sirkut]

Still not buying it. Every report I have ever seen says just the reverse. People who work in government jobs make 65% more than those doing the same job in the private sector. They also have very outstanding benefits and retirement plans that do not exist within the private sector.

The whole point is the employees, wages and benefits for government workers should be cut across the board to get the stupid spending under control.

Maybe as an average but as a software developer the pay is pretty wide between government and private sector.

Well this also is related to the area I live in so maybe it's higher elsewhere?