Fayetteville Smoking Ban

I guess we Fayettevillians are too stupid to know the difference between a restaurant and a bar, so we will have to have the police decide for us. A bar and grill that stops serving food at a certain time, closes its kitchen, but leaves its full bar open till late night is still a restaurant and therefore cannot allow smoking, as it is now. This includes hot pizza slices. If they erect a wall, and give it a separate entrance, and don’t allow any food to be served there, then it is a bar and can allow smoking. It is an extreme burden to the business owner, and absolves all responsibility from the dim-witted customer that cannot tell the difference, or read a sign.
My definition is pretty simple and would solve a lot of problems. An establishment with a bar in it, and with a liquor license, and stays open after hours, is a bar. If the establishment doesn’t have a liquor license, and or closes before 10 p.m. it is a restaurant. For example, Alligator Ray’s is a bar that serves food to their drinkers. Denny’s is a restaurant that has no liquor license and is not a bar in any way. That’s the difference. If the name or description has the word “bar” in it then it allows smoking. If it doesn’t, then it isn’t a bar and doesn’t allow smoking.
If people don’t like smoking bars then they can open a new bar with a sign on the door that say’s “No Smoking.” They can also put up many signs saying “No Smoking” around the establishment, and not put any ashtray’s on the tables or the bar. When they become extremely successful and start putting the smoking bars out of business, then they can say that the drinkers in Fayetteville have spoken, and it will become a trend. Smoking bars will put up signs saying “No Smoking” and they will be successful too. The fact that people are not responsible enough to decide for themselves what is a bar or a restaurant is amazing. Non-smokers have to get the government to place an excessive burden on everyone so that they can go to a fashionable place, and don’t mind ruining it for everyone else. If the non-smoker doesn’t like the smoking, then they don’t have to go there, they are free to go to a different place more to their liking. This is supposed to be a free market economy, customers should decide with their wallets.
The Mayor was not able to resolve this debate, and passed the buck to the police chief who had the right idea, but it was not well thought out. Alligator Ray’s proved the 70/30 rule wasn’t completely adequate. Some accountability should be leveled on patrons. Business owners will do what is best for their businesses, and if it is to not allow smoking then they will decide, not a small assemblage of councilmen.

Minimum Wage Response to Rev. Copley

Rev. Stephen Copley of “Give Arkansas a Rai$e Now” wrote on the merits of raising the minimum wage in Arkansas. He is the leader of a coalition of ministers that want to raise the minimum wage. It is not surprising that the only people that want to raise this wage are people of faith that have no training in matters of economics and business, and politicians that beg for any votes they can hoodwink people into. Copley cites many statistics that are misleading at best from sources that are partisan at worst. His study focuses on whether higher minimum wages will reduce employment in the service industry. It doesn’t focus on the speculative and transient nature of services which are always going to need mouth breathers to operate. They follow the money, they don’t create it. It says nothing of the other workers, already making higher than minimum wage to start, that will suffer as a result of business absorbing these higher costs. Does he think owners will absorb the costs? He is naïve. Just as illegal workers lower wages for all minimum wage workers, higher minimum wage workers lower the wage for all the rest. A constitutional amendment will make Arkansas anticompetitive and only redistributes the wealth, but doesn’t increase it. We already have too many impediments to business creation here and don’t need a bunch of panderers to make it worse. Copley should stay away from economic fairy tales and stick to the other kind.

Minimum Wage NWA Times

It might just be my suspicious nature, but I see that raising the minimum wage will do more harm than good. It sounds politically correct to advocate raising the minimum wage so that it will help workers in the lowest wage positions. We all claim we feel sorry for them and how they need more money to live. That of course is true, they need more money in order to live. Its almost impossible to support yourself, let alone a family, on $5.15 an hour, especially when so many companies won’t keep you on full time either. The lowest wage people have to have at least two or more incomes coming in to a household just to get by, unless they live with their parents, or in a cardboard box.
The place where my suspicious nature comes in is that if we pay these workers this higher minimum wage, it will just give employers the incentive to restructure their pay scale so they can absorb the higher costs with no increase, and then pass those new “fake” higher costs on to the consumer. Everyone up the ladder, with the exception of the CEO, will have to take a hidden pay cut where raises will be slower, or won’t be as much, or other benefit cuts will take place to keep labor costs relatively stable.
Most people in this country won’t make the connection of higher corporate profits as a result of having to raise prices in order to cover the fake higher costs. Like with the oil and pharmaceutical companies, we Americans seem to buy their excuse that while they are making record profits they claim its their higher costs that are the reason. They think we are too stupid to see that higher costs are deductible and profits come after all those deductions, including R&D and exploration costs. Corporations will just be able to raise prices claiming that they have to do it so they can cover these higher costs, which they have successfully absorbed, and new record profits will then ensue, need I mention outsourcing?
The higher costs of course will hurt the small business the most which can’t absorb labor costs as easily. It will hurt the minimum wage people if the higher costs eat up their higher wage, or more. And it will hurt all other consumers with higher costs of everything they buy, especially for example, everyone living on social security. In the end it just creates a new, higher level of wages and prices in which no one wins. It simply reduces the value of the dollar which is code for inflation. The minimum wage workers, who are almost always the newest workers at any company and are on probation anyway, will enjoy their new found money only briefly until prices catch up and we are right back where we are now. Higher minimum wages sound good for politicians to say but as usual it doesn’t work in the real world.

Raising the Minimum Wage

I consider myself an independent, and vote democratically most of the time just because the choice is so pitiful. Its the lesser of two evils, or the independent candidate which is unacceptable and can’t be voted for. Which means there is only one choice, not the heartless republican. This leads me to being forced to make Mike Beebe the choice for governor. I’m not in favor of all of his policies including the one for raising the minimum wage. It sounds good on the surface, and he hopes to use it to get votes though most minimum wage people don’t vote, but its wrong for Arkansas and America.
Raising the minimum wage in a vacuum would be fine, but we don’t live in a vacuum. it’s the real world with outsourcing of jobs, benefit cuts to pay for higher costs, and raising prices. Inflation is the keyword here and the higher costs just result in a restructuring of the pay scale to absorb these costs with no increase for the employer. They then are free to raise prices claiming its to pay for the “fake” higher costs, and all of us are the victims. Once again we stupidly vote against our own interests. Minimum wage is for the newest of workers and is only probationary, for most, they don’t remain at that level long. Giving the employers an incentive like this is just another corporate giveaway veiled in helping the poor. We shouldn’t accept this, even from the lesser evil.

Original Letter to the Editor

What is Howard Baird talking about when he claims the wealthy will stimulate the economy if tax breaks are given, and also, how democrats unfairly whine about them not paying their fair share? Just how do the wealthy tax breaks help America? Do the wealthy use their new found money to invest in America, or just trade stocks, and real estate speculation, driving up costs and creating these glorious inflationary bubbles? Do they go out and buy domestic goods that they couldn’t afford before the tax breaks? Are they able to consume more than they do now, with more tax money, and will have more to spend?
I read the information on the National Taxpayers Union website about how much tax is paid by the lower 50% of taxpayers, and it seems to me that they don’t pay a lot of tax because (surprise) they have no money. If there was more parity in this economic system then maybe they could pay more, but in capitalism the wealthy pay because they have most of the money, and they have the most to lose if America goes bankrupt. It’s a fact of life, someone has to pay and the wealthy can afford it. The poor are spending all of their money just trying to survive with paying for housing, food, medicine, etc. They aren’t taking European vacations, or any other spending on luxuries. What would Mr. Baird have the lower 50% give up so that the wealthy can stimulate this economy? Should the poor feed their children less, or cut down on their medicines, so you may sneer at the idea of buying more domestic goods with your extra tax money, will that help America?
Actually, it all depends on how you spin the explanation, so how about this: Doctors, Lawyers, Corporate officers, etc., whine about their huge tax bills, but large deductions help them all. These people gripe about their taxes, but have nearly everything they want, and these are the lower class rich folks. All are charging the lower 100% of tax payers highly inflated prices, so they may pay their expenses, and still be comfortable. If they left more money in the clients hands, the clients might be able to pay those taxes in a more reasonable manner. But, because of capitalism, every cost is passed down the line to more and more people like a Ponzi scheme, and the profit ends up all in the hands of the wealthy, and truly wealthy, which then have the most to lose if America goes broke. That is why they are compelled to pay the most. I say balderdash to you Mr. Baird and your whitewash. The real questions are: if given more money, what do the wealthy do to stimulate the economy that they aren’t doing already? And, how much more can they consume, then they already do, and finally, how much of it goes toward our own GDP?

Dickson Street Development

I’ve lived in Fayetteville most of my life, and spent the last 11 years or so living a beer bottle’s throw from Dickson Street. I have seen a lot of changes over this time. Some of the changes have been good and others not so good. One of the best changes has been the Walton Arts Center and the Brew Pub building. Both corners used to be pretty bad looking and made Dickson look run down and a little seedy. The changes have revitalized the area and have made it better in many ways. It has also started the push to force out the undesirable less affluent residents that once made Dickson Street their home. Now the city and developers are seeing the opportunity to completely change the area and make the street that we all had fond memories of into something that only the affluent will be able to enjoy, walking distance to the entertainment. It seems that the idea is to eventually get rid of all locally owned affordable housing in favor of corporate owned luxury condominiums and specialty retail shops so money hungry developers can take advantage of peoples fondness for the Dickson Street of the past. In so doing, they completely change the essence of what the place was and make it into something that only the well to do can afford. The mayor, city council and chamber of commerce are ecstatic about these changes but then many aren’t native to Fayetteville.
Is all of this good for Fayetteville and for the Dickson Street business owners? Will the rising property taxes and fee’s force some of the owners out in favor of more diversified corporate owners that can spread their risk among many shops and properties, ones that have more of an ability to change when some part of their holdings don’t quite work out? Will the city use their new eminent domain powers to force holdouts to leave in favor of higher taxes paid by more affluent tenants? Where will the less wealthy live when the affordable houses and apartments are destroyed in favor of parking garages and luxury condominiums?
We rely on the mayor and the city council to use their wisdom when it comes to administering the city for the residents of Fayetteville, but we have seen what they do. They allow Bikes, Blues and Barbeque to happen and then gouge the vendors. Waste money on signs telling riders to, “Please Ride Quietly.” They disregard residents and non bar owners of the Dickson Street area that are trapped in their homes and can’t get to their businesses for the four days. They allow development first, roads and traffic tie-ups are a distant second. Build a giant new library then tell us they need new taxes to operate it. And now they want to approve more development and destroy the essence of Fayetteville’s downtown in favor of some new business owners and property management companies. Should we allow these changes?

Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

Let me first say what my definition of a wealthy individual is which may clear up some things for people with respect to tax breaks. The cut off is really rather arbitrary, but should begin with at least one million dollars of income per year, whether salaried or passive. There are certain exemptions that should be taken into consideration which would be spelled out in the tax code, some of these provisions are called deductions and credits. These deductions and credits would be for things that we would want as a society like jobs and real investment, and not for those things that we don’t find useful, or as useful as the protected income, like imports, caviar, and vacations in Europe.
Bill Orton’s letter implies that he thinks I’m a liberal and therefore don’t understand economics or capital, and it couldn’t be further from the truth. I have a finance degree from the U of A and am a moderate conservative and an independent. I know that capital is better left in the hands of the people, but our country doesn’t have a totally capitalistic economy and we have to pay for those things we want to make it a place we can all live, not a place where only the wealthy thrive and the poor are forgotten. I also know that leaving the income in the hands of the people will spark incentive to invest and create jobs. I also know that there is a limit to this principal, and income beyond a certain level, will make any marginal increases to after tax income of lesser use to the recipient and is rarely invested in real capital, but is parked in speculative collections of assets.
As far as Teri Holland is concerned, her letter also took exception to my first one, I applaud her for taking advantage of her entrepreneurial abilities, particularly in that she had so many obstacles to overcome. She is another person though, that I didn’t make it clear to that I was talking about very wealthy people, ones unaffected by downturns. I don’t know what she does for the wealthy, but customers that can still afford to buy from her after the downturn shouldn’t be getting a tax break .
I hope that I have made clear what my definition of wealthy is so that we may get past these targets of obfuscation. Any spending, whether by government, the middle class, or the poor, is going to help the economy. Even silly spending is good, because someone is always making money from it. Speculating helps the economy to a point, but it has its limitations, such as when object’s value is no longer desired (Enron Stock). Taxes are just transferring wealth from one owner to another, and as Orton implies, that spending it on things made outside of America makes the United States poorer. The full text of this letter can be found at http://rk-lettersandtopics.blogspot.com/ and I welcome any comments.

Letter to the Editor "Wealthy People" full text

Let me first say what my definition of a wealthy individual is which may clear up some things for people. The cut off is really rather arbitrary, but should begin with at least 1 million dollars of income per year, whether salaried or passive. There are certain exemptions that should be taken into consideration which would be spelled out in the tax code, some of these provisions are called deductions and credits. These deductions and credits would be for things that we would want as a society, like jobs and real investment, and not for those things that we don’t find useful or as useful as the protected income. Some people have concluded from my earlier letter that I was talking about people far below the one million dollar cut off, but have incomes higher than 80% to 90% of us in this country. The one million dollar cut off will have to be adjusted upward in the future though, because of inflation, and where the line should really be is up to debate depending on what people believe is fair. Right now the cut off for the IRS is 35% for $326,000 in AGI for the highest bracket for 2005, and the real rate declines as your income rises above that because of and credits and a flat base amount. The higher your income, the lower the real rate is. The question that I’m asking is: should people making more than that cut off amount be getting their taxes lowered with the tax breaks, while making the people in the lower brackets take on more of the burden of financing the government? An alternate question might be what the republicans seem to be saying, which is why not just borrow the difference while lowering the tax rate for everyone?
Bill Orton’s letter implies that he thinks I’m a liberal and therefore don’t understand economics or capital and it couldn’t be further from the truth, I have a finance degree from the bloated institution of higher learning on the hill overlooking Fayetteville and I’m a moderate conservative and an independent. I didn’t think I had to explain elementary economics as a forward to my letter to give me credibility, but I guess I was wrong, though the length of the letters don’t allow long explanations. I know that capital is better left in the hands of the people, but our country isn’t quite a totally capitalistic economy and we have to pay for those things we want to make it a place we can all live and not just a savage place where only the strong survive and weak are eaten. I also know that leaving the income in the hands of the people will spark investment and create jobs and all that goes with that. I also know that there is a limit to this principal and wealth beyond a certain level will make any marginal increases to after tax income become of lesser use to the recipient once he is above the cut off level. For example, I don’t think Bill Gates is using much of his own money to start any more company’s, and more of it will not help much help him much. Of course Bill Gates is a ridiculous example since he is wealthier than everyone in Fayetteville combined. I’m saying that these marginal or incremental amounts could be better used by paying for the governments costs than given back to people that really don’t have any use for it since they are consuming all that they can already.
As far as Teri Holland is concerned, her letter also took exception to my first one, I applaud her for taking advantage of her entrepreneurial abilities, particularly in that she had so many obstacles to overcome. She is another person though, that I didn’t make it clear to, that I was talking about people much wealthier than she serves mostly. She didn’t seem to see that a downturn in the economy is different than not receiving a windfall from lower taxes, and she didn’t see that people of great means are not altering their spending of discretionary income on luxuries just because they haven’t received a windfall.
I hope that I have made clear what the definition of wealthy is so that we may get past the targets of obfuscation and move on with how we are going to finance the kind of government that we seem to want. Any spending, whether by government, the middle class, or the poor, is going to help the economy, even if it is silly spending, because someone is always making money from it. Speculating helps the economy to a point but it has its limitations. Finally, taxes are just transferring wealth from one owner to another and as Orton implies, and I agree, that spending it on things outside of America makes the United States poorer.