Fat chance with our GA

I've never seen the point of employment nondiscrimination legislation because (a) if you're an employer refuse to hire someone based on an irrelevant characteristic (e.g., race, gender, orientation), you're hurting your own business, and if you do it enough, you'll be overtaken by more rational competition and swept aside, and (b) if you're a talented individual who's black/female/homosexual/pick-your-irrelevant-characteristic-of-choice, do you really want to work for someone who dislikes who you are and whom you had to sue to hire you?

How do you figure it is a legislative issue? We are not talking about all employment in Ohio. We are not even talking about all public sector employment. The EO only applied to State government employment. Isn't that the Governor's field of play? In fact, you could argue that a legislative measure that only restricted the governor's appointing authority and not that of other public and private employers would be a violation of the separation of powers and not a proper use of the general assembly's authority under Art II Sec 34.

 

That said, I am all for the GA applying the rule on a statewide scale. I assume you would be too (sarcasm intended).

 

I assumed it was for all state government employment.  I wouldn't be in support of a statewide mandate, for the reasons Gramarye pointed out above.  If a private employer really passes over the best person for the job based on sexual preference, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot.  If the executive order really just applied to positions the governor appointed, isn't it really just symbolic?

How do you figure it is a legislative issue? We are not talking about all employment in Ohio. We are not even talking about all public sector employment. The EO only applied to State government employment. Isn't that the Governor's field of play? In fact, you could argue that a legislative measure that only restricted the governor's appointing authority and not that of other public and private employers would be a violation of the separation of powers and not a proper use of the general assembly's authority under Art II Sec 34.

 

That said, I am all for the GA applying the rule on a statewide scale. I assume you would be too (sarcasm intended).

 

I assumed it was for all state government employment. I wouldn't be in support of a statewide mandate, for the reasons Gramarye pointed out above. If a private employer really passes over the best person for the job based on sexual preference, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot. If the executive order really just applied to positions the governor appointed, isn't it really just symbolic?

 

It is symbolic...and it says 'gays need not apply here'. It's just one more way the state of Ohio gives a middle finger to a group of people that ultimately can find gainful employment in another state. So we're shooting ourselves in the foot...again.

 

I'm still going to judge him on results, but I have to say, he keeps tripping out of the gate with these little gaffes. Pretty soon, I begin to question his credibility...is he really an agent of change, or another good ol boy that benefits his buddies while sticking it to the people underneath him, filling their ears with promises of trickle down largesse.

I've never seen the point of employment nondiscrimination legislation because (a) if you're an employer refuse to hire someone based on an irrelevant characteristic (e.g., race, gender, orientation), you're hurting your own business, and if you do it enough, you'll be overtaken by more rational competition and swept aside, and (b) if you're a talented individual who's black/female/homosexual/pick-your-irrelevant-characteristic-of-choice, do you really want to work for someone who dislikes who you are and whom you had to sue to hire you?

 

Point (a) is very irritating, because it is only relevant if the minority is a decent size. Gays will never be a large minority, by nature of their existence. Assume gays make up 5% of the population. Assume also the 5% is distributed evenly across any given talent pool. By overlooking 5% of the top talent, you're only very minimally affecting your competitive edge. It's just not significant enough that it will matter, in most cases.

 

It also opens up the possibility for everyone to abide by the discriminatory policy, making sure there is no competitive disadvantage at all. You could argue the cat is out of the bag on that one, and you'd be right. But historically this has been an issue.

 

As for point (b), over time the exposure people have to the minority changes people's minds, and changes the culture. Some might have to suffer under an employer who disapproves of them, but (e.g.) when the employer's son takes the company over, he will have seen how irrational the father was through exposure he wouldn't have had otherwise.

 

It might be an imposition, but it's the right thing to do.

The EO applied to all "State of Ohio" employees.  It did not just apply to the positions the Governor appointed, but also all appointments and hires thereunder.  It was hardly symbolic.  It applied to all state employees, gay, straight, whatever.  It applied to current employees and potential hires.  It was the right thing to do.

 

I find the libertarian viewpoint on this issue, especially as applied to public sector employment, to be downright disturbing.  Nothing in the EO forced the state to hire any gays or retain any gays that aren't doing their job.  All it did was ensure that the State was operating in the best interests of her citizens by hiring and retaining the most qualified employees regardless of sexual orientation.

 

And now Kasich has removed that protection which will remain for other classifications.  What if he had removed protections for white males but left in all the rest.  I'm soooooo sure the faux libertarian crowd would give that the thumbs up.

Great source there Sherman...stuffqueerpeopleneedtoknow.wordpress.com haha

 

All it did was ensure that the State was operating in the best interests of her citizens by hiring and retaining the most qualified employees regardless of sexual orientation.

Wrong. It was a handout to the grievance industry of lawsuit happy left-wing groups that can use the EO as fodder against those who they oppose politically. There's a reason Democrats favor such things while the GOP supports similar EO's at the executive level limiting abortion. It's just back-scratching.

 

But it is 2011. People get fired for all sorts of reasons and many times they aren't "fair", but "protected classes" only retards the system. And you know, someday if this is put back in place (which I'm sure it will), some heterosexual will be fired by a gay boss and sue, citing the EO, and prove my point that it's just fodder for lawsuits.

 

Let's move on.

Poll: Most Ohioans reject Kasich ideas

Wednesday, January 19, 2011  06:23 AM

By Darrel Rowland

 

The Columbus Dispatch

 

While most Ohioans are reserving judgment on the performance of new Gov. John Kasich, they already are saying they don't like several of the ideas being kicked around by his administration and GOP supporters, a new poll shows.

 

"For the most part, Ohioans are not receptive to a number of proposals that would cut spending or sell state assets as a way to balance the budget," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's polling institute, in a statement. "Gov. Kasich has a serious selling job on his hands when it comes to convincing the people of Ohio on the wisdom of his ideas."

 

Read more at: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/01/19/19-poll.html?sid=101

One interesting thing to watch is that while the GOP controls the state house, if Kasich gets really unpopular, they might start to pay more attention to their own elections in two years and not his ideas. 

One interesting thing to watch is that while the GOP controls the state house, if Kasich gets really unpopular, they might start to pay more attention to their own elections in two years and not his ideas.

 

That's exactly what happened to Gov. Taft.

Great source there Sherman...stuffqueerpeopleneedtoknow.wordpress.com haha

 

Yeah Sherman.  Why can't you use Scrabble's rock-solid sources like Britebart and World Net Daily?

 

Wrong. It was a handout to the grievance industry of lawsuit happy left-wing groups that can use the EO as fodder against those who they oppose politically. There's a reason Democrats favor such things while the GOP supports similar EO's at the executive level limiting abortion. It's just back-scratching.

 

But it is 2011. People get fired for all sorts of reasons and many times they aren't "fair", but "protected classes" only retards the system. And you know, someday if this is put back in place (which I'm sure it will), some heterosexual will be fired by a gay boss and sue, citing the EO, and prove my point that it's just fodder for lawsuits.

 

Let's move on.

 

Imll move on when Kasich signs the Order.  I know these subjects are difficult for you because the logic behind such a policy is difficult to twist in a fashion that will allow you to keep you .999 batting average of siding with the GOP on social issues.  But sometimes you just have to accept that there was no ulterior motive...... but rather just a leader doing what leaders SHOULD do.

 

On your future hypothetical, that day certainly may come.  And I will bet the farm that you will come charging in with your gasden flag screaming "liberty for all" in protest of the termination.

There was an update to the blog post with a link to a pre-election interview with the Dispatch where Kasich said he would renew the executive order:

 

11. Would you renew the 2007 executive order that no one can be fired from or denied a state job on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity? Do you support legislation passed by the Ohio House that would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation?

 

KASICH: Yes.

 

MATESZ: Yes (on the executive order).

 

If this legislation prohibits private businesses from deciding on their own who can be hired, I do not support it. If the legislation refers to government employment, I support it.

 

SPISAK: I would renew the 2007 executive order. I also support legislation passed by the Ohio House that would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

STRICKLAND: Yes. I am a fair-minded public servant who believes that every Ohioan, including members of the Ohio gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, deserves the opportunity to live to their fullest potential in Ohio, whether they are at school, at work, or at home. That is why I signed this order in 2007.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/08/15/copy/answers.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Awesome! Thanks for the update natininja!

What's most interesting about it is that it seems he was saying he'd support wide-reaching legislation as well.

 

It's also interesting Matesz and Kasich are both to the left of Scrabble on this.

Yeah but we're talking about his advisors here. It's not a huge deal either way. Let's focus on real issues in this thread like Ohio's cities that are dangerously dependent on state and federal aid.

State aid to municipalities is well conceived.  It is more progressive than depending on property owners and real estate taxes.

Don't know if anyone saw this one, but...

 

The new Governor as apparently caught in a lie by the Columbus Dispatch yesterday.  He called a presser to announce that he had helped a company get through all the job killing bureaucracy at the Ohio EPA.  Turns out it wasn't true.  He just found a permit that was ready to be approved and then trotted it out for public consumption.  The Plain Dealer took the bait.  Fortunately, there are still some journalists who check out stories.

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/01/18/copy/kasich-wont-alter-criticism-of-epa-process.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this.  He is against accountability... :evil:

Yeah but we're talking about his advisors here. It's not a huge deal either way. Let's focus on real issues in this thread like Ohio's cities that are dangerously dependent on state and federal aid.

State aid to municipalities is well conceived. It is more progressive than depending on property owners and real estate taxes.

 

Where the hell do you think state aid comes from?

Income tax and sales tax.

You need to take a course in civics or political science.

If the state wants to give aid to municipalities, I actually don't have too much of a problem with it--after all, state legislators aren't going to do too much of that anyway.  Why would the state legislator want to shoulder the blame for raising taxes while giving the local pol all the perks of being the one to spend the money?

Income tax and sales tax.

You need to take a course in civics or political science.

No duh.

"They say true talent will always emerge in time" -- The Clash

I heard somewhere that we might get rid of the estate tax? Is this true?

 

 

Edit: Yes  http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/estate_tax_repeal_among_18_bil.html

 

 

 

I heard somewhere that we might get rid of the estate tax? Is this true?

 

 

Edit: Yes  http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/estate_tax_repeal_among_18_bil.html

 

 

 

 

I like it!!  :clap:

I like that and the other bills they listed. Especially the second one

 

<b>Estate tax repeal among 18 bills Ohio House GOP introduces to advance agenda</b>

 

• Authorize Kasich, a Republican, to create JobsOhio, the private, nonprofit economic development corporation he will establish to replace the Ohio Department of Development.

• Establish tax credits for employers who hire unemployed people and for businesses that expand into vacant buildings.

• Prohibit late-term abortions. Rep. Lorraine Fende, a Democrat from Willowick, introduced the bill.

• Take pit bulls off the state's "vicious dog" list.

• Prohibit speeding tickets based on an officer's visual estimation of speed of a motor vehicle.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/estate_tax_repeal_among_18_bil.html

Take pit bulls off the state's "vicious dog" list.

 

???

Take pit bulls off the state's "vicious dog" list.

 

:?

 

Yeah, thats crazy to me. Maybe they will put the owners on the list!

Pit Bulls are only vicious when trained to be.

 

What's crazy is the inheritance tax thing.

Take pit bulls off the state's "vicious dog" list.

 

:?

 

Yeah, thats crazy to me. Maybe they will put the owners on the list!

 

The very premise of a vicious dogs list is flawed to begin with.  Dogs are not vicious because they are a certain breed.  They are vicious because they are trained to be.  Pitbulls are not naturally vicious animals.  Not by a long shot.  They just happened to be the dog fighters favorite breed due to their quickness, strength, stamina, and bite strength.  Because of this they received a bad reputation.  I know plenty of people that own pitbulls that wouldn't hurt a fly.

 

And since we have this silly "vicious dogs list" it likely forces (or at least authorizes) police officers to "exterminate" the dog if they come across one of those "vicious" breeds while serving a warrant, making an arrest, etc...  This list is totally unnecessary.

^That's not true.  One of my roommates had a pit in college.  She was not trained to be vicious, yet we really had to keep our eye on her.  She killed a puppy one of my other roommates brought home for no reason.  I agree that they CAN be docile, but they have some instincts that other dogs don't.  When they are trained to bite, that makes it that much worse.  And they are trained to be vicious too much.  My problem with Pit Bulls is that people are buying them more as a fashion statement than anything else right now.  The tatoos/microchips, mandatory insurance, and leash laws applicable to these dogs is a good thing considering how many are owned by irresponsible owners and their propensity to attack weaker targets like old ladies and young kids.

I heard somewhere that we might get rid of the estate tax? Is this true?

 

 

Edit: Yes http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/estate_tax_repeal_among_18_bil.html

 

 

 

 

That's a shame.  As libertarian as I consider myself to be, I like the concept of estate tax.  Any time a huge chunk of money changes hands, it should be taxed quite a bit.  I think my opinion has something to do with individual responsibility... I think income tax should be a lot, lot lower, and things like estate tax and sales tax should be what they are, if not a bit higher to compensate. 

I heard somewhere that we might get rid of the estate tax? Is this true?

 

 

Edit: Yes  http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/estate_tax_repeal_among_18_bil.html

 

 

 

 

That's a shame.  As libertarian as I consider myself to be, I like the concept of estate tax.  Any time a huge chunk of money changes hands, it should be taxed quite a bit.  I think my opinion has something to do with individual responsibility... I think income tax should be a lot, lot lower, and things like estate tax and sales tax should be what they are, if not a bit higher to compensate. 

Why should I pay taxes on something that's going to be passed on to me?  Or why should my heirs pay taxes on things I bequeath to them?

Why should I pay taxes on something that's going to be passed on to me?   Or why should my heirs pay taxes on things I bequeath to them?

 

That's like saying why should I pay tax for money I earned or property I own?  Taxes may seem arbitrary, but they're a way to measure what you can afford to chip in for the public good (not trying to start an argument about what or what shouldn't be funded for the public good, that's where this discussion would become political).  When money changes hands from one person to another, that person receiving the money now has been determined to be able to contribute some of it to the public (government).  Why should this be treated any differently than income?  Actually, as far as the economy is concerned, this is a far less useful purpose for money than if it were income (exchanged to another for performing work or producing a good, not simply for being a relative).  This applies to all transfers of money between persons (except for small "gifts").  Why would giving money to a relative be any different?  What next?  Do we not charge income tax if your father is the CEO of the company your work for?

^That's not true.  One of my roommates had a pit in college.  She was not trained to be vicious, yet we really had to keep our eye on her.  She killed a puppy one of my other roommates brought home for no reason.  I agree that they CAN be docile, but they have some instincts that other dogs don't.  When they are trained to bite, that makes it that much worse.  And they are trained to be vicious too much.  My problem with Pit Bulls is that people are buying them more as a fashion statement than anything else right now.  The tatoos/microchips, mandatory insurance, and leash laws applicable to these dogs is a good thing considering how many are owned by irresponsible owners and their propensity to attack weaker targets like old ladies and young kids.

 

I agree.  I know some very sweet pitbulls, but also know of many instances where a pit bull has turned on its owner/other dogs or other people (and certainly were not brought up to fight).  My understanding is that breed does have an aggressive instinct that can be pretty successfully suppressed, but you do have to be very cautious with them. 

The very premise of a vicious dogs list is flawed to begin with. Dogs are not vicious because they are a certain breed. They are vicious because they are trained to be. Pitbulls are not naturally vicious animals. Not by a long shot. They just happened to be the dog fighters favorite breed due to their quickness, strength, stamina, and bite strength. Because of this they received a bad reputation. I know plenty of people that own pitbulls that wouldn't hurt a fly.

 

And since we have this silly "vicious dogs list" it likely forces (or at least authorizes) police officers to "exterminate" the dog if they come across one of those "vicious" breeds while serving a warrant, making an arrest, etc... This list is totally unnecessary.

 

Pit bulls exhibit certain behaviors, especially related to biting (both strength and refusing to release), that make them far more dangerous than most dogs.  They are responsible for a highly disproportionate number of human fatalities.  Of course not every dog will be vicious, but they have the potential to be far more deadly than any other type of dog (followed by Rottweilers, which are a distant second).  They are known for being friendly and lovable to their owners, but ready to flip in an instant on someone they perceive to be a threat.  Obviously, a dog's judgement of what is and isn't a threat probably isn't quite as good as a human.  That mailman "trespassing on your property" often times may seem like a threat to the dog.  This is why I have no problem with breed-specific legislation when a certain breed has physical characteristics (regardless of behavioral ones) that make it dangerous.

Interesting discussion on estate taxes.  Personally, I think Kasich is barking down the wrong tree with his repeal. You give me a gift, you pay a gift tax (after a certain amount), otherwise there would be all kinds of income tax circumvention.  You pay me to work, I pay an income tax.  So it stands to reason that if you leave me assets, then yeah, I, the estate, someone has gotta pay just the same.  It's just a form of gift tax basically.

 

 

On the estate tax issue, I understand the argument that more often than not it amounts to double taxation - i.e. I am taxed once when I earn the money and then the money is taxed again when I leave it to my heirs.  But, then again, it is not really ME that is being taxed again, but rather my heir who in most circumstances did nothing to earn the money.  And anybody who knows anything on this subject knows that good estate planning will minimize the impact, if not eliminate it altogether.  If anything, I say close those loopholes/tricks.

 

On the pit bull issue, regardless of how you view the breed, I would say it is a necessary law.  Too many irresponsible people own these dogs for the wrong reasons and with malicious intent.  Because of that, they are a plague on society, especially here in Cleveland.  Making the owners carry insurance, keep the dog from running loose, and mandating some way to identify the dog (tatoos or microchips) is fair and necessary IMO.  Whenever I see some story of a young child, small pet or other easy target getting mauled by a dog, I would say that 8 or 9 times out of 10 it involves a pit bull.

 

j40j makes a good point that the physical characteristics and capabilities alone justify the law.  House cats are no less vicious, but they aren't big enough to cause the same level of carnage.

Yeah the issue is its being double taxed. First the estate tax and then once you get it, it gets income taxed.

And I know rich people do end up leaving the state in order to avoid the tax. There was a story of a guys estate that the tax took 8 million.

 

And about the dogs, I think the most naturally vicious dogs are the over grown rats. Last summer in the warehouse district some guy was carry his puppy, a nice dog very friendly, and some lady had this rat dog with legs the size of pencils. The lady put her dog by the guys dog to say hello and the thing bit the dog in the ear and cut it. The dog was growling and just acting horrible while the dog that got bit didn't even fight back or anything.

Yeah the issue is its being double taxed. First the estate tax and then once you get it, it gets income taxed.

 

If this is happening to you or someone you know, please consult an accountant.  Generally, all the taxes should be paid by the estate and the inheritance is not taxable income.

I agree the little ones can be quite mean.  My mom had to get rid of her Jack Russell because she couldn't get homeowners insurance because he had a propensity for biting joggers running in front of her house.  However, those joggers recieved a little nick on their leg, whereas a pit bull attacking causing much more damage than that.  Much, much, much more.

As to the estate tax discussion, you also have to remember that everything is taxed multiple times.  Since taxes often get passed down to the consumer, when you buy a good, you're really paying both a sales tax and some of the corporate tax since companies will increase the cost of the goods to include their higher labor costs coming from their higher taxes.  And so that money is already (at least) being doubly taxed.

 

For every dollar you get paid from the boss, that money is also influenced by the corporate tax structure, and so you can presumably be at least triple taxed here: (1) Corporate tax lessens some of your paycheck; (2) You have to pay various income taxes on the paycheck as it is; (3) The inevitable sales taxes that you pay when you use your income.

 

I'm simplifying things here considerably but still, your money is already being taxed in various ways, and so the term doubly taxed isn't really germane with estate taxes, since they have probably, in one way or the other, been taxed more than two times already. 

 

Edit: Also, I don't see the big deal with estate taxes since, as I said before, they're really just gift taxes which don't get a fraction of the controversy.

 

 

 

I heard somewhere that we might get rid of the estate tax? Is this true?

 

 

Edit: Yes http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/estate_tax_repeal_among_18_bil.html

 

 

 

 

That's a shame. As libertarian as I consider myself to be, I like the concept of estate tax. Any time a huge chunk of money changes hands, it should be taxed quite a bit. I think my opinion has something to do with individual responsibility... I think income tax should be a lot, lot lower, and things like estate tax and sales tax should be what they are, if not a bit higher to compensate.

Why should I pay taxes on something that's going to be passed on to me?   Or why should my heirs pay taxes on things I bequeath to them?

 

Why shouldn't you? My question is why should I pay income tax, on money that I've worked very hard to earn?  If you receive a huge gift, under any circumstances (even a death), it should be taxed.  Passing money down and keeping it in the family does nothing for the economy, whereas my disposable income will be put back into the economy directly.  Taking tax dollars from income and not gifts is taking out of the wrong pot. 

I dont mind getting rid of the tax because maybe it would force certain cities to have to consolidate and possibly come together. Some cities it counts for 80% of there money

^The estate tax?  Interesting if true.  Do you have anything that supports that assertion?

I dont mind getting rid of the tax because maybe it would force certain cities to have to consolidate and possibly come together. Some cities it counts for 80% of there money

 

You'd like to bankrupt cities into consolidation? I'm all for consolidation of local governments and services, but that is not the right way to incentize it. Not to mention the fact that some communities do not have consolidation as an option or may not even benefit financially from consolidation.

^The estate tax?  Interesting if true.  Do you have anything that supports that assertion?

 

 

<b>Lawmakers hope to repeal death tax

By Tracey Read

[email protected]</b>

 

 

Waite Hill has about 446 residents with no commercial enterprise.

 

So how does the village still manage to have a $9 million net in its capital improvement fund?

 

The answer is simple: estate taxes, otherwise known as the death tax.

 

An almost $2 million project to rebuild Waite Hill Village Hall and the adjacent police department is about 80 percent complete, Mayor Arthur D. Baldwin II said.

 

The project was made possible by Ohio's tax on money and possessions left after death.

 

Republican state lawmakers introduced a bill Tuesday to repeal the estate tax.

 

"There's no question people flee from Ohio because of this tax," said Bainbridge Township Trustee Matt Lynch, who is also an estate lawyer. "There's an incredible amount of money and legal fees paid to try and avoid the tax — everything from setting up a trust to changing residences to Florida. I would be very surprised if this does not pass."

 

http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/01/23/news/nh3543174.txt

Yeah.  It's spread around after the State taxes the estate.  But the article you posted does not support the assertion that the estate tax accounts for 80% of any political subdivision's revenue.

My bad I meant to say I heard that somewhere. I will see if I can find any proof to back that up

I heard somewhere that we might get rid of the estate tax? Is this true?

 

 

Edit: Yes http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/estate_tax_repeal_among_18_bil.html

 

 

 

 

That's a shame. As libertarian as I consider myself to be, I like the concept of estate tax. Any time a huge chunk of money changes hands, it should be taxed quite a bit. I think my opinion has something to do with individual responsibility... I think income tax should be a lot, lot lower, and things like estate tax and sales tax should be what they are, if not a bit higher to compensate.

Why should I pay taxes on something that's going to be passed on to me? Or why should my heirs pay taxes on things I bequeath to them?

 

Why shouldn't you? My question is why should I pay income tax, on money that I've worked very hard to earn? If you receive a huge gift, under any circumstances (even a death), it should be taxed. Passing money down and keeping it in the family does nothing for the economy, whereas my disposable income will be put back into the economy directly. Taking tax dollars from income and not gifts is taking out of the wrong pot.

 

I am not against income tax like you are, but I agree with your reasoning in that estate tax makes way more sense. Getting money you didn't work for should definitely be taxed!!! Very highly, IMO!