Port Angeles Might Require Business License and Fee
At the City Council's meeting this Tuesday, they will consider requiring all businesses in Port Angeles to pay for a business license. They first considered this idea three years ago, but it didn't go anywhere.
Right now about 150 Port Angeles businesses are covered by the city's business license ordinance.
Right now about 150 Port Angeles businesses are covered by the city's business license ordinance.
posted by Tom Harper at 10:34 AM
39 Comments:
I guess that I assumed that all businesses in the city limits were required to have a business license. At the PDN someone fussed about the bossy control that may bring, but I don't think that will change at all being as they want to control all business owners anyway.
I assume that everyone has their voters ballot now, can't change and improve a damn thing with this stupid fucking system anymore, but I'm going to vote anyway.
Too many voters vote with their hearts instead of their brains. Or allow the kid in them to do the voting.
I think the reasoning for that is kind of hilarious, in a darkly ironic sort of way. Businesses must pay a license fee so the city can keep a directory of businesses so that other businesses can check out the area and see if they want to move in and compete with the businesses paying the license fee.
On the other hand, I can't see too many businesses moving up here. Also, given the high prices and low service some of the businesses up here have, a little competition could be more than welcome. Light a fire under their britches, as it were.
PS: Just to head Mr. Cino off at the pass: blah blah, all Max Mania's fault, blah blah, spending taxpayer's money like there's no tomorrow is a good thing, blah blah liberals suck.
Sure, let's place yet another burden on the many struggling businesses in Port Angeles. They're all Fascist Capitalists (especially that Evil Edna!)anyway. Yeah, let's add to their overhead by putting another fee/tax on 'em. So what if they end up laying off employees or closing down completely?
I'm glad someone brought up "Mania". I've noticed that Cheri Kidd is regularly quoted in the PDN these days while the Savior of Port Angeles ("Mania") gets nothing. What do they do, bundle "Mania" into the broom closet when the PDN reporter comes around?
You know, I used to think that it would be necessary to remove Kidd and Di Giulio from office in '11 so that "Mania" would feel all alone. I get the impression he's already feeling lonely. (Well, he has Norma and Darlene, those unelected co-Councilors, to keep him company and pull his strings.) At any rate, we have six adults and one clown on the Council. One lonely, sad clown!
Squawk-a-doodle-doo, "Mania" zombies!
Businesses must pay a license fee so the city can keep a directory of businesses so that other businesses can check out the area and see if they want to move in and compete with the businesses paying the license fee.
My second to last business was in a small town of 3500 and we all had to have a business license, I didn't have any issue with that.
Did anyone read Norma Turner's impassioned plea for the passage of I-1098 (the so-called "progressive" income tax or Tax the Successful)in today's PDN?
Typical Socialist squawk-a-doodle with the added hypocrisy of quoting Scripture! The wealthy, as we all know, are greedy, evil, bloodsucking vampires. Undeniable Fascists with far too much money in their overstuffed bank vaults and unquenchable thirst for more money than they'll ever be able to spend in their villainous lifetimes.
Clearly these fiends must be stopped, brought to heel, made to pay for their excess success! And who shall stop these greedy grubbers of loot but Comrade Norma Turner and her squawk-a-doodle squandronaires!
The wealth shall be equally distributed and we all live happily under the Marxist regime, Comrades!
But consider this: when you give the state the power to tax you, the state will never cede that power back. It won't just stop at people who make 400,000. No, soon it will be people who make 90,000. Then 50,000 and then - hey, why stop there?- it's down to 20, 15, and 10,000. In short order we'll have a complete income tax for everyone.
This is Socialist disingenuousness at it's very best. "We're only taxing the very wealthy. The one's who won't miss a penny of the taxes we rake in. We're not going to tax you - yet!"
Today the wealthy, tomorrow everyone!
Washington has lost many businesses to overbearing taxation of businesses. How many Boeing jobs and projects have gone to a more friendly business climate? How many people have been forced to move, take lesser paying jobs or are on the perpetual Liberal "charity" of unending unemployment benefits because of this?
Paul Allen is completely against this Tax the Successful scheme. I'd trust someone in business rather than some Socialist busybody any day.
As for this crazy notion that the wealthy cling to every last penny, I suggest looking at people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet among many others. They endow numerous charities and scholarships. Hell, Buffet is giving away the majority of his wealth. It's his money, let him do with what he wants.
Norma, stick with Max. He's going nowhere and you can go along for the ride. We don't need some squawk-a-doodle Commissar telling us what to do and when and how to do it.
Typical Socialist squawk-a-doodle with the added hypocrisy of quoting Scripture!
Quoting scripture, hahahaha.
Hey, wasn't it jesus that kicked the rich capitalists out of the temple?
Or something like that.
Fucking christians just piss me off.
"Washington has lost many businesses to overbearing taxation of businesses. How many Boeing jobs and projects have gone to a more friendly business climate? How many people have been forced to move, take lesser paying jobs or are on the perpetual Liberal "charity" of unending unemployment benefits because of this?"
Yeah, Washington needs to slash wages, benefits and pensions. The average worker in the countries where American companies have moved to is what, $90 a month?
So, Mr. Brightlight, you figure out how to make America function with wages at $90 a month, or any of the other "competitive wages" paid in these other countries.
A "race to the bottom"?
I'm waiting to hear of your great plan.
"PS: Just to head Mr. Cino off at the pass: blah blah, all Max Mania's fault,"
"I'm glad someone brought up "Mania"."
Well, THAT became a self-fulfilling prophecy...
A "race to the bottom"?
I'm waiting to hear of your great plan.
Here's the great plan, abolish the state and federal minimum wage, shrink Frederal government to cover only the 3 legislative branches, and let the States govern themselves.
That would do it.
Here's the great plan, abolish the state and federal minimum wage, shrink Frederal government to cover only the 3 legislative branches, and let the States govern themselves.
That would do it.
Once again you display your ignorance regarding the country , it’s government, and how it works… There are not 3 legislative branches of government. There are 3 branches of Federal government, the Legislative Branch being one of them. The other two being Executive and Judicial . (for more information on this subject, try reading a freaking book once in a while)
This asinine concept of “shrinking” government is only tea bagger rhetoric. No Republican has ever “reduced” the size of government, or its spending. They simply allocate the budget in ways you find acceptable. (the money I would have spent on education or infrastructure, you would spend on wars and tax breaks for corporations.) But it’s the same relative amount of cash, derived, ultimately from taxes.
No government exists (now or EVER) that does not tax it’s citizens. The revenues received are then spent however that government sees fit. Thus, ALL governments ( including Repulofascist ones) are “Tax and Spend” situations. The debate isn’t really about taxes, rather it’s about how the money is spent.
"Here's the great plan, abolish the state and federal minimum wage, shrink Frederal government to cover only the 3 legislative branches, and let the States govern themselves.
That would do it."
LOL! Yep, that sure would "do it", IF you want to see complete global economic collapse. If you thought the credibility of the US as viewed by the rest of the world community was in trouble before, then try demonstrating radical economic shifts and watch where foreign investment goes!
As has been shown in threads here previously, Port Angeles is dependent upon all those government payrolls for it's survival. Without lots of taxpayer money brought in, Port Angeles dries up.
And, within the current governmental processes are all the "grants" that fund road construction, health care services, municipal infrastructure construction and upgrades, etc, all that bring "outside governmental monies and jobs to locals in smaller communities (like Port Angeles. (A variation of the "trickle down" economic theories).
How about agricultural subsidies? Cut those? What would be the results to timber companies, as well as the other producers of agricultural commodities, and the communities they are located in?
How about the billions sent overseas to support governments the US considers "friendly", or strategically important? Israel? Pakistan?
We can continue with other aspects of the actual *structure* of our currently complex society, many of which create difficult choices and are hard to justify or support. But the ramifications are also difficult.
I'm not a supporter of all these programs and agencies, but I do see that the solutions are not as easy as some might think. The global economic relationships have changed dramatically in the last 20 years, in part as a result of US manufacturing companies moving their operations FROM the US TO places like China and India.
These days, countries are not as beholden to the US as they used to be. They can sell or purchase what they wish from countries other than the US. And, are.
Kinda Newtonian: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
This asinine concept of “shrinking” government is only tea bagger rhetoric. No Republican has ever “reduced” the size of government, or its spending. They simply allocate the budget in ways you find
There you go again WTF, did i say anything about Republicans or Democrats, or taxes? NO
I said abolish the Federal and State minimum wage,Reduce the Federal government to only ot's 3 branches and let the state govern themselves.
Your contempt for "the other"
party(s) has clearly clouded your mind.
My plan will bring jobs home, generate more tax dollars to spend, and therefore eliminate tax increases.
My plan will bring jobs home, generate more tax dollars to spend, and therefore eliminate tax increases.
Hahahahaha
Your contempt for "the other"
party(s) has clearly clouded your mind.
Actually, my contempt is for people like you who somehow think a grade school level of understanding of our government and how it operates justifies their brain dead commentary. This nonsense about funding the three branches of government is an excellent example of just how little you understand. You see, genius, the Congress is what funds all the programs, policies, etc, you hate (or love) . They write the actual budget. So by “only” funding them, you have “only” maintained the status quo. There would be NO reduction in spending. Your plan is no “plan” at all. It’s only empty tea bagger rhetoric with no actual meaning.
You monkeys keep defending a government and political system that is bullshit.
And you can't fix it, I don't care how much you have studied it and think you understand it.
You may think you have solutions and can fix things working with this system but that just makes you full of shit.
But if you are so convinced that you think you can, run for office and show us.
I'm joining the rebellion as a cheerleader.
Anyone that thinks they understand our governments and political systems are fools.
WTF
You clearly do not get it. You need to take a class in economics.
Drop out of the stupidity class you are currently enrolled in, you already meet expectations
"Anyone that thinks they understand our governments and political systems are fools."
That sure explains politicians.
Capitalist said:
"My plan will bring jobs home, generate more tax dollars to spend, and therefore eliminate tax increases."
Who in Port Angeles, or the rest of the US, is going to work and pay their bills on the $90 per month our "competitors" are accepting?
"Generate more taxes"? What kind of taxes are you getting off a $90 per month salary/payroll?
If we cannot be competitive with employee/salary "options" that the US corporations are moving to in China, India, etc.. what do we REALLY have to offer?
How does your "plan" address this?
We have had vacant commercial, industrial and retail spaces here in Port Angeles for years. We "built it", but they ain't comin..
In fact, they're leaving.
" WTF lover said...
WTF
You clearly do not get it. You need to take a class in economics.
Drop out of the stupidity class you are currently enrolled in, you already meet expectations."
And your plan is exactly what? Just to insult people? Show us all how better you are with that smart plan YOU developed with all YOUR education.
We're waiting.
See if you little people can understand this.
1. eliminate minimum wage. Brings hundreds of thousands of jobs home from overseas and/or Mexico, i'm not proposing companies paying $0.50 per hour, but $4 to $10 per hour would bring the jobs back. This would generate Billions in tax revenue, get it? Billions from the jobs brought home.
2. This would also stop tax increase provided the dumbasses elected quit spending money on wars, social programs i.e. health care, and aid to other countries.
Do you understand now, think about it, jobs started leaving in the late 70's early 80's when a good job paid $10 an hours and minimum wage was $2.50. As labor costs have risen so has everything else, like medical care, insurance, houses, food, taxes.
It all started with labor costs rising in the 70's.
We are supposed to be a representative form of government. We should be electing our representatives, and supporting their efforts until the next representative gets elected. Governing a City, a County, and a State, not to mention a Nation, is complicated and incredibly demanding and cannot be defined on the written space found in a fortune cookie. We are doing ourselves and our country an incredible disservice by allowing 30 second political soundbites, with only 5 seconds of truth, to determine our futures. Shame on us all!
i'm not proposing companies paying $0.50 per hour, but $4 to $10 per hour would bring the jobs back.
So you’re not actually proposing elimination of the minimum wage (4-10 dollars is your minimum.) Now if you actually had done a little research prior to posting, you would see that state by state , we’re already in your 4.00 -10.00 range. (US department of Labor) So where’s all those jobs?
This would also stop tax increase provided the dumbasses elected quit spending money on wars, social programs i.e. health care, and aid to other countries.
That's a pretty big provision. Pretty much dream world stuff.
Do you understand now, think about it, jobs started leaving in the late 70's early 80's when a good job paid $10 an hours and minimum wage was $2.50. As labor costs have risen so has everything else, like medical care, insurance, houses, food, taxes.
It all started with labor costs rising in the 70's.
Except that it didn’t…Using your model, we should have seen corporations leaving the US beginning in the late 1920’s as a result of the wage increases (not to mention the creation of the middle class) caused by the advent of organized labor - didn’t happen. We should have seen corporations in mass exodus following the wage gains predicated by the end of WWII - again it didn’t happen.
The more rational theory is that businesses move to avoid labor, safety and environmental laws, as well as taxes. The wage issue as you outline it is an absolute sham, transportation and logistics making wages alone more of a wash in the big picture.
Here’s a Question, why do the Germans and the Japanese routinely kick our collective asses in the industrial and tech arenas, while maintaining a decidedly Socialist approach to labor ? (cradle to grave healthcare, pensions, etc. and (in Germany) an insanely powerful unionized labor force? )
"Capitalist said...
See if you little people can understand this.
1. eliminate minimum wage. Brings hundreds of thousands of jobs home from overseas and/or Mexico, i'm not proposing companies paying $0.50 per hour, but $4 to $10 per hour would bring the jobs back. This would generate Billions in tax revenue, get it? Billions from the jobs brought home."
Upon WHAT, exactly, are you basing this premise? This makes no sense, at all, other than being a spate of wishful thinking.
The companies have ALREADY moved, and have based their production/profitability costs on the low wages/no benefits they find in these other countries. WHY would they pack everything up, and "bring the jobs back", other than to lose money?
If you follow business news, you hear how the current margin of profitability is so extremely narrow, with all the manufacturers producing their goods in cheap labor countries, as it is. So, YOU figure they will move everything BACK to the US, to pay more in everything (housing/living costs, etc), to be LESS competitive than they already are??
Yes, "The race to the bottom", because what you propose is exactly that. How little can the American worker get by with. $2.50 an hour? $100 a week, before taxes. $400 a month.
So, rents will have to be drastically cut to allow people to pay a proportionately low housing cost. Housing prices and construction costs dramatically cut to allow people to afford cheap houses to rent to these workers. Oil/fuel costs cut. Medical costs slashed. Food, clothing. Everything drastically reduced.
Maybe barrios? Worker encampments? Factory owned housing?
This kind of fantasy is simply not achievable.
Now, I WILL agree with you about the money spent on tin-pot dictators around the world, and the stupid "wars" which primarily benefit the munitions providers/"defense" industry.
But the rest of your plan is just unrealistic. Maybe if you were an absolute dictator like that guy in North Korea, you could *impose* such changes, but, I think you would generate a civil war as a result. And, not something I would expect a "Capitalist" to advocate.
Any ideas that ACTUALLY will help?
The reason socialized health care works in Germany and Japan is because of tort reform, when i say tort reform i mean:
limit the circumstances under which injured people may file a lawsuit
make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial
place limits on the amount of money injured people may be awarded in a lawsuit
We need this here and our problems would be solved
Capitalist said...
It all started with labor costs rising in the 70's.
Ah geez, did poor capitalist want to keep it all to himself without sharing more of it?
Of course labor costs went up in the 70's, but so did your own income and lifestyle.
Stop your fucking whining, I don't give a damn if you go broke or not, I know how to get by just fine on my little retirement income.
You would whine because you can't get by with my monthly income for a week. Poor baby....
It's people like me support this pathetic town.
Don't forget it.
" WTF lover said...
The reason socialized health care works in Germany and Japan is because of tort reform, when i say tort reform i mean:
limit the circumstances under which injured people may file a lawsuit
make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial
place limits on the amount of money injured people may be awarded in a lawsuit
We need this here and our problems would be solved."
Really? You really think limiting the liability of those that do harm to others will solve all "our problems"?
I've done considerable research on the impacts of medical "mistakes". Not happy statistics. I'd reluctantly write at length about the specifics, if you really want to go down this path. The stats are readily available.
Do you need to lose a loved one to a medical "mistake" to honestly talk about these issues, or do you have any human compassion left in your body?
These are not "solutions" to our problems.
Annon 9:20
yes tort reform is the solution to our health care problems.
Take your pick:
low cost health care for everyone
or
high priced health care for the fortunate
Read it again:
1. limit the circumstances under which injured people may file a lawsuit
2. make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial
3. place limits on the amount of money injured people may be awarded in a lawsuit
None of these say people suffering from medical mistakes get nothing, it limits liability, GET IT?
Business License, it's purpose would be to create a list of all business in Port Angeles, hmmmmm
that list is already available.
We're doing this for the benefit of the business owners says Kidd. Excuse me, what benefit will that give me?
Why not go after all those folks that aren't paying their local taxes? I can easily name a few of my competitors.
It's people like me support this pathetic town.
In your dreams & delusions. Where do you go on your vacations and do some of your major shopping? I spend all my income within a fifty mile radius.
Most of it within a ten mile radius, but I'm considering taking some of it to Victoria.
WTF lover said...
Annon 9:20
yes tort reform is the solution to our health care problems.
Take your pick:
low cost health care for everyone
or
high priced health care for the fortunate
Read it again:
1. limit the circumstances under which injured people may file a lawsuit
2. make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial
3. place limits on the amount of money injured people may be awarded in a lawsuit
None of these say people suffering from medical mistakes get nothing, it limits liability, GET IT?"
Hmmm. I read "1. limit the circumstances under which injured people may file a lawsuit."
So, some people who have been injured DO get to file a lawsuit, and others do not. Those that do not, get what?
Are you reading what you're posting??
Capitalist said...
See if you little people can understand this.
Capitalist said...
It's people like me support this pathetic town.
Don't forget it.
To which I reply:
Your contempt for "the other"
party(s) has clearly clouded your mind.
You're just soooo easy.
We need this here(tort reform) and our problems would be solved
It would appear you believe the high cost of health care is the result of malpractice insurance claims. Really? That’s why all our medical technology costs so much? Why drug companies need to make a thousand percent profit on their products? Why a medical school costs half a million bucks to produce a GP?
Tort reform will only limit the liability of corporations and doctors. It wont in itself lower malpractice premiums or cause the health care industry to lower the cost to consumers. It most certainly will not address the main cause of these claims, which are incompetent doctors who cause the problem in the first place.
The only reason Ford quit making the Pinto was a huge settlement caused by a liability lawsuit. Their internal memos revealed they were well aware of the danger the gas tank/trunk floor arrangement was causing, but thought it was cheaper to settle whatever lawsuits resulted rather than alter the design. Had tort reform been in place at the time, they would have been right.
In conclusion, I would say take your tort reform, corporate tax cuts, term limits, and the rest of your fake tea bagger agenda and stick it right up where all your ideas come from.
tort reform would do the following:
lower the $$ level of malpractice insurance therefore lowering insurance premiums.
Also, the reason Medical bills are so high is Doctors often order 4, 5, 6, even more tests to be run when they know full well there original diagnosis is correct with only one test. They have to run all the tests to cover their asses.
The bloodsucking attorneys have to be stopped
BBC, you are wrong again, i spend more money in this town than you and all your liberal buddies combined.
When your spending $4 on a camp site, I'm spending hundreds right here.
Get a clue.
BBC,
I would bet Max Mania's bicycle I donate more money every single year to the hospital, food bank, Rotary, the School District, the College, AAU, etc. than you spend locally in a year.
Don't doubt it.
BBC, you are wrong again, i spend more money in this town than you and all your liberal buddies combined.
Where did you get the fucking idea that I'm a liberal?
So you spend more money here than I do, who are you screwing it out of it to get it to spend?
You morons that think it's money that makes the world go around are fools.
Capitalist...
Feel free to take your body and money somewhere else, I wouldn't miss either.
Post a Comment
<< Home