Tax Relief needed in Nebraska

http://www.starherald.com/opinion/opinion-property-taxes/article_55314028-9f64-11e3-a0e3-0019bb2963f4.html

Currently in Nebraska, property owners are ready for a tax relief and it's up to the lawmakers to see that this is done. The State cash reserves are predicted to be $726 million this year, which means it's time for tax relief. Since most citizens of Nebraska have complained at meetings about property taxes and they fund most of the local governments, the legislature gave them some options for bringing it down. It can help schools which will lower local taxes. It can reduce land valuation or it can put money into the Property tax credit fund. The article discusses some of these options. The money wouldn't help the rural school districts, because of the distribution formula that helps mostly urban area schools. The idea to lower the valuation of land would require the moving of property taxes to homes and businesses and there wouldn't be the same tax relief to farmers. Recently the funding of tax credit hasn't been able to keep up with the rising land prices. 

I found this article surprisingly intriguing. I thought it was interesting how the legislature was trying to decide what to do with the money. I personally would want the money to go to the schools, but I can see how it would only affect the urban schools and the rural area schools wouldn't get anything. I see the other options as just causing more taxes for the other tax bases. I think the state should focus on other tax cuts instead of property tax relief. Sales tax cuts might be a good idea, but the state would have to give up most of it's revenue. Income tax is another possibility but it'd be more beneficial to high income taxpayers. So in my eyes there really isn't a perfect solution. I guess the citizens of Nebraska will have to wait and see what happens.

No Money. Live Worse. Walmart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

In an article published by the Huffington Post, a study was released last year by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce found that since Walmart's wages are so low it's employees rely so much on the government's help. The study compared it to costing a taxpayer $900,000 at one Walmart in Wisconsin. Many employees rely on food stamps and other public assistant from the government. Last year Walmart had the highest amount of employees in the state healthcare system. The study stated, "When low wages leave Walmart workers unable to afford the necessities of life, taxpayers pick up the tab." The taxpayers essentially have give money to support the employees, that Walmart cannot. Walmart became defensive and said that every month more than 60%  Americans shop at Walmart and more than 75% of their managers started out as hourly workers. 

This article honestly made me feel awful. The reason why 60% of Americans show at Walmart is because the prices are significantly lower than most stores. The reason the prices are so low is, because they barely pay their workers. I don't think it's fair that the government and the taxpayers have to give up their money to support people who work for a company that doesn't support workers themselves. I feel bad for the people who work at Walmart. I know sometimes they have no choice of where to work, but they would honestly be better off working somewhere else. I think that Walmart should pay their workers more so that the government can help those who don't have a job at all. 

This relates to what we've been doing in class lately, because just adds another aspect of Walmart. One of our arguments in class was that bringing Walmart to Weserville would create more jobs for our citizens. Yes our citizens would have jobs, but would they be worth it? They still would have to get help from the government and wouldn't be happy working long hours for little to no pay. 

Circular Flow Model

This week in class we read and learned about the Circular Flow Model. It provides an overview on how markets work and the idea of supply and demand. Essentially, using a smaller diagram, it shows us the "big picture." If we ignore the government icon in the middle, this is what it looks like.

Say you're trying to produce sandwiches. The house holds provide the factors of production (Resources). The house holds give bread, fixings and workers to make the sandwiches to the businesses. The businesses use these resources to make their product, in this case a sandwich. The product then goes to the house holds. The resources and products go counterclockwise around the model. The money starts with the money and gives it to the households for their labor making the sandwiches. The house holds then use that money to purchase the product; the sandwiches, from the business. The cash flow moves clockwise around the model. 

At first I thought this concept was difficult and challenging to understand, but once we went over it in class and practiced it several times I began to understand it. Once I understood it, I realized that the model is actually pretty logical and easy to follow and understand. We are definitely going to expand on this model as class go on. I think it serves as a basis in order to understand other aspects of economics. I definitely see why it is so important and imperative that we learn this model if we want to be able to comprehend economics.

Types of Economies: Traditional Economies

       This week we discussed and learned about the different types of economies: Traditional, Command and Market. We talked about the advantages and disadvantages of these economies and how people are affected by them.  We were introduced to Karl Marx and Adam Smith and were assigned a project in which we had to write a dialogue pretending we were these men. This involved lots of research and time spent learning about these two brilliant men. When we discussed Traditional economies we learned that they are centered around tribes, clans and families. Their ultimate goal is survival and most of their decisions and actions have been handed down from generations before them. Normally, the good of the group takes precedent over any individual. There is no one person in charge. Everyone has a set role or job in the society. There really isn't any changing around jobs, since as stated before the good of the group is the top priority. 
        I personally like the idea of a traditional economy, but I don't think it would completely work for everyone. I like how the good of the group is more important than one person's individual desires. I also like the thought that what they do has been done before in the past. However, there a couple flaws to this economy. First is that there is still a chance that one person or a small group within a clan could take over. Second, if people have to keep the same job they may be stuck doing something they aren't good at or enjoy doing. Third, nothing changes in a traditional economy. They are less productive, because they do the same things without trying anything new. This typically causes a lower standard of living. This topic may relate to other topics covered in this class, because we will probably discuss how they spend money and make the decisions in the economy. We may also talk about supply and demand and the role of labor in this economy. This may relate to current events in the news as they may report on the problems relating to traditional economies in the world today and how they may want to fix them. 

Practice

Practice asdfghjklqwertyuiopzx