anon6789

Wow, never had heard of the DFL, but now I read the wiki, and that is a pretty cool history…at least before they got a bit more conservative in the post-war period, but still cool!

Pension was definitely the wrong word, I’ll cop to that. It’s an invested fund designed to payout at what I assume should be a relatively stable rate while not depleting itself.

The offset comment was a mildly sarcastic remark about my uncertainty that it would cover expenses to the extent it could fully eliminate taxes on a permanent basis. I just don’t see the motivation (for officials) to lock away large amounts from funds they can spend at will to an account that’s off limits.

The article you linked was very interesting, as this is the first I’d heard of this proposed fund (not from Missouri) and the bit at the end about the Hancock Amendment was intriguing, as it seems the state has a lot of special rules about taxation that could further complicate what this agreement proposes.

Thanks for taking the time to respond civilly. It does highlight the significance of clear and proper wording. I knew what I meant, but I didn’t make it clear to some of you. That’s why I don’t write ballot questions maybe. 😅

Checking a few summaries, I’m not sure how I’m off on this.

A “yes” vote supports creating a permanent public endowment fund managed by the state to generate revenue, and using the earnings to eliminate state-imposed taxes when sufficient to replace them.

The Show-Me Prosperity Investment Fund would receive funds appropriated by the legislature, as well as grants and donations, and the state treasurer would be required to invest it in exchange-traded funds tied to the S&P 500. Under the amendment, no money could be appropriated from the fund until its annual investment earnings are sufficient to replace revenue generated by state taxes. It would require that the money in the fund be used solely to eliminate state taxes, including the individual income tax, the state sales and use tax, the state corporate income tax, and all other state-imposed taxes. After these taxes are eliminated, the amendment would prohibit reenacting them, unless the fund is unable to meet its obligations. (Ballotopedia)

An investment fund to theoretically eliminate state taxes for taxpayers, should the legally allowed 3% withdrawal limit cover it. If that 3% doesn’t cover it, they can institute any legal method to collect the balance. What am I missing?

So, this is the proposal the article claims is the most challenging:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to establish the “Show-Me Prosperity Fund,” a permanent public endowment fund to support state government with the goal of eliminating state-imposed taxes without impairing the real value of the fund’s principal; prohibit the General Assembly from appropriating or diverting monies from the fund until notification is given by the State Treasurer that the net investment earnings of the fund are sufficient to eliminate state-imposed taxes; cap the total amount of moneys that may be appropriated from the fund in a fiscal year to three percent of the average market value of the fund over the preceding five fiscal years; and prohibit the General Assembly from enacting the eliminated state-imposed taxes, provided, however, that in the event the fund is unable to meet its obligations due to insolvency, revenue shortfall, or program failure, the General Assembly shall retain full authority to appropriate funds from any lawful source and to enact legislation establishing or increasing taxes or other revenues as necessary.

A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to establish a permanent public endowment fund to support state government with the goal of eliminating state-imposed taxes.

If passed, this measure will have no immediate impact on taxes but could lead to the elimination of state-imposed taxes if the net investment earnings of the fund become sufficient to support that outcome.

This seems pretty straightforward (basically a pension fund to offset taxes, if I’m reading it correctly), but I could picture maybe 50+% of the population having difficulty exactly grasping what they’re going for.

From what I can tell, there isn’t necessarily a limit on what can be made a ballot initiative, but it makes me feel wonder if there is a certain point where the public should or shouldn’t have a say on specific issues. If the US would enter a significant depression, and this tax program was in place, all of a sudden, Missourians would either get hit by a surprise sales tax or have to pay state tax out of pocket unexpectedly. The people that would have a hard time understanding the text of this ballot question would probably be hot disproportionately harder. I feel enough ballot questions are misleading to begin with (I typically vote against open space preservation in my area because it sounds like it pays wealthy landowners to just hold onto their property rather than sell to developers or to build sports parks for private leagues rather than preserving specific ecosystems of need), but voting on a significant structure of the tax system kinda feels like something that might be better left to experts than the average joe.

I don’t remember if I had a specific point or am just thinking out loud, but I don’t like ballot questions. It feels like the government just passing the responsibility back to us. If they do something that is stupid, they blame the people, and if an initiative is passed, I don’t believe they are compelled to act on it if I remember correctly.

I don’t often agree with your takes or tone, but you are right on here. As a PA resident who has to own their vote for Fetterman, he was and is still better than Oz. Did he misrepresent himself? Totally. Will I vote for him again? Not if I have even a slightly better option.

But for as political as Lemmy acts, I see so few people actually looking at details. Congressional votes are not private, anyone can look them up. Fetterman is the “worst” Democratic by voting record. This is undeniable. He was bad before, and he’s worse now. But he still votes in line with what he was sent to Washington to represent 80% of the time. He’s still better than any Republican that could get the job. So yeah, vote the dude out the second we get someone running against him, but until then, he’s a win 4/5 times. Push him to be a Republican, and what do we get? Say goodbye to that 80%.

That is politics.

This is my running theory. The value is in the network of cameras to track movement, no? The more data points they can potentially offer someone makes that data more useful/valuable.

Tragic news. Another article from CNN said she had worked with these leopards for the last 8 years.

The leopards are being treated as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened, which I’d think would be what this person would have wanted, since she spent almost all her adult life working with animals. Just because they are familiar with human doesn’t make these animals any less wild. It is a shame they couldn’t save her in the end.

I don’t work with anything that could kill me directly, but I have to put my body parts near animals that could definitely mess me up a good bit. I’ve also talked to the people in the sanctuary near my job where they kept wolves, and the wolves would only tolerate, I think, one specific staff member being in their enclosure. It’s impossible to ignore the risks involved when working with wildlife, but we do it because of a love for animals. Bless her for giving near 40 years to their care and safety.

I found a photo of some people putting a GPS collar on a Persian leopard to give us an example of the size of these cats.