Tax Increases

[Bikerdude]

Many States are facing deficits in 2009 and beyond. After the usual BS and dancing around the issues they will find ways to raise your taxes at the State or local level. Are you in favor of tax increases? I believe we need to take our medicine now and reduce services to an affordable level. After all what sense does it make for the Federal Government to give you a tax decrease just to have the States take it back. What do you think?

[W2R]

I checked "Maybe".

It depends on what the tax increases are for, and how they are used. We need repairs to our levee and drainage systems down here after the damage done by Katrina. And our streets - - some of the potholes are big enough to swallow a truck, much less a car. They weren't good before the storm, but they are orders of magnitude worse now. Then there are questions about huge, torrential leakages in the water system, and more. We need new pumps and backup generators. Basically most of our infrastructure was demolished during Katrina and the repairs won't be free.

So if the tax increases are for urgently needed reconstruction of this type, upon which our lives and the future of New Orleans depend, of course I am in favor of them. If the tax increases are for less urgent issues, then I am against them.

[Coach]

I chose yes, based on a couple of local tax measures in the last election that I supported.

Coach

[ziggy29]

The "reduce services to an affordable level" part is the part which unfortunately won't happen. People like their goodies, especially when they feel like "everyone else" is paying for them.

In reality, it depends on what they are needed for and why they are raising taxes.

[SteveL]

In our state with the 3-strike law, and drug users going in for possession, prisons are a huge cost. Add education, poorly funded to begin with, state universities that see their funding cut every year, and health care for the poor, and it is tough to see what they can cut.
I usually vote for the local school levy, and for library and other essential services.

I always vote against rancid transit taxes. Billions for a few trains that go nowhere...

[Bimmerbill]

Maybe for me. While I hate paying taxes, some necessary things are funded by them.
Heck my dang property taxes just went up $500 on the last 6 months bill... Making my mortgage payment go up $90 a month (escrow).

total should be around $5400 a year. NH has no sales or income tax, and funds most things thru local property tax.

[jIMOh]

I object to new taxes or higher taxes when the goal of the taxes is to give the poor more handouts.

I agree that infrastructure (roads, bridges) are an EXCELLENT use of tax dollars. I also like seeing tax money go to police, fire, prisons and similar.

[FinanceDude]

If govt can get a tax increase passed, they will. State govts are the worst, they try to steal you blind. Of course, I live in the tax hell of Wisconsin.

Whatever "help" we get from DC will be taken away by the State........

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jIMOh I object to new taxes or higher taxes when the goal of the taxes is to give the poor more handouts. I agree that infrastructure (roads, bridges) are an EXCELLENT use of tax dollars. I also like seeing tax money go to police, fire, prisons and similar.

Hey, I balance you.

I'm for taxes to help the poor.

I think that infrastructure (more roads) are a POOR use of tax dollars. We have enough roads as it is. I also think that police, prisons, and military get too much money.

[OAG]

The "levy system" on RE taxes is going to kill us. 10-15% increases voted on by a majority of the VOTING public (which is an extremely low % versus ELIGIBLE, REGISTERED and people that ACTUALLY VOTE). We are seeing very large Levies put on RE Tax bills by a very small number of (special interest group) votes.

Insofar as things to cut: 1: Reduce trash pickup to every other week versus the one to two times a week schedule, 2: Use jail and prison labor to clean streets etc., (that AZ Sheriff's methods), 3: Figure out to FILL the School Buses and stop building routes that get very few riders, 4: Reduce executive replacement costs - Example: you have a city manager leave that has 4 "assistant city managers"; promote one to CM and not embark on a high cost "recruitment search" for a replacement, same at schools (notwithstanding the NTU), 5: I am sure there are 100's of other things that can be cut without hurting our vaulted "standard of living".

[W2R]

Since I was the first one to use the word "infrastructure" in post #2 of this thread, and since "infrastructure" has since been defined/redefined in two other posts, both times in a far, far more restricted sense than is the normal definition, I thought I'd clarify exactly what I meant when I used it, too.

The dictionary definition of infrastructure is

Quote:

An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system. The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.

and that dictionary definition (2) is exactly what the word means in the context in which I used it.

[MichaelB]

I think we focus too much on taxes and not enough on spending. I'm clear that taxes are going to go up, but feel we aren't getting our money's worth right now and that isn't going to change with another increase.

Michael

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB I think we focus too much on taxes and not enough on spending. I'm clear that taxes are going to go up, but feel we aren't getting our money's worth right now and that isn't going to change with another increase.

I think we don't demand enough accountability in exchange for agreeing to dig deeper into our pockets, and we are suckered into believing that "more funding" means "better results."

In particular this is relevant to schools. No one wants to vote "no" on schools and education despite there being little to no correlation between spending levels and student performance at the K-12 level.

[Goonie]

I voted "Maybe". It all depends on what exactly the tax money will be used on. If it's actually used for things like repairing roads & bridges, or installing new, or repairing old water & wastewater systems, or building and maintaining school, hospitals, prisons/jails, or that sort of thing.... then, yeah, I could go for a reasonable tax increase.

However, things would definitely need to change, and change majorly, for me to give it my official "Okey-Dokey". First off, on the state level, the rules, laws, and constitution are all going to need to be revamped and rewritten! As it stands currently, the state legislature earmarks tax dollars to be used for specific thing, but our idiotic, worthless, POS illustrious governor (the one who was arrested for trying to sell a senate seat, and is currently looking at impeachment) basically steals that earmarked money, and throws it at his pet projects, whims, and desires. Until that sort of BS is halted.....screw state tax increases!!!

As for local tax increases...not a lot of difference in my opinion there either! Our local city officials throw money around on stupid sh*t continuously. As an example, we have a low lying section of town that has been prone to river flooding for...let's see....how long?....oh yeah...forEVER!!! Several years ago there was a federal buyout for homeowners in that area, and most of the folks took the money and ran! Anyway, the city received the land to use as they saw fit.....one major rule.....NO buildings or other structures could be built there because it's officially flood land.

So now the whizz-bangs at city hall have decided to sink $250,000....that's a quarter million dollars.....tax dollars in a gazebo, major playground equipment, fancy-schmancy landscaping, etc., in that approximately 4 square block area. Oh, I forgot to mention that that area was flooded 4 times last year....majorly flooded. Destroyed landscaping, trees, boat docks, and what little playground equipment was there. And now they want to sink that $250K in there to be wiped out in the next flood....most likely this year, as it floods there at least once a year! STUPID!!!!

So on the local level.....they can kiss my @ss on the courthouse lawn on Saturday afternoon, if they think I'd approve of a tax increase by them!

The citizens of this town, including yours truly, did approve a sales tax increase for the city, about 5 years ago. That money can only be used for water/sewer improvements.....nothing else! But until I see a cutback on stupid spending....they'll never get my approval for another increase in any taxes!!! Never!!!

On the county level, if it's for a life/safety issue, I'd most likely give them a 'yes' vote. The county has really tightened it's belt, and cut out almost all needless spending. They actually amazed me! My hat's off to those guys & gals...good job!!!

[Goonie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 In particular this is relevant to schools. No one wants to vote "no" on schools and education despite there being little to no correlation between spending levels and student performance at the K-12 level.

And then I heard a news story on TV today.....not sure which school district they were talking about....but some folks are a bit p*ssed off because the school district had spent in the neighborhood of $30,000 on cappuccino machines for some of the schools. What the heck do public schools need cappuccino machines for?? Taxpayer bought cappuccino machines?? They need to find out whose brilliant idea that was, and find out who all went along them on it, and fire the whole bunch.....plus make them reimburse the school districts for the money they wasted!

No wonder little Johnny can't read whats printed on his HS diploma....imbeciles in high places are in charge!

[Koolau]

I voted 'maybe' because I think taxes should be collected as close as possible to where they will be spent. I've never been in favor of sending tax money to Washington so that it can then be doled out back to the states. It's inefficient and subject to even more political whim than at state or local level IMHO.

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goonie And then I heard a news story on TV today.....not sure which school district they were talking about....but some folks are a bit p*ssed off because the school district had spent in the neighborhood of $30,000 on cappuccino machines for some of the schools. What the heck do public schools need cappuccino machines for?? Taxpayer bought cappuccino machines?? They need to find out whose brilliant idea that was, and find out who all went along them on it, and fire the whole bunch.....plus make them reimburse the school districts for the money they wasted! No wonder little Johnny can't read whats printed on his HS diploma....imbeciles in high places are in charge!

Well, they might have been for a barrista training class at the vocational school...

[Texarkandy]

I am much more OK with paying State & Local taxes than I am Federal.

Having seen the Federal govt do business up close & in-person the past 25 years I know how much waste & fraud goes on. As something of a libertarian-ish small govt advocate, I am not in agreement with a lot of things the Feds spend money on anyway.

Although I know some waste & fraud goes on in State/Local, I have noticed they tend to be much better stewards of the taxpayers money overall than the feds. (I do have a few issues in what local school districts sometimes spend money on though - at the expense of better things they could spend money on)

So, yes - I often do support State & Local tax increases even when I am one of the affected taxpayers (which I usually am)

Note: this thread seems kind of soapboxy - however I notice 2 mods have already posted so it must be ok. I'm still trying to figure out what the rules/limits are :confused: (Don't want to get another infraction! )

[Dennis]

In a Ideal World? No, but Reality check tells me if the majority rule and They all want more , More, More services, Free , Free, Free things from their state? Then they just have to treat it just like running your own home and family.. Pay out more..

And probably have to Pay twice as much in taxes to get 50% as much done, since what kind of people do you really think run your State? Economoist? LOL... It's their job to use up everydime and then some, every yr otherwise what happens? They mayhave to get Less the Next yr..and inturn Not be able to Buy Votes to Get Reelected adn If they don't Get ReElected they have to Really go work for a living!
LOL

I lived in Europe and then In Canada for awhile.. You want taxes? Go live there for awhile and you will get a rude awakening.. seeing over 40% of your paycheck go for taxes.. But you Do get Free HMO type Health care! Just no Dental and have to give up your teeth ......LOL

And they're stuck and can't change it now..

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texarkandy Note: this thread seems kind of soapboxy - however I notice 2 mods have already posted so it must be ok. I'm still trying to figure out what the rules/limits are :confused: (Don't want to get another infraction! )

The primary "dividing line" is the injection of political rhetoric. Since there hasn't been ranting about "tax and spend Democrats" or "Republicans ruining the economy" or "Obama this" or "Bush that" or anything like that in this thread, we're letting it go here. But when the rhetoric starts flying, that's when it gets firewalled to the FIRE Politics thread (if FIRE-related) or zapped (if not FIRE-related).

In other words, if it's calm and rational discussion of current events that are FIRE-related and relatively apolitical, it's okay here. When the political/partisan fur starts to fly and the rhetoric starts getting thick, then it doesn't belong in this particular forum and it's likely to be moved.