LoudounPatriot, please put your money where your mouth is, and give generously to the voluntary tax fund this year. Some of us are tired of seeing our taxes go higher and higher.The argument that people who believe we need more services should carry all the costs of new services is both tired and false. It is the reason there is no answer on roads funding, and it is the reason that Loudoun's schools are overcrowded. The idea that the cost of general public services (public!) should be borne only by a subset of the population is both regressive and divisive. It is regressive, because it is those least able to pay who are most in need of the kinds of services we rely on from government. It is divisive because allowing people to opt-in or opt-out of paying for public services leads to a deep separation in society between those who have, and those who have not. The division in America between haves and have-nots is already as great as it has been since 1929. We would do well to not exacerbate that trend.
This also goes for the 13 of you who voted that we need new schools immediately - I look forward to seeing the thousands of dollars you donate to the voluntary tax fund this year. Anything less would be hypocritical. - Hoqenishy (comment on LoudounExtra)
Why don't people who are unwilling to pay taxes decline public services? If the argument is that people who actually understand we need to raise revenue to pay for public services should pay for those services, it follows that if you don't believe in paying for public services, you shouldn't use any public services.
If you don't like taxes, stay off our roads. If you don't like taxes, drive yourself to the hospital. If you don't like taxes, refrain from calling the police when you get into an accident. As a matter of fact, if you don't like taxes, stop using our money, and do everything by barter. After all, our taxes pay to keep the currency stable.
Of course, that argument is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as its inverse, quoted above.
Having good schools is good for our entire community, it attracts businesses and higher income residents, which helps keep our tax rate moderate. Having a well connected and maintained road system is good for our entire community, it helps preserve our quality of life and home values. Providing quality and efficient services for our neighbors who need help shows that the community cares, and helps engender respect for that community, mitigating the crime rate, and reducing demands for emergency services.
As Thomas Frank said on the Colbert Report, "Government ain't a business, it's an expression of the public will." As such, we, the public, have the responsibility, and the priviledge of paying for it.
2 comments:
Great post. It really demonstrates the fundamental dishonesty of the far Left. You once again advance the "tired canard" that this is an argument that "people who believe we need more services should carry all the costs of new services."
That is false. This is an argument that addresses the "but-heads," i.e., those who dishonestly argue that "Everybody hates taxes, but I'm for [whatever the latest tax increase proposal to come along is]." It is also directed at those who dishonestly argue that funding roads requires more taxes, when all that it requires is re-prioritizing existing dollars (i.e., no new "services" [sic]).
"The idea that the cost of general public services (public!) should be borne only by a subset of the population is both regressive and divisive."
Really? Then I presume your next post will decry the fact that an increasingly smaller portion of the population is paying income taxes. Are you really that oblivious to the implications of your attempted appeal to objective standards? Or do you intentionally and routinely invoke the principles of convenience in your arguments?
And BTW, "people who are unwilling to pay taxes" quite frequently "decline public services." They don't avail themselves of government health care, or welfare, or any other votebuying scheme you might deem a "public service." Sometimes, they don't even send their children to government schools. But I'll bet a voucher/tax credit regime would just about give you apoplexy were it to be enacted. Not because it would deny funds to government schools mind you --- if a voucher for half of the per capita costs in a jurisdiction were given to parents, it would free up the other half to be spent by the government schools --- but because it would mean an increase in the number of children you can indoctrinate.
James, thanks for your feedback, even if you and I have a disagreement on this issue.
Can I ask you this question, given your comments? How much tax are you willing to pay? In your comment you suggested that we just needed to "reprioritize existing dollars." Does that mean that we should set the tax rate to bring in an equivalent amount of money every year?
Or do you mean that the tax rate should be fixed and immutable, regardless of the changes in how much revenue that brings in, or the public needs of our county?
Finally, with regards to the "smaller portion of the population" that you assert pays income taxes, could you cite the research where this is shown? It certainly provides a new way of looking at taxes, but without evidence that the numbers are actually significant, it is hard to evaluate its relevence.
Of course, when you consider public services a "vote-buying scheme" it is likely that there is no level of taxation you consider just, and on that we must agree to disagree.
Post a Comment