12-02-2009, 04:16 PM
Since a whole can of worms has been opened here, no sense excluding anything.
I think most people here are focusing on how to keep things going in the most practical manner. What Jay has introduced, is actually extreme governed (by government) control of production/consumption of anything in form of front-loaded taxes. Sadly I'm sure if implemented the county will never reduce the property taxes in like, so effectively all we've done is volunteer to fatten the county in hope of controlling people's behavior.
If we accept that such taxes will actually change people's behavior, as in - causing them to consume and waste less, then can we also accept that every other tax cuts down on the activity that it's related to? i.e. airport tax (reduced travel), transient tax (reduced tourism), income tax (people invest less), etc. For years, the beaurocrats have been professing that all of these taxes can be implemented and continually raised, in order to collect more public funds. But if Jay's science is correct, then raising these tax rates actually would reduce the activity and perhaps make the county/state/fed even more starved for cash.
Just a point to consider whenever someone proposes raising a tax in order to solve a cash shortage.
Bob's points are also valid and relevant if the trash would be considered a-la-carte, because every single so-called service is arguable as to its effect on each individual. And the point about the resident exemption is a great point, it acts in inverse to every logical principle discussed here.
I think most people here are focusing on how to keep things going in the most practical manner. What Jay has introduced, is actually extreme governed (by government) control of production/consumption of anything in form of front-loaded taxes. Sadly I'm sure if implemented the county will never reduce the property taxes in like, so effectively all we've done is volunteer to fatten the county in hope of controlling people's behavior.
If we accept that such taxes will actually change people's behavior, as in - causing them to consume and waste less, then can we also accept that every other tax cuts down on the activity that it's related to? i.e. airport tax (reduced travel), transient tax (reduced tourism), income tax (people invest less), etc. For years, the beaurocrats have been professing that all of these taxes can be implemented and continually raised, in order to collect more public funds. But if Jay's science is correct, then raising these tax rates actually would reduce the activity and perhaps make the county/state/fed even more starved for cash.
Just a point to consider whenever someone proposes raising a tax in order to solve a cash shortage.
Bob's points are also valid and relevant if the trash would be considered a-la-carte, because every single so-called service is arguable as to its effect on each individual. And the point about the resident exemption is a great point, it acts in inverse to every logical principle discussed here.