To the editor:
In her Feb. 5 letter, Anne Miller states: “Everyone wants to keep their neighborhood school, and no one wants change. No one wants to have their taxes increased to pay for this.” I must respectfully disagree.
Lawrence has always been a dynamic community, and change is not always a source of conflict. Proposals for change do often engender passionate discussion as we seek to assure that changes are necessary and that they do not have adverse or unforeseen consequences for individuals or the community.
As for an unwillingness to see taxes increased to pay for the services that benefit our community, I don’t believe this is a universal opinion. I have never understood those who feel that there is no such thing as a justifiable tax or tax increase. The services that our taxes fund are functions of our communities and the covenants that they represent. We can all find aspects of these services that do not affect us directly, but we still have a responsibility to support them. If we continue to cut services, eventually everyone’s ox gets gored. It’s only a matter of time.
I once heard a story about one of our local leaders who, when it was speculated that as an affluent man, he must hate tax season, replied that actually, he liked paying taxes “because I can.” We need more people to understand, as he did, that paying taxes is part of the privilege and the responsibility of belonging to a community.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
"paying taxes is part of the privilege and the responsibility of belonging to a community."
Kind of like giving up liberty for freedom hmm? I suppose we should all pay our taxes with joy and happiness at our contribution to the state which oppresses us.
kansasmutt (anonymous) says…
Steve. If the leaders were able to spend the money smart and not waste 50% of it most wouldnt mind a tax hike.The waste kinda makes you not so happy to shell out $2,300.00 or more a year on a small house in tax`s.
dowser (anonymous) says…
Steve,
Your points are well taken and I agree fully with them. Government is a social contract made with the governed. The more we ask of government (and the less we are willing to do for our community), the more it costs. Some of our community members don't understand that to ask for more services requires funds which means higher taxes and fees. You simply can't have it both ways. The message here is we all have to pay one way or the other to support our community. There is no free lunch. I pay my taxes without regret because that is part of the contract I have made to be a part of my community.
Government is not inherently wasteful of money and in many instances is a better manager than the private sector.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Very well put.
I am willing to pay a little more tax for my beer and wine.
I am also willing to pay Kansas sales taxes for all online purchases dedicated to public school funding. This would somewhat level the playing field for local business as well.
I am also willing to consider this as a dedicated source to assist USD 497 medical insurance, academic salaries,school supplies and school fees.
This could become available as a dedicated City of Lawrence USD 497 user fee:
http://www2.ljworld.com/polls/2003/ma...
However I also support all further construction of major projects such as the sports project(tax increase),school buildings and property purchase be apprroved by USD 497 taxpaying voters.
xbusguy (chris Ogle) says…
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax (Fed)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration T ax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
(And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes)
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
"Government is not inherently wasteful of money and in many instances is a better manager than the private sector."
You should be a comedian.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
xbusguy (Anonymous) says…
(And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes)
------------------------
No.
No, we didn't.
The level of taxation had little to do with why the colonists "left British Rule".
If you are going to hanker for the 1700's, the least you could do is be accurate about the history.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
Okay Bob....we left British rule because of no taxation without representation.....but do our represenatives really represent us, or just their own interests?
Cappy (anonymous) says…
Paying taxes is like going to the dentist. No one likes or wants to do it, but if we don't, eventually life will suck more than if we had.
justfornow (anonymous) says…
Yea let's give the Goverment more money to squander!!!
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Tax, Tax, Tax. How much is enough? Having written that see my blog at
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal...
I do support a responsible tax increase for our schools.
I do, however, take exception to the notion of spreading the tax wealth as I interpret in the letter. There is a name for that; it is called “log rolling. It is what has gotten California and our Federal Government in such economic difficulties. Never ending special interest groups demand money for some useful and not so useful causes. We compromise and give them some. There is no end to that cycle- except in bankruptcy.
There would probably be less resistance to a tax increase for our schools if
1. We did a better job of explaining where the money goes: How about the many unfunded federal and state mandates? Why are we providing what amounts to custodial care in some circumstances under the guise of special education? Why does English as a second language go on forever as opposed to a finite time and then the student joins the group? Maybe our problem is in Washington and not Lawrence?
2. If the city was not so profligate with our tax money - An increase of over 60 % in just a few years. Why are we still looking to build more social infrastructure such as recreation centers for a minority of our citizens? Do we ever look back at our income transfer expenditures to determine if we are getting a useful return? “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach the mean to fish and he eats for a lifetime”. What about the ever increasing need for matching funds for federal handouts that require local tax money to buy in and a lot more to sustain. Maybe we are just silencing special interests at ever increasing cost to the majority who work for a living ?
I don’t know about the rest of you but my tax bill comes consolidated. Could the schools be paying for the cities insatiable tax appetite?
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
dowser (Anonymous) says…
Well, I am sure you think so. I could probably write a ten page paper on the money I have seen wasted during my tenure in government service
Unfortunately government activity opens the door to corruption, favoritism, vote buying and many other unattractive notions. The bigger the pie the more the abuse.
Yes, private enterprise does the same except it is not as well organized and is subject in most cases to individual choice as well as other market forces.
Now, I know you are going to tell me about voting. I could write pages about my experience as a party functionary. Elected officials perpetuate themselves. The voters get basically two choices offered by the professionals of each major party. All are part of the elites. Tell me, is there a single Senator who is economically representative of the people who elected him/her?
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"....but do our represenatives really represent us, or just their own interests?"
Interesting and relevant question. Thanks to the right wingers on the Supreme Court the answer is about to become much more clear.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
labmonkey (Anonymous) says…
Okay Bob….we left British rule because of no taxation without representation…..but do our represenatives really represent us, or just their own interests?
-------------------------------------------
Do we have free and open elections?
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
xbusguy, good list, but remember folks in Lawrence have cataracts when it comes to reading and the comprehension level is nil. they just don't get it.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
dowser (Anonymous) says…
"...Government is not inherently wasteful of money and in many instances is a better manager than the private sector."
Please, provide just one example with proof.
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
There are only a handful of valid functions that government has any business being involved in: Infrastructure, state/national defense, law enforcement, (possibly) education (but that's a stretch for me), and promoting/fostering an economic environment where the potential to succeed exists.
I have no problem paying taxes to support these functions. It's the tripe that continues to seep in that I get steamed about: the welfare, the research grants to study speckled robins, handouts to businesses deemed too big to fail, social security ponzi schemes, the list goes on.
Sorry, the moment government steps outside of the boundaries setup for it in either the Federal or State Constitutions, I stop supporting it. I am self-reliant and come hell or high water, I would never rely on a government handout. That's just who I am. I do not feel a moral obligation to pay more in taxes so that others benefit from my coerced generosity.
JustNoticed (anonymous) says…
It's time to eat the rich.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
JustNoticed (Anonymous) says…
I don't think anybody would notice since most taxes come from the middle
sbradt (anonymous) says…
“…Government is not inherently wasteful of money and in many instances is a better manager than the private sector.”
Please, provide just one example with proof.
-----------------------------------
OK, You may view this as anecdotal but I had a coworker whose father (now retired - comfortably) used to work for Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The guy was basically paid to sit in his office and read 3 newspapers a day because there was so little expected of him at his job. There is not a question, in my mind, that there is waste in government, but it is not any worse than the waste in a lot of corporate environments. If everyone had to work as hard as most of us do in the small business world, there would be a lot less waste everywhere. But that isn't the case. I'm all for watching out for and fighting against the waste, but that doesn't change the fact that there are basic services that need to be provided for the community. There were some good examples of the waste in the school system at last night's school board meeting and I'm glad that those issues were raised. It's a part of the process, and a valuable one. Just don't screw the most vulnerable in our community because some of the least vulnerable piss you off.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884), abolitionist, orator and columnist for The Liberator, in a speech before the Massachusetts Antislavery Society in 1852
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
sbradt (Anonymous) says…
These conservations seem to always degenerate into extremes. There are clearly functions that only government (or a private business given the authority of a government) can provide. I think the argument falls to how much do we trust to government. As more and more functions are transferred smaller and smaller groups are beneficiaries at the expense of other small groups. Our tax structure hits hardest in the middle. Almost half the population pays little or none! Is the goal to make everybody equal in result (except for the powerful and wealth elites who will guide us)?
jafs (anonymous) says…
The goal has generally been to equalize opportunity and give all Americans a fair chance of success.
If the Democrats can succeed, they will transfer more of the tax burden to the wealthy, but they seem to face great opposition in that attempt.
When Clinton was President, we had the only budget surpluses in 35 years - whatever he did (with the Republican Congress of the time) worked. We should do that.
And he was re-elected on the question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
ralphralph (anonymous) says…
There is a lack of connection between the tax and the resulting benefit. The further from home the money travels, the more vague its path becomes. When the State wrested control of school finance from local boards, they cut the cord of direct involvement.
Moreover, by separating the "operating" and "capital" budgets, the State created a system that results in absurdities such as a school installing artificial turf on its athletic fields even as it struggles to staff its classrooms. Left to its own close observation and good sense, the local board would not likely put itself in that position. The local people, directly affected by the results, are not directly involved in the decisions bringing about those results.
This becomes not only taxation without representation, but also taxation without involvement, and without meaningful recourse.
The State obviously is not up to the task of managing school finance, and it needs to be returned fully to the local districts.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
jafs (Anonymous) says…
And what has this administration done to tax the really wealthy. I will agree he is after the upper middle. All sorts of fees have been established that hit hard at that level but are no more than a shrug to Mr. Gates. Look at the federal tax code. It is very progressive from $50K to $200K and then is flat. It also protects wealth by allowing salary to be converted to stock which managed properly gets taxed at a very low rate. Mr. Obama controls all relevant branches of the government - why has he not even had a bill to address this introduced? Maybe the economy would improve if we all knew what was coming and could beginning to deal with it. One thing Mr. Clinton did was to quickly raise taxes - mostly on the middle. I am taking Mr. Obama's definition that the middle runs up to about $150K. I guess Capitalism only works if the really rich, the big donors, are exempted from paying their fair share.
GardenMomma (anonymous) says…
Worker's Comp Tax is not a tax paid by the worker. It is paid by the company.
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
GardenMomma: In a perfect world, yes that's true. In the situation that KS finds itself in today, there is not enough incoming workman's comp taxes to cover all of the dollars heading out for unemployment benefits. Guess who covers the difference?
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
See:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal...