The one percent sales tax in our area is a good idea, but...as of to this date majority of it is used as a "slush" fund for a lot of unnesicary "projects" I will not mention any names of where some of this money goes and what happens to it, but Sheridan county residents would be furious if they could actually see where a lot of it when. The mention a few of the places some of the money goes, such as road projects, and street signs. Really? We already pay a tax for that! At the pump, when you pay taxes on a new car, and every year after you have to renew!! I myself am AGAINST this tax. We have enough revenue in this county, and state, that we do not need to impose another tax on the hard working people of Sheridan, most of whom barelly make enough to get by right now. I hope a lot of people are with me on this...if this tax is imposed on EVEN a minority, you might as well be stealing out of our pockets...if you want this tax, and we vote it out, you still have the option of donating your money to the county anytime you want to. If you pass it, I don't have the option of having a choice. VOTE IT OUT. IT'S A WIN WIN FOR BOTH SIDES
looks like the tax is used to give favors to the organizations and causes that the city "leaders" approve of.......
Exactly right. Croynism is one of a dozen good reasons to free ourselves from this mis-used, regressive tax. Although the art in downtown will be nice to view, as we wait in the soup lines.
Now more than ever we need to keep more of our money under our control. We might really need the "change" in the coming economic calamity.
Remember: Freedom in November.
Was today's radio show useful, or did it just become a discussion over which pet projects some prefer. Reminded me of a line in "Braveheart." "You're so busy squabbling over the scraps from the king's table, you've missed your god-given right to something better. (freedom)"
I think we're distracted over "who" gets the money, when we should be discussing "how" to better fund things we need.
The burden of regressive taxes, falls hardest on the lower income. Shouldn't we be talking about lifting that burden?
Gov't entities are notoriously less effecient than private one's. Why don't we improve that, by forcing our gov't to be more effecient, by reducing their budget.
Eliminate the squabbles over who gets what. Donate directly to your favorite cause.
There are a host of good reasons to return to free to donate, instead of forced to contribute and we should be using our valuable air and print time to talk about the really important aspects of re-imposing the tax.
Do you want to re-impose the tax or not? Why? We could have had 10 good reasons put forward on both sides of the issue today. Instead, it was a waste of time.
I'm very concerned that if we don't talk about the real reasons, pro and con, we could be making a mistake in November. One that we'll be stuck with for a long time...in a recession.
Now more than ever we need to focus on the core issues and not get lost in the details of wealth re-distribution.
Remember: Freedom in November.
The main reason the question "Do you want the One Percent Tax?" was not on the survey is because it is a bsllot issue & will be asked in the proper place. I live in the County, too. I & neighbors that I asked, received a survey. So, I do find it hard to believe that azarih & his/her neighbors did not receive theirs.
I'm going to vote to support the tax because the small communities of Dayton, Ranchester and Clearmont use this tax for what's it's intended for. They don't have large unnecessary payroll's or spend it on stupid things. Plus, a lot of non-profits really need the 1% support. The city of Sheridan has really given the people a bad taste.
So you'll vote to re-impose the tax, because some good is done where you live? Even knowing that the bulk of the funding goes to other places, that don't spend as wisely?
Accepting a little good with a greater bad. Doesn't balance my scales. I'd rather be free of the tax and donate my money directly to the local towns that spend it wisely. That makes more sense to me.
no, i'd rather just have no taxes at all. that way rebel is happy but no one else has great community benefits
Did Sheridan have to parks or police for it's first hundred years? How did we survive without the "great community benefits" that only appeared after we imposed the tax in 1989?
Point is, voluntary contributions and existing property taxes have always worked, in the past. We've just forgotten that forced taxation is not the only way. It is, in fact, the worst way to provide good things.
Rebel, I'm still voting for it, my wife and 90% percent (9 of the 10)of my office are voting for it. It's only a penny on the dollar, then i don't have to give "voluntary contributions" as i already have. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy anything in Sheridan County. Don't use the parks, don't call the EMS, don't drive on the streets, etc... Why don't you go fight the gas tax it's .32/gallon.
Actually the user fee added to gasoline is one of the few taxes that is acceptable. It goes directly to fix the roads. Pump gas, drive on the roads, then pay to pave them. Makes good "cents."
However, making those who never use parks and paths pay for them, makes no sense at all. It's called cost shifting and is immoral.(EMS and police are paid for by property taxes).
In fact, many of Sheridan's residents derive little benefit from the $1000-2000, that is extracted from each (on average) of us, over the four yrs. that the tax is imposed.
That's a yr's tuition or food or shelter, for the frugal person. That is not insignificant.
If it's only a "penny on the dollar" then surely the gov't can get along without it, right?
Now here's the really dangerous thing that was suggested. Instead of putting forth valid reasons for re-imposing the tax (and I've yet to see any) do we want to suggest that the 35 to 50% of the citizens who favor tax liberation, "don't buy anything in Sheridan County."?
Just think about the implications of that idea.
you are out of you mind if you think that the low side average extraction for 4 years is $1,000. i mean honestly i doubt even the people in the who live in the powder horn spend $100,000 over 4 years in sheridan county let alone $200,000. i mean seriously think about what you are implying. look at the median income for sheridan county households which is $34,307 (straight from the U.S. Census Bureau), if every dollar they made went straight back to sheridan county in purchases (which it doesn't) they would barely meet you low average for 'extraction' rates. you make it sound like so much is taken from residents when in reality it is every resident chipping in for the greater good. and therein is another valid reason. rebel, you should know as an advocate for so called 'freedom' that freedom is never free. take it or leave it. or don't buy in sheridan county but you will not reap the benefits from the one cent tax. since you have been questioning the supporters so fervently what is so awful about the one cent tax, i mean honestly is it driving you towards bankruptcy? what great harm has this tax done to you? i mean rich or poor the tax doesn't affect in a way that causes problems.
Again, no solid reason to support re-imposing the tax, just personal attacks. "You" was used over 8 times in the post. This is not about "individuals", it is about "ideas." Please confine your posts to reasons why re-imposing the tax may be a good idea, and leave "you" (me) out of the discussion.
I'll, again ask the moderator to leave the post up, however, as it demonstrates the lack of reasoning on the "tax imposer" side.
My numbers were based on published avg. incomes (see other post).
"Every resident chipping in for the greater good" would only apply if the "chipping in" were voluntary. Re-impose the tax and it is not called "chipping in" (a voluntary action) it is forced confiscation of private wealth, which is then re-distributed by gov't.
The concept of a "greater good" is a myth of socialism. There is no such thing. We are all individuals and can only have individual good. Many individuals can have "good", but that just increases the number of folks having individual good.
We can no more have a common "greater good" than can we have a "greater stomach." When one is hungry, it is an individual experience, not collective.
And, yes I'm well aware that freedom isn't free. I sacrificed much, in order to continue defending liberty, now in written form.
The "don't shop in Sheridan" idea is very dangerous to suggest. That discussion will be put aside for now, because of it's disasterous economic ramifications.
I'd much rather see some good reasons for re-imposing the tax. I've been slandered, invited to leave town and shop elswhere, but have yet to see a solid reason to justify the continued imposition of this most regressive and immoral tax.
About the closest thing to a reason that the pro-tax side has offered is: "Well, I derive benefit from it, so I'll vote to re-impose." That kind of self-serving, circular logic, won't work, this time.
Now more than ever we need to have calm, idea-focused, discussions on this notorious theft of liberty.
remember: freedom in november.
I thought you had some good points in your response to my previous question about whether you think we should have any taxes or not. Distinguishing between services provided taxes vs. other types of taxes is useful for a complete analysis. In addition, you make a good point that there tends to be an inverse relationship between the amount of money the government has and how carefully that money is spent. I am not making any normative statements here; only that you do have valid and thoughtful criticisms/ideas that should be part of a thoughtful discussion.
However, I take issue with many of your comments and I think they lack the sincere thought of your other posts. It may be because you are (understandably) reacting defensively. In any case, I think the flaw in your logic is that you tend to make a lot of "red herring" arguments that also tend to be quite dogmatic and jingoistic. Personally, I think "freedom" entails more than lower taxes--but I suppose abstract concepts intrinsically are more variable in meaning than words like "tree." I also don't agree with how you portray a democratically-approved (or rejected) tax as "forced taxation." The Councils may ultimately decide how that money is spent, but we, as voters, have the choice whether to approve the tax. In addition, we will have at least some idea of how the money is to be used, prior to making that decision. This is how our system works; if you fall in the minority of those who vote on the issue, it is not "forced taxation" as you describe it. It is not "forced taxation" for many reasons, the least of which is you have the option not to purchase the goods that include the tax. Yes, not "Shopping Sheridan" may have negative local economic impacts, but it is still not "forced." Ironically, you are creating greater restrictions on your "freedom" by constricting your thoughts to false dichotomies. There are more options than your argument presents. Even if you like these options (ie "don't buy," "buy elsewhere") less than not having the 1-cent tax, it is still not accurate to say it is "forced."
One last point I would like to raise is your response to comments about chipping in for the "greater good." I agree with you that the way this sounds does veer towards an unsavory and freedom-constricting communist perspective. However, I don't think that is what the writer intended. Regardless, a proper balance between the individual and society is what we should be striving for. You seem to presume the individual's actions have no consequence on society. Certainly, our higher level of personal freedoms we enjoy in the United States is largely wonderful and makes us some of the luckiest citizens on earth. However, the idea that the individual is and/or should be an "island" is a flawed and inaccurate line of thinking which permeates much of our society.
I realize that individuals can have great effect on society, especially in a free country. The act of voting to re-impose this sales tax, has the profound impact of limiting shopping options.
The "proper balance" between society (I think you mean gov't) and the individual was struck long ago in both the US and Wyo Constitutions.
Nowhere in those documents can we find authorization for imposing a direct tax on our neighbors.
In fact, the US Constit. specifically prohibits direct taxation.
The one-percent sales tax, was passed by the Wy. Congress and so "appears" to be legal, it is nevertheless unconstitutional....it just hasn't been challenged and ruled so, yet.
Remember the old line from the sixties, "Question Authority." We should be re-invigorating individual involvement in our gov't, not just repeating the same old mistakes. Reducing the size and scope of gov't and lowering taxes is the only, historically-proven, way out of recession.
Remember: Freedom in November.
Thanks Wyo, for your kind and thoughtful comments. This type of discussion is exactly what we need to be doing, prior to this important election.
I'll start by saying I'm in complete agreement with almost all of your comments, especially how lucky we are to live here. The position of tax liberation is one of improving an already great situation.
I'm deliberatly using tactics employed by the statist. Framing the debate as I see it and using a bit of "biased" wording, is just a turn-about on "big-gov't" types. I think it gets them to pay attention and giving them a dose of their own is kinda fun.
However, I call it "forced taxation" because that is what it is to those voting for tax liberation (ie Not for re-imposing the tax). When we check the box that says "NO" it simply means that we don't want the tax imposed on us. If a majority vote to re-impose the tax, then they impose the tax, by law and force, on everyone.
True, it is only forced taxation if we buy something in Sheridan Co., but that is a distinction without a difference. That would be like forcing a non-smoker to sit in a smoking section and saying, "Well, you only have to inhale smoke....if you breath."
Point is, this is my home and I like supporting the local merchants. I need to buy the necessities of life and believe it is an impostion, for my neighbors to force the tax on me or make me shop elsewhere. They don't have the right to force that on me or anyone else. They may have the power....but not the moral right.
We would be much better off, to remove the tax and encourage all to shop locally. Those that like the tax are still free to give to good causes.
If we will un-burden ourselves from this tax, the only thing "lost" is the ability of some folks to force others to pay for things they deem "good." Wouldn't an experiment in more freedom be a good thing? A society marked by less force and using more voluntary co-operation is more civilized.
And, Yes, freedom goes well beyond just taxes. Freedom is an all-encompassing condition. This tax is just an example of how freedom is being infringed upon and is one of the few freedoms that can be restored by simply voting.
In the past, people have died for liberty, all we have to do is vote for it.
Remember: Freedom in November.
here i go again with my use of 'you'... you just avoided my question by pointless and wasteful pontification. answer the question. if this is all about the individual and there is no collective, what harm does this tax do to you? i don't want you strung out definitions or words full of fluff, just answer the question
Guess you'd like the power to force me to answer your questions, just as you have the power (for now) to force me to pay your tax.
Freedom can be frustrating and even dangerous... to tyrants.
(is that the sound of little feet stamping the floor?)
Remember: Freedom in November
The tax removes about 20 million dollars from private hands and the loss to those people is the unseen and hard to calculate part. The "Broken Window Fallacy: by Bastiat, lays out the case that we need to evaluate the seen and the unseen to fully understand the economic implications of our actions.
To paraphrase. A rock is throw thru a baker's window. It costs him $100 to hire a glazer to replace the broken window. An observer would comment, well, at least the glazer now has $100 to spend. That is true and is the "seen" part of the economy. News media does this every time a storm hits a town. "Think of all the jobs that are created."
The problem is: The baker is out $100 dollars and all he did was get back to where he was. The "unseen" is what the baker would have done with his money, instead. He could have bought a new coat and employed a tailor. He could have invested in a bigger oven, to bake more bread and grow his business.
Point is. we can easily point to the art in town and say, "see, here's what the one-percent does." but we will never know how that money would have been spent by each person, before it got taxed away.
That tax money could fund tuition for a person's career change. Provide transportation to a new job. Feed a person for a year or buy a cheap hotel room for the same period. Aren't aleaviating hunger and homelessness good causes. Getting rid of the tax and letting people spend that money as they see fit, is the wisest, most moral and effecient thing we can do for the needy.
The tax hurts thousands of people in ways that we can never fully know. People spending the money, they have earned, in ways that they choose, is as American as it gets.
Taxing it away and tossing it in gov't coffers is a socialistic as it gets.
Remember: Freedom in November.
I seen his post as the typical disinformation tactic that negates logic and reason.. Everyone in his OFFICE is voting for it so it must be a good thing.. It's only 1 cent but leaving out the info "$1000-2000, that is extracted from each (on average)person" .. No one wants to see numbers like that.. The fact that he side steps a number like that shows me who he really is.. I don't care who you are, frugal or not, anyone could stand to use the extra 1000-2000 a year... people need to learn how to spend their own money.. Who says the government can spend it ANY more wisely then you can..
Calling it "only a penny" or the "one-cent" tax is a ploy designed to deceive the public. They want us to concentrate on how to divy up the spoils and make us think that the tax is so small, as to be insignificant.
Problem is, most of us can do basic math. An average person makes about $35K. Subtract rent or mortgage of 10K and that leaves about $25k to spend. While some will buy on the net, most folks will spend the bulk of the remaining $25K on the necessities of life: heat, lights, clothing and transportation. Most of that is bought locally.
So, One-percent of annual expenses is $250. Over four yrs. that adds up to $1000 extracted by the one-percent tax, alone. Your results may vary, but the point is: it's not an insignificant little "penny."
The one-percent mandatory tax is "self-imposed" in theory, but to the 35-50% who vote for tax liberation, it is in fact, an unwanted tax that is imposed upon us by our neighbors. That's immoral.
And no thinking person ever says that gov't can spend our money better than we can. It's an absolute impossibility.
Can your neighbor make the best decision on what's for your dinner? Would you allow her to pick your next truck? Do we allow friends to force us to listen to certain music?
Then why on earth do we allow others to confiscate our hard-earned money and spend it as a few "elected reps" choose?
The one-percent tax is immoral, regressive, ineffecient and damaging to the local economy; especially in a recession.
And that's just for starters. I'm just getting warmed up on the subject.
Now more than ever we need to think about continuing down the road to bigger gov't and higher taxes.
Remember: Freedom in November.
pick up change on the sidewalk and you'll have more than a grand in four years...perception is everything. four years is a long time and a grand over four years isn't that much
So can your neighbors take a grand from you? It isn't that much.
That's exactly what the pro-taxers are attempting to do to their neighbors. Whether they like it or not.
Why is taxation a good idea?
The survey was poorly done. It was written to gain support for the tax for governmental services, with scare tactics to boot. The responder was basically faced with having to respond strongly for police, fire and ems or maybe those services would go away? Council and Commish's need to be very careful in this campaign as I think it has a real chance of being defeated this time around and this is from a guy who has been a strong proponent of both optional and cap taxes in the past. The City especially has layered up with staff increases and overhead burden and now is faced with declining revenues and are seeking ways to get additional revenues to support this staff. Come on Folks, the Optional has never been intended to fund payroll and benefits. Don't get greedy and have the tax be defeated.
I agree with every word. The tendency towards gov't waste is compounded by excess money. Families and business's are belt-tightening and it's time the gov't did the same. While we may not be able to influence the national gov't, we can certainly help our local gov't slim down and become more effecient.
Reduce the amount of cash filling gov't coffers and watch how quickly they can see the real priorites.
We'll still have police, fire and senior support, but the water-park may have a new 25 cent fee, for those who actually use it. Let's put cost where they belong. If you use it, you pay for it. Don't impose on you neighbors.
I would urge you to continue discussing this important matter. The voters of Sheridan need to realize that this regessive tax has become a very bad thing, especially as we enter our fourth yr. of recession. The only proven way out of recession is: cut taxes and gov't.
Why did only 8% of the surveys get returned? Could it be that 92% of folks were on vacation? Is apathy really that high, in Sheridan? Let's hope not.
For starters, the survey didn't include return postage. So those not wanting to re-impose the tax we're probably not going to pay to return the survey. Especially since the survey omitted the most obvious first question: "Do you want to re-impose the tax or not?"
I know that presenting a "false choice" (ie. which programs)) and not bothering to ask, "do you favor..." was an affront to some voters. We know that before you get to the part of "who gets the money" you first have to determine "how to get the money."
That the logical first question was omitted, told me this wasn't a real survey.
A real survey would have wanted to gage the level of support, not just skip over it. Could it be that the survey takers, don't really want to know how far the support level has declined? Did they assume that we'd be fooled, if they asked us if parks and the environment were important and not, "do you favor re-imposing the tax on your friends and neighbors?"
Who doesn't like puppies and clean air? Come on folks, at least treat the voters like adults. These are shop-worn statists tricks that most people see right thru. The question isn't how to spend the money, it's "do you want to re-impose, forced taxation or do you choose "Tax Liberation."
The 35% that voted for "tax liberation" in 2006 has probably grown. A significant and growing segment of the population know that cutting taxes and shrinking gov't is the only proven way out of a recession.
We know that the tax is regressive in nature and punishes the very people that most need relief from it.
We know that private charites are far more effeciant than gov't can ever be.
We know that gov't funding "crowds out" private donations and that if we lift the tax burden, private, tax-deductable giving will fill most of the gap.
We know the "joy of giving" is much better than the resentment of forced contributions.
We know that freedom is better than force.
So, maybe those that favor Liberation from the Tax, are a growing population. Maybe 92% plan on voting for Freedom in November.
The survey was use-less.
The survey didn't include the question, "Do you want to re-impose the tax or not?" because that question will be answered in November.
This is at least the second time you've made statement like this, which makes me think you have either completely missed the entire purpose of the survey, or you are so stuck on preaching against the tax that you can't recognize an attempt to plan for spending the funds in anticipation of the tax being renewed, which is what this survey was.
This survey was designed to gauge how the public would like the money to be spent *IF* the tax is renewed. That makes sense because information such as that could not be gleaned from the election returns, and there have been complaints about how the 1-cent funds have been used in the past.
There would be no point in releasing a survey to gauge the level of support because that will be obvious by counting the ballots a few months from now.
I'm not "against the tax" I stand in favor of freedom to choose. Both to keep the money I've rightfully earned and decide how it is spent. The least gov't is the best gov't.
And, no, I don't have a degree in divinity.
If I had received a survey I could comment. I live in the county and have spoken to ALL my neighbors and none of us received a copy of the survey. Whomever is in charge of this is perpetrating bunk.
Just another B.S. snowjob by government it looks to me like.
I got two. Guess one is for the dog. Just another example of gov't "effeciency."
But the survey was useful. It lit a fire under my compuer keyboard. I've embarked on my own "education" campaign about the tax. I plan to shed some light on the much neglected "Pro-Freedom" side of the discussion.
Naturally, those getting benefits from the program are singing it's praises.
They don't realize that saying, "I use the (fill-in the blank), therfore, I'm voting to re-impose to tax; is self-serving. It's circular logic. I benefit, thus I'll vote to re-impose. Now, there's a shocker.
It's the kind of faulty "reasoning" that's gotten us a long way down the road to serfdom.
Now more than ever we need to see both sides of this issue and use sound reasoning to come to a logical conclusion. I prefer "freedom to choose" over "force", anytime I'm given the option.
Remember: Freedom in November.
I live in the county and will be voting no this year, in no small part because the city of Sheridan played some games when it came to releasing money to the smaller communities in the county earlier in the year (could have been last year I'm not sure). I've not seen any 1 cent sales tax spent in Story since the bridge by the school was replaced several years ago. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Good Lord there are a bunch of Nay Sayers on this site - people who don't like anything - no matter how good it may be for our community.
As a parent who takes my kids swimming at the Kendrick Pool, I'm a big fan of the 1 cent funding. It brings good things to Sheridan.
I thought the survey was a good way to ask for input on the ways that the 1 cent can best be used in our community.
The survey was a good way to ask how we'd spend the money. What it didn't ask was: do you favor forced taxation over the freedom to donate? Do you want to impose your will on your neighbors or allow them the right to allocate their resources as they see fit? This is the crux of the matter, we will be voting on in November.
That some "good" may be done is not really at issue. If we allow the tax to be re-imposed, the "bad" that is done by the forced taking of private funds, contaminates any possible good, thereafter. No good can come from ill-gotten gains.
That a person derives benefits from the tax and thus supports it's re-imposition, is the definition of self-serving, circular "reasoning."
Since I can force others to pay for my goodies, I'll vote to re-impose the regressive sales tax. Does that seem fair? Isn't forced taxation more of a socialist idea, than an American one? Now more than ever we need to think about our actions. We need to engage those who want to liberate us from forced taxation. The "Yea Sayers" to liberty are on the right track, especially in a recession.
Remember: Freedom in November.
I'm not sure I agree with your statement that "no good can come from ill-gotten gains." Regardless of whether or not you agree with the method used for obtaining the funding, I think you would have a hard time convincing people who use things like the pathways that the results were not beneficial to anyone.
The statement, "No good can come from ill-gotten gains" is not mine, I borrowed it from a good book written long ago. It illustrates the simple fact that doing good, after first doing bad, does not make up for it. Forcing a person to pay a tax and then donating half of the proceeds to charity, does not balance the moral scale.
Yes, people who walk the paths benefit. But at what cost? The thousands that live in the county and never use the paths are forced to pay for it. That's not a good thing, is it? In fact, 35-50% of voters object to forced taxation. To us, no amount of "good" makes up for the loss of liberty. Freedom to choose is good. Forced to pay is bad.
Forced taxation contaminates all that follows, just as a tiny teaspoon of excrement, destroys an entire gallon of ice cream.
Why not re-try the freedom of voluntary giving, instead of re-imposing forced taxation? After all, if we find that we don't like liberty, we can always vote it back in, in just 11 months. (vice 4 yrs)
We cannot disregard the method of fund raising. It is essential to the discussion. The difference between voluntary cooperation and forced participation is the difference between a free society and a totalitarian one. Force or freedom is the core issue. Which will we choose? And thank you for engaging. I hope we can get a broad, issue-oriented, disussion on this important topic.
Remember: Freedom in November.
It will be useful for those who "divy up the spoils."
Rebel, should we not have any taxes?
Thanks for asking such an excellent question. The answer is no, we need to have funding for gov't to operate and taxes are necessary, in some limited cases. The One-Percent Mandatory (OPM) sales tax is a perfect example of what NOT to fund using forced taxation.
It was originally designed to fund, "nice to have" projects and augment charities. People feel good about donating to such good causes, right. Well, that joy of giving is taken away when the money is raised thru forced taxation. A significant portion of the population really needs that one percent to get by and many resent the fact that their neighbors keep re-imposing that tax burden on them.
Forcing money from people is a terrible way to kick off good projects, isn't it?
I think we've just forgotten that for centuries, America didn't rely on taxes to raise money, but used a variety of voluntary means. Community food banks, auctions, raffels, telethons, and charity events of all types would raise needed funds. Forced taxation removes the joy of giving and replaces it with resentment and outright resisitence.
About the only tolerable tax is called a user fee. Pump a gallon of gas and a road repair fee is applied. That makes good sense. Use the roads, then pay for their repair. I've got no problem with that.
Contrast that with a regressive, mandatory sales tax that is applied to almost everything and you can start to see my point. People with no kids, must pay for water parks. People who have never set foot in a city park or path are still forced to pay for them. The list goes on, but it's obvious that a broadly applied tax is un-fair to many. The costs are widely dispersed and the benefits a concentrated to a relative few.
I would much rather see freedom to donate, instead of forced to contribute. It's just a nicer way to do good things. Now more than ever, we need to re-discover voluntary fund raising and give freedom a chance. If we don't like having a 5% sales tax, we can re-impose it in just 11 months. And trust me they will not fire the police and fire-fighters, nor will the senior center be closed. That's just fear-mongering, designed to worry the un-informed.
Remember: Freedom in November
No. I think (not feel) that the survey was worded in a way that makes it one-sided, in favor of re-imposing the tax. Shouldn't the first question be: "Do you want to re-impose the tax or not?" Seems a legitimate survey would start at the beginning of the whole process: fund raising.
Instead, the "survey" just skipped right over the taxation and went right to, "how do you want to spend the money." Since 35% voted against the tax in 2006, I think that is presumptious and clearly biased.
And the way they framed the questions was biased, too. Who doesn't "support" education, natural resources and humane treatment of animals? That's not at issue.
The fundmental entering arguement is: Do you support forced taxation as the method of fund raising, for these worthy causes? Do you want to Re-impose the tax and force your decision on your neighbors? That is what we should be discussing, not, do you like puppies or will you buy Granny lunch?
The survey is classic statists propaganda, designed to mis-lead and mis-inform the voter. Would love to know who funded it and why? I notice that a "paid for by" statement was not listed, as is required, by law, for political ads. And this was clearly political and advocated only one side of the issue.
The web site didn't list a break-down of the total budget either. Wonder why?
Now more than ever, we need to be discussing the really important aspects of re-imposing this tax, especially in a recession. Doesn't forced taxation trample our natural rights to property? Isn't freedom to donate better than forced to contribute?
Aren't private charaties much more effecient than gov't? Won't lowering taxes en-courage people to shop in Sheridan. The list goes on and on and we need to be debating these ideas, especially the proven concept of down-sizing gov't and reducing taxes to stimulate growth.
Could we be deep in Depression in July, 2015? If we vote to re-impose, this time, that's the earliest we can free ourselves. Please consider that burden on the less fortunate.
Remember: Freedom in November.