1. Is the property tax a good tax? Is it fair and does it have some
relation to what is paid for? For example, is it fair to use property tax
to fund fire protection (which is primarily to protect property) but unfair
to use it to pay for parks or schools? What about police protection (which
protects both property and personal safety)?
2. If government services are to be paid for by the beneficiaries of
the services, then how are we to determine who is to pay and what a fair
amount is?
3. Do we even want the government to provide these services? For
example, do we want water, sewer, garbage, power, schools, parks, library,
etc provided by the government? If not, then who is to provide them and how
are we to do so most efficiently? Do we want to prohibit duplication of
services? How are we to do this? Do we want to allow individuals to
provide for themselves (i.e. have every homeowner dig his own well and
septic tank, have his own electic generator, build his own park etc)?
4. How do we account for the overlapping of different taxing
districts that ensures that all are treated fairly? Is it fair that some
may pay a higher tax rate because they live in a different part of the
city/county? Who is to decide what the fair rate is and how are all the
taxing districts to be made to coordinate their rates? Who is to collect
and allocate the money?
I could go on but you get a flavor for what I think are the important
questions. I am afraid that some feel that elected officials don't think of
these questions when they set tax rates. I can't answer for others, but
certainly I think of them and I hope others do also.
- Brad
>well, i'd drafted a longer reponce, but lost it:( I'm out of my legue
>on these issues (as are most payers likely). The whole area is burdened
>with way to much history which possibly leads to many of the problems
>we have. I think the 1% thing the result of frustration as much as any-
>thing else. but..
>
>>But I do not agree that a tax is "any funds which go from private to
>>public/semi-public orgs". There are several reasons for this. First is
>>that these services that are paid for by fees could be done by private
>>organizations as well as public ones. For example, in Boise, you do not
>>have city water or sewer service. Istead these are provided by private
>>companies. You do have to use these services if you live in these areas
>>since they have obtained a franchise from the city to provide these services
>>(and it would bu much more expensive to duplicate these sevices). In Idaho
>
>I'd still view them as a tax I think. Its maybe a "directed tax" in that
>it goes to a specific place, but its still a required payment, one for
>which it has been determined by a small group of elected (hopefully) folks
>will be payed by a larger group? The francising out to private sector
>of these services is done to encourage the private org to even be intrested
>in being in business in that area. Possibly because fractionalization of
>the service would lead to a non-viable business model, and thus it would
>not be possible to out-source w/o it.
>
>The history thing is also relivant. In those kuna sub-divisions, people
>still pay their NewYork canal water district fees (i think), even tho
>they don't use the water. The fee, allocated on the basis of something
>line foot/seconds/acre, is the same for acres under tillage as those
>not using the water. If only those that used the water were charged,
>it would change cost structure of their agri-business too much. So in
>that case, a "tax" which is subsidizing the dwendling agri-base. (could
>be wrong on all that:).
>
>but my point was that no matter what the organization which is collecting
>the $'s, if the patron is required to pay because of decisions made by
>democratically elected people, then its a tax. In the case of the
>Kuna water, the decision that these people would be taxed was made when
>the water district was formed (by elected officials?).
>> ...
>> The advantage is that in the city we
>> have a fixed geographic base and can achieve econonmies of scale that
>> private providers outside the city cannot. Also, we do not have to pay
>> shareholders or investors so we can deliver services at cost. Another way
>> of looking at it is that the city residents become the shareholders of the
>> company and, instead of paying dividends, we give lower rates.
>
>its the francise thing mentioned above mixed with a cost/benifit analysis
>by the elected officials which led to the above situation. Possibly the
>governmental unit couldn't get any private org to do it at the break
>even point of the governmental unit doing it themselves? But I'd still
>view it as lower "taxes" rather than lower "rates", because of the
>involvement of the governmental unit in the making of the decision.
>
>> Second, you may not be aware that, by law, the proceeds of a
>> city-owned enterprise may not be used for public purposes but must be used
>> only for payment of the operations of that enterprise. The only exception
>> is that the city may charge a franchise fee to the city-owned enterprise in
>> the same way it would charge a fee to a private company. The purpose of
>> this fee is to compensate the city for the use of city rights-of-way or
>> facilities. Also, by law, the city may not use property taxes to fund the
>> operations of an enterprise fund.
>
>Nope, not aware of it till now (likely, again most folks aren't really
>aware of it?). Seems like a way that the elected folks who need to be
>held accountable for the "tax" level have defined away the need to call
>a tax-a-tax, rather call it a fee. If its going to the provision of a
>service which has been outsourced (either to the private sector or to
>another governmental entity), then lets not call it a tax, but rather
>a fee, and just to make sure we know the difference, we won't allow the
>two to be intermingled. If such an enterprise were to become wildly
>profitable, under this scheme, the fee would become negative (as in the
>case of Alaska oil?) and people would make $ from the service which they
>could then use to pay their taxes (of course they'd be taxed additionally
>for the income:).
>
>in a nutshell, my feeling is that its WAY to complicated a system we've
>evolved to. The 1% thing is a sledghammer approach to forcing rationalization.
>not a good way to resolve it, but it certainly has gotten attention.
>
>johnt
>
>