Published: Tuesday, June 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
We always need to remember that government is in place to handle duties that the
people cannot handle directly. The Federal Goverment's main duty is to
protect the States from enemies and to see that States treat each other fairly.
The State, County and City each have more local duties, to build the infrastruce
within the State, the County and the City so that the people can efficiently
perform their personal duties. Each level of government has a police force. No
level of government should have an acting company or an opera company or a dance
company. The people are fully capable of paying for those
"services".To me, that is the problem with government. The
elected officials "buy" votes by doing something for the wealthy so that
the wealthy will donate money to a campaign. Poor people will never be able to
afford to go to the symphony or the opera or to watch a live play. They use
their money to pay for their families' basic needs. Taxing them for the
"arts" is unfair and unethical.Fix the roads, not the
symphony or the zoo.
I have to ask, what are the tax rates on the businesses, especially the bigger
ones. It seems like many cities give these big businesses huge tax breaks,
sometimes requiring they don't pay any taxes for years, while the burden is
passed to the residents. I understand the argument of lower taxes on these
businesses to attract them to the city, but there has to be balance. If they
want business we have to have roads that will bring customers and sewage, an
electrical grid and so on. They might want an educated populace or good schools
to attract employees etc. These things can't be ignored but I am doubtful
that many businesses are paying their fair share as compared to individual
Many cities are commercial hubs where most folks working there live outside the
city limits in separately incorporated suburbs. The cities subsequently charge
an occupational tax which hits anyone working in the city. This helps protect
what is often a shrinking base of taxpayers within the city's limits.
All taxes on residential property should be abolished, so that homeowners
actually own their homes.
Why make money go further... when we can just take more?Citizens
must stand up and refuse to approve more taxes UNTIL government has worked hard
and delivered on it's previous promises and gotten as efficient as possible
“it should be found somewhere other that the taxpayer’s
wallet”, NOT.The costs of government should be paid by the
people governed.The best way to reduce the cost of government would
be to reduce the governments it has to go through and the nature of the
destination. People should pay taxes for the things needed or desired by the
general public and not the entertainment and favoritism of specials groups.
Yea Mike Richards.
Taxes - and more specifically, lower taxes - are always on the forefront of
conservative thought.Connecting some dots here, what if the
Republican House authorized the NSA to "commercialize" the PRISM system
so that corporations can comb through the data to discover potential
customers?Corporations benefit, we can lower the deficit by selling
data to the private sector, citizens get more finely targeted marketing
information.This sounds like a bad idea to me, but I wonder how
attractive this idea would be to conservatives? After all, it could
lower taxes, and close the deficit at the same time.
I agree with the idea of postponing some grand projects for a while. In
reality, I think that the city needs to expend a great deal more effort in
publicizing the current sorry state of the infrastructure of the city and
explain what needs to be done, and what it will cost to remedy it. For example
as expressed in the article, explain how many miles of road need to maintained
and the schedule for renewal of roads and utilities. Then as the budgets are
formed the basics are addressed first and foremost. Then the pet projects for
the elite members of our society can be addressed.I agree that
property taxes need to be done away with. If a man has a tax on his
"castle" however humble, it is not truly his property, it is always in
jeopardy of seizure by the government.
@Ultra Bob & Mike Richards - While I agree with you both on most points, it
is also the government's obligation to ensure that the local economy grows
beyond what taxes pay for. The best ways to do that are through promoting
tourism and attracting new businesses. The city/state can only attract so many
people promoting our outdoor recreation, so they need to find ways to reach
those who are interested in other activities, such as art. Mike's assertion that "Poor people will never be able to afford to go
to the symphony or the opera or to watch a live play," is a little unfair to
the city and those organizations that actually host numerous events that are
affordable to those on even the tightest of budgets (not to mention the work
they do with local schools.) Furthermore, all city residents, even those that
could easily afford to attend these activities that simply choose not to,
benefit from the revenues these venues generate. Don't
misunderstand me, the government needs to do a better job managing its funds.
But it's also the government's job to promote itself which also
benefits the businesses and residents it serves.
The problem with government spending is the apathy of the citizens. When the
citizens decide that their tax dollars can be better spent and make their voices
heard, the spending will be reigned in. But a super majority of the people are
clueless as to where there taxes really go.
We can start by prohibiting $13 million dollar handouts to losing contractors.
We can then move to getting rid of a clown AG. And then, cut all benefits and
pay for local and national legislators by half. Finally, cut all foreign aid and
handouts to the ME. We throw away billions literally every single week in
Afghanistan and Iraq. That must stop.Doing these things will make
public money go further!
Forget about "making tax dollars go further" instead, we need to just
focus on eliminating spending on everything that is not a constitutionally
mandated function of that level of government, AND absolutely essential.Too much government money goes to buying votes, or some socialist scheme
to redistribute wealth. Government should make sure the needy are
not taken advantage of, and that there are few bars to their improving their lot
in life. However, taking the fruits of the hard work of one man to give them to
another who chooses not to work as hard is immoral and unfair to both. Get the
government out of the welfare business.Get out of private sector
operations, (Liquor stores need not be state run, and can still contribute $$$
to the state.) Cut administrative bloat, especially in education. Drug test
and residency check all welfare recipients. Reject flimsy "disability"
claims.Cut the spending!
Ultra Bob Shawnm750.My difference to your philosophy
stems from my notion that in our world it is people that are most important.
Your philosophy seems to put money before people. When the
government is used to promote business such as tourism, new business operations,
conventions, and all manner of non-governmental functions, the expense falls
onto the resident and the profit goes to business. Sometimes most of the profit
goes to outside business owners. The creation of temporary jobs
causes more expense to local government that often doesn’t end when the
jobs are gone. When governments compete with each other for
business profits, they are simple attempting to steal from the other governments
venue. I feel that government should favor services to all
it’s citizens and business should do it’s own promoting.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments