The Debate Rages

After my letter to the editor was published in the Warren Tribune Chronicle on Sunday, I have been debating with a reader who is purely anti-tax/anti-levy. I find this position illogical. The following is the exchange which can be found here:

AFRET1:

Nice story, John, and I'm sure you're a stand-up guy. BUT, taxpayers are sick & tired of being asked for more, more, more. Off the top of my head I can't think of ANY levy I would vote for.

JDMILLER:

While I respect your stance, I stand to disagree. Local tax levies provide for basic, localized services and infrastructure. They provide essential functions with definitive returns. They are an investment, utilized for specific purposes. Local taxes are also transparent. Services are measurable and observable on an individualized level. Socially, they provide for both the present and the future. If roads, police, fire protection, schools, and libraries are not sound investments, then we as a society must be ready to decay.

AFRET1:

JD, I, too, respect your comments. My position as far as levies, i.e., taxes, are concerned is that at some point entities must learn to live within their means; otherwise, develop and employ practices and methods that will enhance their fiscal standing. I agree that everything you cited has merit. That said, as a homeowner I have had it with this levy and that levy. Schools are the most bothersome. (By the by, nice to have a civil discourse on this board.)

JDMILLER:

Local government provides opportunity. If one is displeased with either the spending or the levying of tax dollars, one can certainly run for public office with minimal barriers to entry. At the same time, it is difficult to win on a platform of cutting public services. The concept of developing and employing revenue generating schemes on a localized level is not feasible given resource constraints (personnel and capital). If you pair state funding cuts with moderate levels of inflation, local governments have been executing crucial functions within their means for sometime. In addition, the millage system is such that the revenue generated over time is reduced. The voted millage does not equate with the effective millage collected. Therefore, revenue decreases and local government must provide the same service with less. Taxpayers pay less for the same services over time.

To classify school levies as “bothersome” is maddening. Investment in the youth of our area cannot and should not be sacrificed. Schools are also facing significant funding cuts from the state. Teaching staffs are being reduced; programs are being cut; and students are already losing. Failure to support local school levies punishes our youth and ensures that they are less competitive than their peers from more affluent and civic minded areas. Perhaps, it is time that individuals live within their means and sacrifice for the collective good of this generation and the next.