Do you trust government to introduce one tax but remove another?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I understand that the government needs a certain amount of money to function and provide the basic services I want and need.

It seems that anytime a politician wants to introduce a new tax, it comes along with the promise that it’ll somehow save us money in the long run.

I’m always in favor of systems that place the cost on those using the service. For example, when I go camping at a state park, I pay all the fees with no complaint—I don’t think it would be fair for my fellow citizens who dislike camping to have to pay for my vacation.

Anyway, this is a small, local issue, but government has done one more thing to make me not trust it.

Nearly two years ago, the city I live in (Malden, MA) introduced a new fee for trash pickup:

Pros: People who are too lazy to recycle, puchase items with ridiculous oversize packaging, or simply have a large household will now pay their fair share, instead of me having to subsidize their bad habits.

Plus, I’m strongly in favor of taking good care of the environment. I can think of several friends who didn’t recycle before, but now do. I think that’s great.

Also, I live alone, already recycle everything I can, and just bring my trash to work, so this new tax doesn’t really affect me very much.

Cons: The city “forgot” to reduce people’s property tax to compensate for this new tax they’ve introduced.

The tax on the very modest 2-family home where I live is $3600 per year. If this home were to put out four of the $2 trash bags per week, that’d be $416 per year, or an 8.65% tax increase, according to my math.

In 1980 Massachusetts voters got tired of this and voted for Proposition 2 1/2 to prevent such drastic tax increases.

It appears to me that the city doesn’t want to abide by the law, and has instead found a trick to raise taxes, under the guise of “times are tough, it’s the economy” and “it’s for the environment.”

In summary: I’m so torn as to how I’ll vote in November. (It’ll be on the ballot again.)

This new system is exactly the kind of thing I’d vote for under normal circumstances: End the practice of some residents subsidizing other neighbors’ trash pickup, and help the environment all at the same time.

On the other hand, the local government is doing nothing more than stealing from us. We’re paying more overall to get the same level of service we had in 2007.

2

Simplified question

“Do you trust the government to <BLANK>?”

The answer is no.

3

Fuck. Come to Ontario and see what’s happened in the last 2 Liberal terms regarding tax creep. We tax taxes here. And that’s not a joke.

4

You’ve found a loophole and are passing your tax burden on to your employer, it’s not surprising that the local government has to find more creative ways to raise taxes. There are probably lots of people like yourself that have found ways around the tax revenue, so the City’s original estimates of potential tax revenue fall short and they have to find more ways.

The solution is for the government to get smaller…so it needs less taxes.

5

You do have a good point.

I know that what I’m doing doesn’t contribute to the solution. In fact, by not buying bags and placing trash on the curb, I’m effectively saving the city money (that they used to pay out to the waste-disposal company), even though taxes remain the same.

I suppose the “right” thing to do would be to move to another city in protest, or run for city councilor or mayor and change things, but neither of those would be practical for me.

I just wish there were check box on the November ballot that said “keep the trash tax but all funds will be used to send out tax rebate checks” or something like that.

And yes, I do agree with you that government needs to get smaller. I wish government weren’t even involved in my trash pickup at all.

6

Generally speaking it’s better to tax “Bads” (like garbage and pollution) than “Goods” (like labor or savings). I suppose property might fall somewhere in between.

With respect, the OP is a little lazy. The local government needs funds to pay for services. If the OP believes that they are taxing too much, what exactly should they be spending less on? And if he wants privatization can he show empirically that a for-profit outfit would in fact be cheaper?

Hey, I’ll accept approximations. Show what has happened to spending in his locale: has it gone up faster than inflation?

OK, I overstated my case. But you could try to dig up the data and blog about it. Admittedly, that itself would be a project. My peev though is that there’s a lot of superficial libertarian criticisms of government at rather higher levels that follow the pattern of the OP. In those cases, there really is scope for the kind of approach that I’m talking about. Instead, people wave their hands and blather on about smaller government.

What’s the alternative? What specifically should they do? There has been a collapse in tax revenue at the state level.

7

Some of these tough choices could have been averted if the 2009 stimulus package was, say, $200 billion higher. That was the original plan, but the Democratic Senators wanted a Republican to sign the bill, and Olympia Snowe would only do that if ~$90 billion in spending was eliminated. As a result, combined spending on the state, local and federal level has been flat, so we’ve had no net fiscal stimulus, nothing to compensate for the collapse in consumption and business investment. So unnecessary.

To be clear, I’m sympathetic to citizens who want their local governments to practice austerity, provided they’ll accept lower services. But awkwardly, the best time for budget cuts is during prosperity, when resources can be released into an expanding private sector. Clinton pulled that off during the 1990s, before tax cuts and war put the federal government back into chronic deficit last decade.

8

NO. You are simply paying more of your share of the cost of subsidizing wasteful packaging and failure to recycle. Fact is, we all subsidize such practices constantly, and introducing taxes and other incentives merely makes us become aware of it and agitate for less/more ecological packaging and higher recycling rates and options.

Yes, I trust “government” (“of the people, by the people, for the people”) to introduce new taxes and eliminate others IF the particular taxes are reasonable and progressive. Not ALL taxes are evil, imo. I am willing to pay my fair share to fund things we all take for granted…drivable roads, police, firefighters, education, libraries, infrastructure, etc…

A major grocery chain here recently eliminated all plastic bags and is selling reusable/recycled plastic bag for 10 cents, offering paper bags for free, and selling cloth bags for under a dollar. I think it is great. It helps me (owner of multiple bags) to bring my bags when I go shopping. I think they should charge for or eliminate the paper bags, myself.

“Tax” the hell out of un-ecological/un-economic practices…end subsidies and force consumers to pay full cost retail and this free market effect will result in less harm to the environment, more innovation AND lower taxes.

It is silly to take the position that all taxes are bad…we MUST fund our government…it is simply a matter of WHICH tax policies reflect our needs and work. I do not blindly “trust” government (politicians and voters) in this regard…I examine each tax or tax cut on its merits. (and we REALLY need to let the Bush tax cuts for those earning over 250 grand a yr expire and extend the tiny breaks for those earning less…BAD TAX policy with DISMAL results) :smack:

9

How much do they currently pay for litter cleanup?