[Vision2020] ID taxes

[Mark Solomon]

Doug,

I believe in the adage "you get what you pay for". If we, the 
citizens, are not paying for the legislature, someone else will in a 
form that may not be obvious until it's too late. I prefer a 
legislature where you don't have to be either independently wealthy 
or retired to serve.

Mark



At 3:00 PM -0500 11/17/06, heirdoug at netscape.net wrote:
>Mark,
>
>I will at this time only talk about one item you mentioned. You said 
>"take paying legislator's salaries as an example".
>
>I think a lot, an awful lot, of problems would change if this were 
>the first thing that was repealed. If the legislators were so 
>concerned about the well being of our community, let them voulenteer 
>after getting elected. When did making laws become big business. Or 
>better yet let them pay for the opportunity to serve us. The monies 
>to go into the general fund and pay for the buildings they want to 
>"serve" in.
>
>Now that would be limited government!
>
>Doug
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: msolomon at moscow.com
>To: heirdoug at netscape.net; vision2020 at moscow.com
>Sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:45 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ID taxes
>
>Doug, 
>
>I too question the personal property tax and grumble as I pay it 
>annually on the equipment I use in my own business. But until they 
>eliminate the many sales tax exemptions on much of the same 
>equipment, or to put it another way, the sales tax exemptions on 
>equipment for businesses with the right lobbyist connections, we're 
>stuck with it. 
>
>The worst part of all that is the local governments who should be 
>receiving the benefit of the local sales tax income from those 
>exempted sales are then stuck by the Legislature with being forced 
>to collect it via personal property taxes. It stinks. 
>
>Note the word "generally" in my original post re user-based taxes 
>(or fees as some like to call them). Not all governmental services 
>lend themselves to such an approach (take paying legislator's 
>salaries as an example). That's why it's called the General Fund at 
>the state, county and city budgeting levels. 
>
>I'm a strong believer that a person appreciates a governmental 
>service more if one has contributed to paying for it. It's called 
>participatory government. I also believe that in the ideal world 
>without tax attorneys and regulatory loopholes the progressive 
>income tax is the fairest tax as it's based on the ability to pay 
>not the need to provide food, clothing and shelter for one's family. 
>
>Mark 
>
>At 12:47 PM -0500 11/17/06, heirdoug at netscape.net wrote:
>>Mark, 
>>
>>Which taxes do you think are ok for public services? How about the
>  >personal property usage tax? That wonderful tax on 
>restaurant >equipment each year by the county for my being able to 
>use the
>>equipment. 
>>
>>Do you think this tax is ok? 
>>
>>And could you define "user-based". If one does not "use" should one be
>taxed?
>>
>>Do you think that only the rich should be taxed and not the poor? 
>>
>>Doug! 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>>------- 
>>
>>While I generally support user-based taxation schemes, the proposal 
>>below adds insult to the injury of the Risch/GOP Idaho tax-the-poor 
>>taxation "reform". The sales tax is the most regressive tax. Given 
>>the sales tax loopholes already in place for ag and timber, once 
>>again the Idaho GOP will be disproportionately sticking it to those 
>>who can least afford it. All so we can build a highway from Boise to 
>>Dirk's retirement home, among other dubious road projects. 
>>
>>Mark S. 
>>________________________________________________________________________
>
>>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
>>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.