I have a long memory...
- Thread starter imaref
- Start date
General Lee
Well-Known Member
Typical politics....say whatever that will get you elected. We just have to remember this next time its time to vote.
The county is expected to provide for the essential services and then some. Costs are going to rise. You can't expect people to work for the same wages they had 20 years ago, the price of gas is higher, etc.
I would rather they vote on a tax increase than use the stealth "increase" in property values to balance the budget.
The real question you should be asking, is where is the tax money the people of this county send to the state?
Why is SMC have a negative balance when it comes to State taxes collected and state funding returned.
Could it be that we are reaping the rewards of casting votes for republican canidates in a state controlled by the democratic party?
Reading through the proposed budget there are a lot of "extras" that could be cut out or phased in over several years. $30 million more in a single budget cycle? That's excessive. Tired of getting screwed because I own a small townhouse. I'd be better off to pitch a tent in the woods (but I'm sure they would find some way to tax that as well). Surprised "breathing air" doesn't have a surcharge yet...
Costs are going to rise as should incomes of the residents (even if to cover cost of living/inflation increases) and therefore the taxable income amounts. 10% of 2019's incomes should result in more tax revenue to the County than 10% of 2018's incomes. That increase should offset the increased cost without actually increasing the tax rate.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Funny how the operating monies of the county is predicated upon the theft from the wages paid for a person's labor.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
the 10% income tax goes to the state, what cut the county gets depends on the legislature.
10% if of my pay raise (including COLA) doesn't match the rise in the price of gasoline.
Real estate values had fallen and as far as I know they are stable, but not rising back to the 2004 days.
County gets the majority of it's funding from real estate taxes. The cheap way is to just allow growth in property values to provide for the increased revenue. But if real estate values are flat, that leaves a tax increase, but the good news is, you know who voted for how much.
What you should be asking is why isn't St. Mary's getting a bigger cut of th emoney we send to Annapolis?
Trust me, I don't want a tax increase any omre than you do.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Another funny. That everyone's home, dwelling, residence, domicile, abode, the place where one rests and/or raises a family, is arbitrarily taxed regardless of one's wages or ability to pay the extracted amount. A place that absolutely every person needs, to be, and live, and raise a family, in a safe environment. And if you don't pay, the State/County, they will make you and your family homeless, by force if necessary by way of Sheriff deputies with guns. And yet, it is accepted as normal for some outsider to come and demand an extortion payment to continue to live in one's home for another year under the auspices and guise that you, under pain of becoming homeless, must fund the government and schools and outrageously high salaries and extensive and expensive benefits, health/pensions etc., that a vast many do not even have, through what amounts to slavery. So why to do you, slave, that has absolutely no say in the matter, [Not directed at you Bernie], complain of increasing property taxes or the taxation of your labor wages?
Real estate taxes are a legacy of our colonial days. The wealthy (who were landowners) were taxed. This in turn was what paid for public education, which is why to this day most communities in the US use real estate taxes as the primary source of funding schools. Blame it on those damn founding fathers.
I don't enjoy being taxed, I don't wish to pay more in taxes, but it's the cost of living in a civilized society, we have a government that we have entrusted to manage certain necessary things that allow us to go about our lives.
The size of government and role has had to change given the growth of the nation and changes in technology. The founders saw this and allowed for it. I think in some cases the federal government and in some states, the state government has overstepped what the framers of the constitution had in mind. The primary provider of services was your local government, next the state, and last the federal government.
Take transportation as an example, the local government can build and maintain roads in their community, but what about travel across political lines?
Same with interstate roads, railroads, waterways and airspace. Who provides the coordination and safety of operation and how do we pay for that?
So we have governments and they are tasked with providing for services that benefit the entire community (law enforcement, the courts, transportation, schools, etc.). Where do they get the money to pay for it? Sales tax? Tariffs? Income tax? Occupation Tax(1)?
(1) there are communities that have a tax (flat fee) based on your job title and / or level of education.
Personally I would prefer a flat income tax, a very simple tax, income is everything you receive, from every source (no tax exempt / deferred income).
One flat deduction (exclusion) for every individual who files (and every individual who has earnings is required to file).
That exclusion is to provide allow everyone a base income they can live on. After that, it's simply x%.
You could make it L, S and F as the variables. Local , State and Federal. Set the rate. It's fair, it's simple and it would cost significantly less to collect. For most there would be no refund or tax due at the end of the year (if payroll withholding is used).
No sales tax. No other taxes internal to the citizens of the United States.
Licenses and vehicle registrations (boats, planes, etc) would still be separate fees because not everyone uses them.
Then eliminate / fight the duplication and cumbersome regulations. Why do we have a federal department of education, a state department of education and a local school board and paid school system staff. How many people and levels of regulation do you need to set a standard for what children should be learning (read, write and math).
At some point you have to expect a federal standard if we want the ability to move about. But we don't need the nit picking, political control that comes from the upstream regulation (which usually comes with money). Trim the budget, trim the influence.
I don't enjoy being taxed, I don't wish to pay more in taxes, but it's the cost of living in a civilized society, we have a government that we have entrusted to manage certain necessary things that allow us to go about our lives.
The size of government and role has had to change given the growth of the nation and changes in technology. The founders saw this and allowed for it. I think in some cases the federal government and in some states, the state government has overstepped what the framers of the constitution had in mind. The primary provider of services was your local government, next the state, and last the federal government.
Take transportation as an example, the local government can build and maintain roads in their community, but what about travel across political lines?
Same with interstate roads, railroads, waterways and airspace. Who provides the coordination and safety of operation and how do we pay for that?
So we have governments and they are tasked with providing for services that benefit the entire community (law enforcement, the courts, transportation, schools, etc.). Where do they get the money to pay for it? Sales tax? Tariffs? Income tax? Occupation Tax(1)?
(1) there are communities that have a tax (flat fee) based on your job title and / or level of education.
Personally I would prefer a flat income tax, a very simple tax, income is everything you receive, from every source (no tax exempt / deferred income).
One flat deduction (exclusion) for every individual who files (and every individual who has earnings is required to file).
That exclusion is to provide allow everyone a base income they can live on. After that, it's simply x%.
You could make it L, S and F as the variables. Local , State and Federal. Set the rate. It's fair, it's simple and it would cost significantly less to collect. For most there would be no refund or tax due at the end of the year (if payroll withholding is used).
No sales tax. No other taxes internal to the citizens of the United States.
Licenses and vehicle registrations (boats, planes, etc) would still be separate fees because not everyone uses them.
Then eliminate / fight the duplication and cumbersome regulations. Why do we have a federal department of education, a state department of education and a local school board and paid school system staff. How many people and levels of regulation do you need to set a standard for what children should be learning (read, write and math).
At some point you have to expect a federal standard if we want the ability to move about. But we don't need the nit picking, political control that comes from the upstream regulation (which usually comes with money). Trim the budget, trim the influence.
Goldenhawk
Well-Known Member
Bernie, I'm sure you know that those of us who make a moderate wage usually agree with this sentiment (flat income tax). However, some people put a huge emphasis on "progressive" tax structures that reduce the tax burden on the poor (low earners) and penalize the high earners to pay for it. The majority of the tax code complexity is the direct result of finding ways to extract more money from the rich and give it to the poor. Because the poor(er) people overwhelm the vote in large cities, they typically get their way in Congress.
(This is exactly why the Electoral College was designed - to limit the ability of densely populated cities to overwhelm the rural vote. It kinda still works, and if we scrapped the Electoral College, the US would quickly become fully socialist and entirely run by voters in inner city areas of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, DC, New York, Los Angeles, and Miami. And you can imagine what they would vote into place - take all the rich money and give it to the poor.)
(This is exactly why the Electoral College was designed - to limit the ability of densely populated cities to overwhelm the rural vote. It kinda still works, and if we scrapped the Electoral College, the US would quickly become fully socialist and entirely run by voters in inner city areas of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, DC, New York, Los Angeles, and Miami. And you can imagine what they would vote into place - take all the rich money and give it to the poor.)
The progressive tax code is a farce, it's riddled with all sorts of ways to reduce ones income IF you have enough money to do so.
There are several reasons the tax code is so complex.
.1. a lot of people (Inuit and H&R Block) have invested a lot of money to keep it that way.
So if you said the exclusion was 50K, then someone making 50,000 or less would pay nothing. If you made 60K, you would pay 1K
Now the person making a 1M would pay 95,000. The actual percentage of their total income would be 1.67% and 9.5% respectively.
But people can't do the math, poor make much better, While both are taxed on all their income, (a) the wealthy are gong to have a lot more income to tax than they do now (because things like municipal bonds would be taxable) but as you can see by the math (b) the same one exclusion is a much bigger impact on lowering the poorer persons income.. The effective tax rate difference is greater than 5.5 times.
There are several reasons the tax code is so complex.
.1. a lot of people (Inuit and H&R Block) have invested a lot of money to keep it that way.
- It puts power in a congressman's pocket, by attaching a simple rider on a bill, he can grant an individual a very well crafted personal exemption. That's not hyperbole, it's fact. Several newspapers traced some of the more interesting "loop hole" to the donor they were written for.
- Is closely tied to #2, it's a way for politicians to do some social engineering. Buy a house verse rent. Have children, get married, all increase your exemptions. Actually don't get married, because "Married, filing joint", doesn't give you twice the standard deduction as a single taxpayer. Don't even think about married filing separate, because that halves the married filing joint deductions.
So if you said the exclusion was 50K, then someone making 50,000 or less would pay nothing. If you made 60K, you would pay 1K
Now the person making a 1M would pay 95,000. The actual percentage of their total income would be 1.67% and 9.5% respectively.
But people can't do the math, poor make much better, While both are taxed on all their income, (a) the wealthy are gong to have a lot more income to tax than they do now (because things like municipal bonds would be taxable) but as you can see by the math (b) the same one exclusion is a much bigger impact on lowering the poorer persons income.. The effective tax rate difference is greater than 5.5 times.
Well one commissioner smartened up and changed his mind on the tax increases--keep up the pressure!
www.somdnews.com
Hewitt withdraws support for tax raises
A week after many St. Mary’s residents voiced their opposition to local tax hikes, at least one commissioner has publicly recanted his support for the increases, casting some uncertainty on
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
ALLODIUM - "Land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens (property taxes and municipal codes). An estate held by absolute ownership without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof."
If you don't have an allodial title on your property, someone else owns it. – Even if its’ PAID IN FULL!
In colonial, pre-revolution, pre-ratification of the Constitution, those property taxes when to the King of England while a little stayed to fund the King's good works. After the ratification and the complete severing from the King, all lands in this Country became allodium in nature.
ALLODIUM - "Land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens (property taxes and municipal codes). An estate held by absolute ownership without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof."
If you don't have an allodial title on your property, someone else owns it. – Even if its’ PAID IN FULL!
Goldenhawk
Well-Known Member
You consistently take positions which deny any responsibility to the good of those around you.
How do those roads you love to travel unhindered get built and maintained? How do the police and fire departments buy equipment and pay salaries keep you safe? etc...
At least in this state, We the People have decided that imposing taxes UPON OURSELVES is a fair way to provide such benefits for the good of all. YOU may not have agreed, but WE have agreed. There is no king imposing taxes upon us; we did it to ourselves, judging that the common good requires such a step. And periodically We decide that the structure of those taxes needs to be adjusted, and We are free to do so, because We have no king.
And you are free to move to some location where such taxes are not in fact imposed by society upon itself. That is your ultimate freedom.
Look, I disagree with how much of my taxes are spent. I hate what public schools are doing to our society, so we homeschooled our kids for 15 years, and I still had to pay for the education system to educate other kids. I hate that the 2nd Amendment is under attack in this state, and the public servants who are supposed to support it refuse to look at concealed-carry permit applications. But on the balance, I have decided that this state is my domicile, and in so deciding, I tacitly agree to the taxation and all its implications. That is my freedom.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
You obviously have drank a vast amount of the cool-aid and happily carry the bondage chains of slavery. We the people never agreed to the level of taxation thrust upon us by the many unscrupulous elected so called politicians over the decades. We the people never agreed to have our homes taxed, and if payment isn't made, get kicked to the curb along with all worldly possessions, by the point of a gun. No one, in their right and morally conscience mind, would ever willingly allow such an evil thing to be placed upon themselves and hung around the necks of their children and grandchildren. We do not need the level of "police" we have in the country. In the past, men defended themselves, their family and property on their own, as was expected of them, and if necessary with help from neighbors and/or friends. The Sheriff's duty was to keep the peace and to get those really bad guys. You don't know what freedom is when you say, "That is my freedom." Your freedom is a surrender to the state authority that so long as you are a good little girl and follow their rules and don't make noise and pay all their taxes and fees and whatever else they can think of to separate you from your money, they will leave you alone. That is not freedom. That is acquiescence. That is submission. There is no one in society, that has a right, to demand from another, an annual payment to continue to live in their own home, under the guise, or any guise, for any reason, of funding any government function. And for you to think it right and proper shows how little you know of liberty and freedom.
Goldenhawk
Well-Known Member
Right and proper? You know little about what I think. However, I am at peace with the life we have, for the most part, and refuse to allow myself to brood upon the challenges. When I have a chance to vote, I always vote for fewer laws, lower taxes, less waste on welfare, etc.. In between voting seasons, I choose to be at peace inside myself.
You seem particularly bitter about a great many things on which you routinely comment. I don't envy you.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
"There is only one political sin: independence; and only one political virtue: obedience. To put it differently, there is only one offense against authority: self control; and only one obeisance to it: submission to control by authority. Why is self control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority to be unemployed. What is he to do if he cannot control others? To be sure, he could mind his own business. But this is a fatuous answer, for those who are satisfied to mind their own business do not aspire to become authorities. In short, authority needs subjects, persons not in control of themselves." -- Thomas Szasz
Goldenhawk
Well-Known Member
You're so sanctimonious.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Nope. Am not. However, the way I live, and things I have to, by government threat and forced to, (else I wind up arrested and put in jail or prison after a lengthy trail), do in the world to just get through, is far different from what I think, and write. I also, when necessary, ie., when I pick my battles, have no problem standing up to "authority" to challenge the many things in what government thinks they can force upon us. And just think. If everyone did this, governments wouldn't be able to do maybe 90% of the crap they have done and continue to do.