Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould taxpayers have a bigger say in local government spending?
Results so far:
| No | 15% | 17 votes | Total: 114 votes | |
| Yes | 85% | 97 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThis is a very hot button, and interesting, issue, particularly during these trying economic times. Taxpayers are struggling to pay the money required by local governments to cover services and other necessities in the towns, while dealing with a loss of jobs and other issues. Everyone is looking for a way to save money.
And still, I believe taxpayers should not have a bigger say in how local governments spend the money.
People talk about practical issues (there are so many taxpayers in a town, how will decisions be made) and others (what if people can't handle their own money, how will they handle it for a whole town?), and I agree with these reasons, but I'm going to speak from what I see in local government.
I am a newspaper reporter, covering municipal government in two local towns, one with a population of a little over 10,000 and the other with a population of more than 36,000. I attend municipal meetings, and report on budgets, purchases and anything else that relates to the local governments. I've seen firsthand what happens when residents try to dictate how local government taxes should be spent. And, to be honest and blunt, I think it would be a really bad idea.
There are so many state laws and regulations that go into decision making in the local governments, which also mandate when grants can be applied for and when mandatory evaluations and other work must be done in the towns. For example, in one of the towns, the county recently ordered a revaluation to be done on all properties. Taxpayers have spoken out against it, saying it shouldn't have to be done, it costs too much - these are all valid reasons not to want to go through with the procedure. But the fact is, it is required by the county and the town must do it.
Elected officials, while townspeople themselves, work with attorneys, administrators and others who are well-versed in the ways of governmental law and the requirements of the state and counties. Regular residents don't and, for that reason, they often don't understand how some of the tax money must be spent. I understand that residents want to pay less money, we all do and it's a fact of life - but they have to remember, and sometimes I think they don't, that some of the funds are required to comply with rules of the state that a local government cannot question or ignore.
In one of the towns I cover, there has been a particular issue with changes made on a county-owned road. For months, residents blamed the local officials for making the changes and impacting the lives of the residents themselves. Time and time again, the officials emphasized that, because it is a county-owned road, they had absolutely no control over the decisions that were made. I know this example has nothing to do with money specifically, but it just goes to emphasize that residents often don't understand the workings of the government and therefore should not be the ones with the final say on how the money is spent.
Technically speaking, residents do have a hand in what goes on in the local governments. While the final decisions lie with the voting officials themselves, residents always have a voice at meetings through public hearings. All ordinances introduced in local government are required to go through public hearings and all meetings of the town's governing body have public portions for residents to speak out about concerns. At these times, anyone can speak out about spending issues. I have, on occasion, seen ordinances, resolutions and proposals either amended, or killed altogether, because of public outrage.
I think that, in considering this topic, we must look beyond the practical idea that residents cannot continue to pay for rising costs, and instead remember that elected officials and other government workers understand requirements and needs of the towns, as well as what is mandated above their heads. And, to be frank, if residents are really unhappy with how the local government is spending the money, well, that's what yearly elections are for.
Learn more about this author, Audrey Levine.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Taxpayers definitely should have a bigger say in local government spending. In fact, our entire governmental organization in the United States has been turned on its head. Our constitution designed our governmental system to operate from the state level to the federal level. Over the years, starting with the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the federal level has superseded most all power of the states.
This is especially true in the area of taxation. Not only has the importance of taxation grown many times beyond its original intent, but the income tax has allowed taxes to concentrate at the federal level with the hope that a portion will filter back to the states. This system has no resemblance to what the framers of the constitution had in mind. Income tax was never even a consideration.
To return to a sense of local control, the income tax should be abolished. It is unarguably the most difficult tax to collect and was only instituted because of the large amounts of funds that are possible and the relative ease of collecting at the federal level. The income tax was instrumental in the growth of the federal government and the large scale theft of value from the local communities. When income is taxed, great amounts of wealth are removed from local communities and transferred to the federal level. This is the primary reason for the tax.
Instead, taxes should be collected on the local level, originating at the county, and passed to the state level and finally to the federal level. The income tax is the least suited for this method. It also imposes the largest "dead weight" or impact on the economy. The land fee tax has the least negative effects on the economy and is the easiest to institute.
The county compiles a complete list of assessments of all land values within its jurisdiction. This is simply done by subtracting the depreciated improved value from the total value of a parcel. Comparable bare parcels are valued the same as similar improved parcels [minus improvements]. Then, the land rent or the "return" is figured on the land only. A percentage is deducted, between ten and twenty percent, to encourage entitlement rather than tenancy, and the remaining amount is paid as tax to the county.
Unlike other taxes that take from what citizens produce, the land fee takes back what the landlord reaps from society's improvements. While the worker does much to create his income, the land owner does nothing to gain increased land value as the community around him grows. Buildings, roads, sewer systems and parks all add to the value of neighboring vacant land. Taking some of that value back and reinvesting it in government is the best way to fund necessary government. It completes the circle, rather than disrupting it as a sales or income tax would.
The county then uses the funds for necessary expenditures. Most all government activity should occur at the county level. There is no reason the county can't be responsible for all infrastructure, protection and schools that lies within its boundaries. This would lead to greater accountability at the local level. Citizens would have greater input and could keep an eye on the workings of their local government.
The states then would ask for a percentage of this collection. They would lay out the services that they are providing for the counties and determine the cost. If there was an area that the county believed that state should not be involved in, then they could refuse payment. For example, if a county wished to disconnect itself from a state affiliated utility, then it could refuse payment to the state for the related infrastructure. The county is then free to solve the problem on its own.
The federal government would collect its funds in much the same way, billing the states for its services. Since many powers have been appropriated to the local levels, the need for federal funds will have been greatly diminished. National security and the federal court system would be the primary beneficiaries. Most other federal operations such as control over schools or health care will be transferred to local levels.
Any "surplus" collection will be retained at the county level. The local population can decide how to distribute this surplus. A certain amount could be stored for a "rainy day fund" or the funds can be redistributed as a "citizen's dividend" to the entire population of the county. There should be no need for a "surplus" at either the state or federal level.
County government will take on a much increased and more important role in our lives. Our representatives will be in plain view and their decisions will affect our lives greatly. There will no longer be decisions made in some distant capitol that frustrates and diminishes our lives. Local politicians will have to answer directly to what they do with the citizen's money. This is the type of system the original framers of the constitution had in mind and they definitely had some great ideas. Attempting to get back to some of these basic principles can only make our lives better.
Learn more about this author, Gene Denardo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political & Economic Theory
- Did campaign contributions and lobbying by the financial sector contribute to the meltdown on Wall Street?
- Should the federal government intervene to save big corporations from bankruptcy?
- Is it possible for politicians to tell the truth?
- Will Barack Obama's administration be able to reverse the nation's economic downturn?
- Is national security more important than civil rights?
- Have democrats gone crazy with America's money?
