Sunday, February 14, 2010

Ulman wants you to pay for services you don't receive

A tax break failed to pass the Maryland General Assembly that would give a tax credit to those who pay for sewer service but do not receive sewer service. This makes sense to me, but some people like Ken Ulman and Guy Guzzone believe that people should have to pay for services that they don't receive:

State Sen. Allan H. Kittleman's third annual attempt to get Howard County's General Assembly delegation to approve a utility tax break bill failed Wednesday, with only the county's three Republican legislators backing it. The bill would have given county government the ability to grant the break to people who get public water but not sewer service.

Ulman administration officials have said that carving out a tax break for one group of people would set a precedent for similar tax breaks for other groups who do not directly benefit from a particular tax.

I love this indirect quote from Budget Director Raymond Wacks:
Budget director Raymond S. Wacks has suggested that if the tax break were to be approved, people without children in county schools, for example, might want to pay less taxes than those who do.

Why is he saying that like it's a bad thing? Doesn't it, like, make perfect sense that parents who use public schools should pay more in taxes than people who do not use public schools? Did Mr. Whacks fall out of the illogical tree and hit every branch on the way down? Using that stupid logic, why not just charge everyone in the county for water and sewer, even people with wells?


Anonymous said...

Please think of the indirect benefits of a quality school system like property values, fewer thugs robbing you, the income tax base increasing because the HCPSS graduates make more money.

Should younger, healthier people pay less for EMS services than less healthy seniors? Should some parts of the county pay less for Fire services becuase other parts had more calls for service last year?

Please try to consider the slippery slope farther than the tip of your nose.

Freemarket said...

So we should have free public schools because that makes property values higher? You call higher property values a benefit? How does that "benefit" people buying homes?

As far as fire and EMS, there should be a charge for each call. So in effect, people who use the system would pay more for it. I have no problem with it being subsidized (since public safety is a public good), but there is nothing wrong with higher risk people paying more.

You are make a really weak argument, anon.

PZGURU said...

Anon - are you from Bizzaro world where everything is backwards?
You're making an apples to oranges comparison - which is typical for people who have no solid foundation for their position.
If people are not using public sewer service, then they should NOT be taxed. End of story. What part of this doesn't make sense?

I think people who don't have children in public schools should pay LESS in taxes. It's completely backwards to have people with children get a tax break to use public schools, but people without children pay higher taxes to fund schools that they don't even use. And I am a parent with 2 children in public schools. Fair is fair.

Wacks is sounding a little "whacked" in my opinion. Got to love bureaucrats who have to say stuff like that to try and back up the ridiculous position of politicians. Comical and sad at the same time.

Freemarket said...

I also like how when I suggest that parents should pay for education, people like Anon start envision a world where everyone is an uneducated thug. I suggested that we change who bears the most burden for the cost of education. How does that change create more thugs? People seem to have very irrational beliefs about public education.

PZGURU said...

FM - because too many people like Anon base their positions on emotional hype instead of sound logic and rational thinking.
By his standard, under the current system, there should be no uneducated thugs in the world, but just look around and watch the nightly news......

Eludius said...

I think the point about paying for education is moot. Society would flatly reject any attempt to make only families with children pay for education.

On the other hand, I think you can make a good argument for people that do not have access to public sewer to receive a tax break. They are paying for their own system of waste removal.

Anonymous said...

I'm not entirely sure society would reject any attempt to have parents financially support any school their child attends.

More an more, parents are being asked to pay for items that once were provided by public funds. It's a matter of time, imo, until parents are paying for public schooling.

The kicker is, taxpayers will get no break! Incumbents will find another way to spend money on projects put forth by campaign contributors.

Anonymous said...

Just tax alcoholic beverages, please?

Freemarket said...

Tax babies.

Eludius said...

I Marty O suddenly told every family of 3 children that they had to pay as additionaly $21K per year to send their children to school there would be a riot in Annapolis with torches and pitchforks. No elected official would ever do that. And since most people have children or grandchildren, they're not going to favor such as system.

I'm a freemarket thinker to a point, but I have to draw a line on some issues.

Anonymous said...

It won't happen suddenly. It's already happening gradually.

But there has been no taxpayer advantage as the elected people find another way to spend.