![]() | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Favors Update 2 | Main | Show Me... » August 30, 2006No SurpriseNo surprise: The Tennessean editorial page comes out against the proposed charter change for the city of Nashville which would give Nashville voters the power to approve or reject future property tax increases. It makes a weak argument: Members of the Metro Council are privy to considerable discussion and documentation about the cost of services in Nashville and the estimates of the city's revenue streams. Only after that information is digested and the options weighed can council members make informed decisions about tax rates.Well, why aren't the people of Nashville privy to all of that that discussion and documentation and information about the city's finances? They're not stupid - they can digest the information and weigh the options and make informed decisions too, after all. What The Tennessean is saying, really, is that Metro Council - not the people who earned the money - should have first rights to that money. Says the paper's editorial, The Metro officials who are responsible for making the city run should also be responsible for setting the tax rate.Metro officials don't make the city run. The hardworking people of Nashville do. The paper and the opponents of the proposed charter change may one day make a strong argument against the proposal, but neither telling the people of Nashville they aren't smart enough to read a budget, nor telling them that it's the government's money first, is that argument. Update: The unspoken beliefs that underlie the Tennessean's editorial is the belief that, A) tax rate increases are always necessary if Metro Council sifts the numbers and comes to that conclusion, and, B) voters will automatically reject all proposed tax increases. Part A is laughably silly, and I previously showed the paper (here, May 23) why part B, the belief that voters will reject all future proposed tax increases, is wrong, based on the largest long-term living-laboratory study of voters who have been given the power to approve or reject tax increases. That decade-long study, involving hundreds of local-level public referenda on tax increases, shows that voters - once given the budgetary and fiscal information and the reasons for the proposed tax increase - will vote in favor of higher taxes more than half the time. Voters will vote for higher taxes, if the government elites who want the tax increase are willing to trust voters with the information they need, and to make a case for the higher taxes and higher government spending. Posted in Nashville
Comments
Same song, second verse: functional disclosure = universal chart of accounts (for comparable governmental units) and xbrl. If it's good enough for the SEC... Posted by: Ed Dodds at August 30, 2006 7:18 AMYeah, but what do you do in the case of Knox County where the county mayor says he needs a tax increase for one program and then begins playing three card monty with the new revenue? Ragsdale wanted a 500% wheel tax increase to fund a library(a la Bredesen) which immediately bombed with the citizens. Then a new high school that he has decided now to not fully fund. And the icing on the cake? Two new industrial parks and one isn't in Knox county! Mayor Mike and his cronies used the extortion threat of a property tax hike if the wheel tax failed the vote. When the property tax hike would have been illegal following a reappraisal. Allowing a pulic vote on taxes is a good beginning but does not protect the citizenry from corrupt office holders. Posted by: Rick Forman at August 30, 2006 9:16 AMSince when is a tax hike following reappraisal illegal? The leeches come up with a "certified" tax rate, and then it's Katie bar the door, according to TCA 67-5-1702: Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||