Can't they see the relationship between low taxes and quality of services? (foreclosed, motel)

[phetaroi]

First off, let me say that I'm sure all of us wants our taxes to be as low as they can reasonably be. And, for someone from northern Virginia, it seems to me that out here they are reasonably low. But that's not my point here.

Last evening I was sitting with a couple of neighbors, and one was complaining about the taxes. Right after that she recounted the poor service at the MVP and how it took hours.

On another thread someone was complaining -- in part -- about the poor school bus service.

And, I've heard people complain about the quality of snow plowing here in COS.

And that parks aren't being kept up well and that park restrooms are often closed.

Just wondering why so many people can't see that low taxes = poorer or fewer government services.

[hollyt00]

Well I think that there is a general sentiment that goverment is inefficient and doesn't deserve the money it gets.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by hollyt00

Well I think that there is a general sentiment that goverment is inefficient and doesn't deserve the money it gets.

I can see some truth in that, but it still doesn't explain why there isn't an understanding that lower taxes = fewer or poor quality government services.

[hollyt00]

I personally don't agree with the sentiment; I do think that if you feel that the government is wasting your money, it is logical to try to keep as much away from it as possible. And then, when you don't have the services you want, it is because of governmental inefficiency, not because they are working on a less-than-shoestring budget.

IMO the past few years (and few can be taken to mean quite a bit of years) of largesse by both citizens and the government did create a lot of wasted money and extras that we all began to take for granted. The extra help provided by the government, which at one point was special, became necessary. I have no examples off the top of my head to back up my crack-pot theory though. So now we are having to cut back on services that once were extra, became necessary, and now have to be considered extra again, and be cut.

BUT! It seems often that those in charge have a skewed idea of what should be cut and how money should be spread out. Many people I think are still stuck in the good ol' days where money sprouted like wings and flew out of a newly flipped house, and expect things to remain the same. So some services have been hurt because people can't/won't/refuse to see where the money needs to go, and instead put it where they want it to be (typically to line their pockets, naturally)

Again, though, just me ranting my crack-pot theories

[JohnPaul]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I can see some truth in that, but it still doesn't explain why there isn't an understanding that lower taxes = fewer or poor quality government services.

if it were privatized to where there was actually competition for the best bang for the buck it wouldn't be a problem at all. gov is the problem, not the solution, no matter how high they tax people.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I can see some truth in that, but it still doesn't explain why there isn't an understanding that lower taxes = fewer or poor quality government services.

There isn't an understanding because it's not necessarily true.

Lower taxes could also mean fewer but higher quality government services, too. Getting rid of the waste and misprioritized spending would leave room for well-funded necessary services. "Necessary" is police and fire protection, ambulance service, street repairs, classroom K-12 education. Waste and misprioritized spending are things like paying for motel rooms for vagrant bums, running empty busses around town for the convenience of a few, taxpayer subsidies for the USOC HQ, school facilities and expenses not related to education (i.e. sports and related programs), expensive computerized signage on streets, etc.

But that said, even if your premise that lower taxes = fewer government services were correct, I assert that both are desirable goals. Poor quality service, OTOH, has many non-monetary causes.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

There isn't an understanding because it's not necessarily true.

Lower taxes could also mean fewer but higher quality government services, too. Getting rid of the waste and misprioritized spending would leave room for well-funded necessary services. "Necessary" is police and fire protection, ambulance service, street repairs, classroom K-12 education. Waste and misprioritized spending are things like paying for motel rooms for vagrant bums, running empty busses around town for the convenience of a few, taxpayer subsidies for the USOC HQ, school facilities and expenses not related to education (i.e. sports and related programs), expensive computerized signage on streets, etc.

But that said, even if your premise that lower taxes = fewer government services were correct, I assert that both are desirable goals. Poor quality service, OTOH, has many non-monetary causes.

I always do try to remember, however, that some of the things you consider to be "waste and misprioritized spending" are considered important to somebody.

I remember once back in Virginia my school district was having a lean year and asked us principals for suggestions on where to cut the budget. And, the upper echelon used quite a few of the ideas. But one of my suggestions was to severely cut the public relations office, which included a rather robust public service-news programming division. They sent me back a very detailed financial report for that division, and much to my surprise, much of the programming was sold to other school systems across the country and was a substantial net moneymaker for our school system.

My point being that there is a difference between what each of us might like to see cut, and what is actually wise to cut. Nevertheless, choices do need to be made.

I think one of the questions I have is why COS seems to have a homeless population that APPEARS to be out of proportion to its size.

[Terytee]

I don't want to start a whole political argument here, it's healthy to have different political perspectives....but remember how this whole city services/taxes thing kinda' started. The CO Springs city government HAD its regularly apportioned annual budget in which to operate....as it does every year.

That budget was spent....way too early in the year, so they decided to hit the citizens up for more (in higher taxes), and threatened folks with a warning of no cops, no firefighters, chaos in the streets, etc.

That's also when the economy really took a dive as well. What they wanted was a bail out. That's what I think rubbed people the wrong way. Who bails out regular citizens who've lost their jobs, or foreclosed on a house??.....no one....you just have to deal with it and do the best you can.

They had a budget, it was spent, then they needed more.....hmmm....too bad. The local gentry voted it down overwhelmingly. I think it was a statement against raising taxes, but it was also a statement/lesson to the city about fiscal responsibility.

If we as citizens simply agreed to bail out our city government everytime local officials over spent or mismanaged the annual budget, then what incentive would they have to ensure they don't do the same year after year??

[echo98]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I always do try to remember, however, that some of the things you consider to be "waste and misprioritized spending" are considered important to somebody.
.

exactly!


what i don't understand is how people here generally think that if there is a service they are not using, then it's "welfare" and they shouldn't have to pay. obviously there are things that are not welfare that they might not utilize like paying for school system that actually increase our property values.

[lalahartma]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I think one of the questions I have is why COS seems to have a homeless population that APPEARS to be out of proportion to its size.

This seems true to me, as well. Coming from Cleveland, where there is a large homeless population, I was, nevertheless, surprised at the amount of homeless in COS when I moved here, before the recession.