Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Columbia area
 [Register]
Columbia area Columbia - Lexington - Irmo
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-05-2012, 04:45 PM
 
45 posts, read 46,532 times
Reputation: 24

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TXGamecock View Post
If you honestly believe that taxes are "out of control" in SC, you obviously have never lived anywhere else. Our property taxes are laughably low compared to the rest of the country, and the overall tax burden is consistently on the lower end compared to other states.

Honestly, the leadership of Columbia made a criminal mistake letting SCANA out of their obligation to run the bus system, but what's done is done, and it is completely unacceptable for a metro area of this size to have no functioning public transportation.
What's your point, that's the only good thing South Carolina has going for it, so lets raise taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2012, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
6,830 posts, read 16,565,096 times
Reputation: 1928
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattee01 View Post
Maybe we should stop funding the roads and instead put money into transit since you get a lot more riders for a comparable amount of money.
I agree - we'd have terrific mass transit if we directed the money there instead of to roads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 05:53 PM
 
3,200 posts, read 4,612,275 times
Reputation: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by taintitgreat View Post
Those are some fancy assumptions, you assume I would be taking a loss, rather than making a profit or at least breaking even.
No, I am keeping everything neutral except the tax effect since that seems to be your reason for being unhappy. I think it is funny that someone would move and incur those expenses to save 250 annually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 05:58 PM
 
37,882 posts, read 41,956,856 times
Reputation: 27279
Quote:
Originally Posted by waccamatt View Post
I agree - we'd have terrific mass transit if we directed the money there instead of to roads.
Well the buses have to run on roads. It can't be an either/or scenario. A skeleton of a bus system is bad enough, but roads literally crumbling is magnitudes worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 06:16 PM
 
45 posts, read 46,532 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSP101 View Post
No, I am keeping everything neutral except the tax effect since that seems to be your reason for being unhappy. I think it is funny that someone would move and incur those expenses to save 250 annually.
Thanks for proving my point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 06:34 PM
 
3,200 posts, read 4,612,275 times
Reputation: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by taintitgreat View Post
Thanks for proving my point.
If you want to incur thousands in expense to save 250, I have some things to sell, send me your number. If you have built in gains, that is a separate analysis. But, based on what you said here about the tax, your logic makes no sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
6,830 posts, read 16,565,096 times
Reputation: 1928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
Well the buses have to run on roads. It can't be an either/or scenario. A skeleton of a bus system is bad enough, but roads literally crumbling is magnitudes worse.
True, but NEW roads don't need to be built. I'd rather see more dense, in-town development than the sprawl generated by new roads. Even better would be light rail!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 08:09 PM
 
37,882 posts, read 41,956,856 times
Reputation: 27279
Quote:
Originally Posted by waccamatt View Post
True, but NEW roads don't need to be built. I'd rather see more dense, in-town development than the sprawl generated by new roads. Even better would be light rail!
I don't think the density is yet there for light rail, but commuter rail would be worth exploring.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
11,706 posts, read 24,791,036 times
Reputation: 3449
Too many question marks about where the money would go and how it would be spent for me to support this proposal: Richland County’s penny sales tax proposal: $148 million in projects aren’t clear yet - Elections - TheState.com If I lived in Columbia, I would vote no. Why should a woman who chose to live on a dirt road/private driveway get some of the money for paving it baffles me. Going off the comments at the bottom of the article, it sounds like I am not alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2012, 02:47 PM
 
163 posts, read 664,561 times
Reputation: 89
I read in The State paper Sunday that the estimated tax increase for a family of 3 would be $253 per year. I have a family of 6, including young children who need a lot of groceries, diapers, and clothes, the vast majority of which we purchase here in Richland County. So let's say our tax increase would be $500 per year. If I voted yes to the penny tax, I would be voting myself a monthly payment of over $40 per month for the next 20+ years. Why should I agree to that, especially since I don't have any assurances on exactly how the money is going to be spent? If gas prices do rise astronomically, that may indeed lead many more people to want to use the bus system, but the rise in gas prices will also drive up the price of other goods, thereby increasing the tax burden on people. Why not have a more modest tax proposal? For example, why couldn't the County introduce a tax effective for a shorter time period (say, 2-5 years), specifically allocated for a few urgent projects that will have the most impact on residents? Then, if the projects are successful, voters may be more likely to fund additional projects. It just seems like the County is asking us to trust them with a lot of money for a long time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Columbia area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:08 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top