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.
As a general view, I agree that too many politicians seem to have the attitude that there is some certain amount of money the government is automatically entitled to receive from the citizens. I also agree that a time when we've been going through a recession for a couple of years, and many people are feeling financially tight, is a bad time to be talking about raising taxes. However, I don't think the article linked to includes enough details about the town's current budget or services to base much of any kind of opinion about this particular situation on that one article.
The problem here is that revenues, both from local tax collections and from state and federal sources, have been down in many towns. Nobody wants to pay more, especially in tough times, but everybody expects services to be maintained at the same level. For town officials trying to balance a budget, it's not fun to have to lay off police officers and teachers. Then someone would be posting an article on here and saying "Charlton Selectwoman Thinks It's OK to Dump Cops and Teachers." These people can't win in this economy.
Also note that the article does not mention an increase in the actual tax. Instead she appears to be discussing the possibility of an increased tax rate, which is not the same thing. If assessed home values have gone down, but the rate is the same, the actual tax being paid has gone down. The town would need to raise the rate just to keep the tax revenue where it was. After all, the town's budget needs don't go down with the property values; you still have to pay the same for salaries and other costs. For that reason it's common in places like Texas, where the property values are lower than near Boston, to have much higher tax rates but comparable tax amounts.
The article also indicates that the town has a pretty high average income and a low tax rate compared to neighboring communities. Under $3,000 seems pretty low for property taxes to me.
Whether taxes need to go up or not, I'm astounded she feels the people of Charlton can afford to pay MORE. She didn't say since property values have gone down & the tax rate needs to go up. People have moved to Charlton for the low taxes. The town provides little to the residents other than police, fire and schools. The roads are in wretched shape. No street signs to speak of. If signs fall down or disappear they're not replaced. Not sure where all their money is going. I like the other guy who said he wouldn't raise taxes, but find better ways to cut expenses and save money. Government needs to be looking within at cost saving measures and not raising people's taxes.
Whether taxes need to go up or not, I'm astounded she feels the people of Charlton can afford to pay MORE. She didn't say since property values have gone down & the tax rate needs to go up. People have moved to Charlton for the low taxes. The town provides little to the residents other than police, fire and schools. The roads are in wretched shape. No street signs to speak of. If signs fall down or disappear they're not replaced. Not sure where all their money is going. I like the other guy who said he wouldn't raise taxes, but find better ways to cut expenses and save money. Government needs to be looking within at cost saving measures and not raising people's taxes.
I'm not sure it makes sense to say they can cut expenses if they already don't replace signs or provide anything but the basic services, which they've already cut back on.
She may not have said anything about property values going down in the article (and who knows what she said that isn't in the article), but she also didn't talk about taxes going up. Only the tax rate. With an average household income of 88K, maybe the people of Charlton can afford to pay more anyway. Even a 10% increase in the rate, which would require an override vote, would only be a couple of hundred more a year.
In any event, it's only a point she raised for discussion. Other selectmen have a different view. The democratic process will determine what ultimately happens. Maybe the residents won't want an increase now but will change their minds if services get considerably worse.
I just get a little tired of the kneejerk reaction against any taxes. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, they are the price of civilization. Taxes are near an all time low anyway. If everyday Americans are being squeezed over the past few years (or really 35 years) it's due to the private sector, not a Selectwoman in Charlton.
I just get a little tired of the kneejerk reaction against any taxes. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, they are the price of civilization. Taxes are near an all time low anyway. If everyday Americans are being squeezed over the past few years (or really 35 years) it's due to the private sector, not a Selectwoman in Charlton.
This is hardly a knee jerk reaction against taxes.
Between the Big Dig and the recent 17% raise for Boston firefighters for getting drug tested - Boston/Mass is nationally renowned at being completely CORRUPT!
These problems have everything to do with entitlement spending, patronage and fraud. Sorry but Boston + Mass is knee deep in this.
I just read in the Globe that a Boston police officer made 250K in one year. 70% of firefighters retire on disability - likely most of which is fraudulent. Does anyone wonder why taxes are so high? how do people justify this.
We shouldn't have to subsidize this waste. People have the right to complain.
Maybe she should volunteer more of her money to pay for taxes. Even property taxes which were mentioned are higher now than they were 6-10 years ago. Many people were spending less than $2,000 on property taxes and now are spending over $3,000.
This is hardly a knee jerk reaction against taxes.
Between the Big Dig and the recent 17% raise for Boston firefighters for getting drug tested - Boston/Mass is nationally renowned at being completely CORRUPT!
These problems have everything to do with entitlement spending, patronage and fraud. Sorry but Boston + Mass is knee deep in this.
I just read in the Globe that a Boston police officer made 250K in one year. 70% of firefighters retire on disability - likely most of which is fraudulent. Does anyone wonder why taxes are so high? how do people justify this.
We shouldn't have to subsidize this waste. People have the right to complain.
A lot of states are knee deep in the same things. This is hardly unique to Massachusetts. In virtually every state people say the same things. And taxes are not "so high" in Massachusetts. It's middle of the pack nationally, and taxes overall are lower than at many points in the past 80 years.
Frankly, that one cop out of a 2,000 officer force managed to make $250K in one year doesn't bug me that much. Obviously it's a lot of money, but at the same time large law firms pay that much to people who are barely 30. AIG very recently played a huge role in bringing the world economy to its knees and its CEO is getting $10 million this year.
Waste and, to some extent, corruption is inherent in any large human endeavor, public or private. But everyone complains about taxes. Almost nobody gets as up in arms when they "subsidize" private sector waste by paying higher prices or additional bank fees to improve the bottom line of a private entity that made bad business decisions and wants to make its money back on our backs. And it's private sector wages that stand lower today than they did in 1973. If wages had kept pace with inflation and productivity, instead of all the wealth flowing to the top, maybe people would feel so squeezed about prospect of paying the town of Charlton an extra $300 a year to maintain a police force.
Frankly, that one cop out of a 2,000 officer force managed to make $250K in one year doesn't bug me that much. Obviously it's a lot of money, but at the same time large law firms pay that much to people who are barely 30. AIG very recently played a huge role in bringing the world economy to its knees and its CEO is getting $10 million this year.
The difference between the cop and the executive is the executive is not paid by the taxpayers. His salary is high but the board of directors and the stockholders pay him that because they feel it is worth it (for what ever reason).
And yes the cop making 250K is 1 out of 2000 but why dont you take a look at the cop salaries in boston. Most make at least 120K per year - you know how> Detail work at 50$ per hour.
Firefighters do the same thing by padding their pension with fraudulent disability claims - hence the 70% are disabled while taking pensions. Didnt the find a retired firefighter on disability weight training?
I dont want to be paying for cops to direct traffic or the firefighters to sit around drinking and snorting coke.
You cant tell me with a strait face that these guys aren't completely corrupt.
The difference between the cop and the executive is the executive is not paid by the taxpayers. His salary is high but the board of directors and the stockholders pay him that because they feel it is worth it (for what ever reason).
And yes the cop making 250K is 1 out of 2000 but why dont you take a look at the cop salaries in boston. Most make at least 120K per year - you know how> Detail work at 50$ per hour.
Firefighters do the same thing by padding their pension with fraudulent disability claims - hence the 70% are disabled while taking pensions. Didnt the find a retired firefighter on disability weight training?
I dont want to be paying for cops to direct traffic or the firefighters to sit around drinking and snorting coke.
You cant tell me with a strait face that these guys aren't completely corrupt.
I said corruption or waste were everywhere.
At this particular point in history it's hardly accurate to say the taxpayers are not paying the CEO of AIG. Without the taxpayers there would no longer by an AIG.
My larger point, though, is that even if the company's paying the salary with its own money, people lose sight of where the company got that money. From the people who buy its products. And every company has waste in its structure, or has made bad decisions. They price their products to come out with a profit anyway. If you're paying the price they charge, you're subsidizing their waste too. Sure, your purchase of the product is voluntary, but every company is pretty much in the same boat. You have to buy some brand of soap or whatever.
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.
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.
