6pFf9g muiaucyrnftv, [url=http://eftftlzysnko.com/]eftftlzysnko[/url], [link=http://phuxpxmpqvsw.com/]phuxpxmpqvsw[/link], http://rekqpczdinpz.com/
He gets it. The idea is identical to the sale pitch used for Value Added Taxes in Europe. They begin by telling everyone it will cut income taxes and its 'only' 4 or 5%. In a decade the income tax is greater than ever and the VAT is 15-20%.
An example closer to home is the blue trash bag scam in Portland. The transfer of the cost off the property tax supposedly means less pressure for more property taxes. In a few years the propoerty taxes are running out of control again and the initial reasonable fee for the bags is now a vastly larger money maker for the city.
Such is the rain tax. In a year or so those poor fools will be stuck with higher property taxes AND the new scam tax.
The Maine income tax was sold as "only 2%".
The rain tax is political 'bait and switch'. They bait the taxpayer with promises of lower property taxes, something every sentient being knows are outrageous, in exchange for a 'small' new tax. In a year or so the property taxes are on the rise again and this new 'small' tax has grown to a major pain, but one the politician cannot live without.
If a business did it it would be illegal as a fraud. When politicians do it they pretend it is responsible fiscal management.
Gene Tardif is well respected in the community. He can sway quite a few people one way or the other. He does "get it" as Jim said.
He does indeed "get it." A lonely nickel, once in the hands of government, is never released, and rapidly grows to a dime, a quarter, and then a five-dollar bill.
Yes, the old TrashBag fee, was supposed to Pay for that PORK PROJECT called RECYCLING, which is a RICH PORK project in itself.
The rain water fee, what next, Tax the Wind as it runs over your yard?
From the article:
[quote]But Russell Street resident Lauren Vincent said she worries more about city spending. She and her husband, Louis, said they would gladly sign a petition aimed at stopping the utility fee.
"Cities just spend and spend and spend, and then they ask for more," she said. "Where does that come from? It comes from us, and it has to stop somewhere."[/quote]
This fee, though I did not agree with its long term impact on business, was well intentioned. It was sold as revenue neutral and a shift to non-profits.
In reality it only shifted 6% of the costs to non-profits and the rest to retail, where we are already getting killed by Auburn and Topsham.
Apparently, it is no revenue neutral either since the latest claim is that we would need to rais $1.27 to make up the money but we only lowered the mil rate by $.70. That is what troubles me the most about these, the figures seem fast and loose.
Don't laugh...there is no end to government greed. As was discussed on another thread a few months ago, the city is trying to sell water line insurance to cover the line from the main in the street to the house even though the city owns 90% of that route. Then there is the 'shovel our sidewalks' scam where folk can get fined for not shoveling the city's sidewalks.
Eventually there will be a public services utilization fee so we can pay for our public services when we use them as well as when we fund them through our taxes.
[quote="Stavros Mendros"]This fee, though I did not agree with its long term impact on business, was well intentioned. It was sold as revenue neutral and a shift to non-profits.
Apparently, it is no revenue neutral either since the latest claim is that we would need to rais $1.27 to make up the money but we only lowered the mil rate by $.70. That is what troubles me the most about these, the figures seem fast and loose.[/quote]
It is simply another version of the 'revaluation' scam where total city revenues after the scam always are way up, but buried under the process.