Vote?

[ahem.]

Happy election day.

[Tao]

Anyone else see the irony of positing this particular question as a poll?

[Marduk]

That one must posit preference on exercisement of franchise? I suppose it is slightly ironic.

[NerdGirl]

I didn't vote and I never will!



... at least not in the US.

[thebigcheese]

I thought about it, but I decided that my ignorance isn't going to benefit anybody.

But the one issue I do know and care about is the proposed Provo Recreation Center. And one of my old professors is running for something, so I'm curious to see how he does.

[C is for]

I didn't really care about most of the stuff I was voting for, but we're trying to get the Logan Library as a county-wide library so we don't have to pay exorbitant amounts of money for a library card. (I don't live in Logan, otherwise it would be free.) People are voting against it, though, because it would raise property taxes. By...less than $20. But that could buy a good dinner for two, so I see why people don't like the idea.

Other than that, I just pressed random buttons. It's fun to vote!
^slight facetiousness

[NerdGirl]

You guys get to press buttons when you vote?! We just get to mark an X in a box.

[vorpal blade]

There are different mechanisms in voting, depending on where and how you vote. Not too long ago we punched out rectangular holes, making sure not leave any hanging chads. Lately I do a mail in ballot, which requires me to fill in a little oval with a dark colored ink ball point pen, making sure not to let my squiggles fall outside of the little oval.

[thebigcheese]

People are voting against it, though, because it would raise property taxes. By...less than $20.

This is what I don't understand about the opposition to city bonds, like the Provo Rec Center. The city does something awesome for a small, small price. Do you REALLY need that extra money? Most people probably won't even notice that it's gone.

Thankfully, the Provo bond passed and we get a new facility with indoor swimming pools and racquetball courts! Woohoo! (the existing facilities are AWFUL)

[vorpal blade]

People are voting against it, though, because it would raise property taxes. By...less than $20.

This is what I don't understand about the opposition to city bonds, like the Provo Rec Center. The city does something awesome for a small, small price. Do you REALLY need that extra money? Most people probably won't even notice that it's gone.

Thankfully, the Provo bond passed and we get a new facility with indoor swimming pools and racquetball courts! Woohoo! (the existing facilities are AWFUL)

I suppose some people are opposed to it because they don't believe it is the proper role of government to provide indoor swimming pools and racquetball courts. Good things, but I'm philosophically opposed to government involvement in such things.

Also, doesn't a bond mean that the government is going into debt to provide an unnecessary service? Why should my tax money go to servicing some debt, when we are taught to avoid debt? Wouldn't it be better for someone or some government entity to save up the money and buy it with cash? Presuming it was something we all agreed was worth forcing people, at pain of going to jail, to support?

[thebigcheese]

I suppose some people are opposed to it because they don't believe it is the proper role of government to provide indoor swimming pools and racquetball courts. Good things, but I'm philosophically opposed to government involvement in such things.

I see your point, but I disagree. You seem to believe that recreational facilities ought to be handled by the private sector. Generally speaking, the private sector handles only the more profitable aspects of recreation and other industries. The public sector handles the less profitable aspects because no one can build a functional business model around it (so we pay taxes on it instead). A few questions...do you think that the city ought to stop building parks too? Do you really think some private company/citizen should step in and donate land for that? And maintain it, all on their own dime? Or even charge admission for use of their fields? Not likely. See, governments can't easily get out of the "community recreation" business because the precedent has already been set. Lots of cities build community recreation facilities because they benefit the families in the community who can't otherwise afford to pay for fancy gym memberships (which mostly cater to adults anyway). If communities like parks and recreation, communities will vote in favor of it, and communities will pay for it with their tax dollars.

Also, doesn't a bond mean that the government is going into debt to provide an unnecessary service? Why should my tax money go to servicing some debt, when we are taught to avoid debt? Wouldn't it be better for someone or some government entity to save up the money and buy it with cash? Presuming it was something we all agreed was worth forcing people, at pain of going to jail, to support?

I don't think all debt is bad debt. There are thousands of ways to go overboard with it, but I think debt can be handled responsibly. It would be interesting to look at the logistics of a city saving money, as you've proposed. How long would it take the city to save up enough money for new facilities? One of the things they argued for with the Rec Center was that by using a bond and building now, the people who pay the increased taxes to build it are the same people who actually get to use it. It won't skip a generation.

At any rate, this is an interesting topic. Makes me wish I hadn't dropped that city planning class...

[vorpal blade]

Well, I don't want to get dragged into another debate. I think it is kind of important to understand where I am coming from, as I believe many people feel the same way I do. I disagree with your view of the proper role of government.

Let's see if we can find some common ground. There is a role for government in providing for the common good. But governments can go too far in providing services that ought to be provided by the private sector. It is unfortunate that we can't all be rich and have everything the rich have, but it would not be right for government to try to share the wealth and make rich people support the poor, or redistribute the wealth. When governments force people to pay taxes it is understood that this will be against the will of some people. Forcing people to do something against their will should be a measure of last resort. People should not expect governments to provide everything they want, voting to make other people support their personal desires and wants, unless it is necessary for the common good, even if they also contribute a portion of the cost through their own taxes. Do we agree on these principles? If not, can you suggest principles we can agree on?

Justification has been made for government funding of things like parks which, it is argued, are things that have an overall beneficial effect on all of the people who live in the area, whether they actually use the facilities or not. Public schools, it is argued, benefit all of us directly or indirectly, because there is a cost to society for each uneducated person. I think some of these arguments have merit, and some do not. It isn't really an easy decision to make. I think it takes a lot more thought that just the idea that it would benefit people in the area who could not otherwise afford it. Too many politicians get elected simply by promising more and more benefits to the people, but don't calculate the direct or indirect cost of this loss of freedom, the loss of free enterprise, the loss of incentive to work for what we receive.

Here is my proposal. In California when we fill in our California tax returns there are many categories where we can give money to go to specific causes. The money we give may come out of our tax refund, or additional money we send in, but not out of our taxes. In other words the state asks you to make a voluntary contribution for certain nice to have things. If you think these things are worth spending money on you have the choice to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. You personally fork over additional money to pay for these good causes.

So, I suggest that things like parks and recreational facilities be funded in the same democratic way. On your tax return you would have the opportunity to send to the government your own money for what you want the government to do which is over and above what is really necessary to do. If people like parks and recreation, people will send money in to support it, and people will pay for it with their own private money. My proposal will not force a few people to pay for what the tyrannical majority might like, which I consider immoral and akin to robbery. Fair enough?

In the long run you can buy more and make better use of your money if you save up and don’t go into debt. This applies to individuals, corporations, and governments. I realize that sometimes debt is necessary, but far less than most people seem to think. Too often the idea is not “let the people who pay enjoy the benefits,” but let’s enjoy it now and make our children and grandchildren pay for it. If it takes a generation to reverse the mistakes of the past, I’m for it.

[Marduk]

Just poking my head in to say there's merit on both sides here, and I think this discussion is healthy. Both of you are engaging each other in a way that is respectful. Carry on; it may have to be moved at some point, however. Just a heads up.

[Imogen]

i voted and i was happy that the bond to build a new high school and middle school in my district passed UNTIL i found out that they were just closing one of the high schools and two of the middle schools, sending the kids from the old high school to the new one, and sending the kids from the two closed middles schools to the old high school which does NOT solve our over crowding problem!!!!!!! we have a high school that needs so many teachers, that teachers don't have their own rooms! they wheel a cart around all day! WE NEED MORE HIGH SCHOOLS!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

also, solomon ortiz is OUT, and that's a reason to celebrate right there. the man was in washington for 27 years and didn't do anything for our area. he doesn't even come down here anymore. hopefully blake farenthold is better or i'm gonna be ANGRY MORE!!!

and i think community rec centers are great and i wish my town had some because we really need them, especially in the summer. if we could have a safe place for kids to go, maybe our crime rates would drop a bit and our graduation rates would go up a bit because the kids would have constructive things to do.

[thebigcheese]

I don't want to get dragged into another debate either. If anything, I'd like to learn something about the way city governments work. Perhaps I'll do some reading later on...

Let's see if we can find some common ground. There is a role for government in providing for the common good. But governments can go too far in providing services that ought to be provided by the private sector. It is unfortunate that we can't all be rich and have everything the rich have, but it would not be right for government to try to share the wealth and make rich people support the poor, or redistribute the wealth. When governments force people to pay taxes it is understood that this will be against the will of some people. Forcing people to do something against their will should be a measure of last resort. People should not expect governments to provide everything they want, voting to make other people support their personal desires and wants, unless it is necessary for the common good, even if they also contribute a portion of the cost through their own taxes. Do we agree on these principles? If not, can you suggest principles we can agree on?

Makes sense, although there are probably lots of liberals who would disagree with this. Isn't Obama all about redistributing the wealth? Anyway, I agree that people should not expect governments to provide everything they want, but I don't think governments have to be so restricted that they only provide the bare necessities. Perhaps that's where we differ.

Justification has been made for government funding of things like parks which, it is argued, are things that have an overall beneficial effect on all of the people who live in the area, whether they actually use the facilities or not. Public schools, it is argued, benefit all of us directly or indirectly, because there is a cost to society for each uneducated person. I think some of these arguments have merit, and some do not. It isn't really an easy decision to make. I think it takes a lot more thought that just the idea that it would benefit people in the area who could not otherwise afford it. Too many politicians get elected simply by promising more and more benefits to the people, but don't calculate the direct or indirect cost of this loss of freedom, the loss of free enterprise, the loss of incentive to work for what we receive.

I would argue that part of the city government's responsibility is public improvement to encourage growth. If your city is so run-down that no one wants to live there or do business there, you've got yourself a city that will never grow.

Here is my proposal. In California when we fill in our California tax returns there are many categories where we can give money to go to specific causes. The money we give may come out of our tax refund, or additional money we send in, but not out of our taxes. In other words the state asks you to make a voluntary contribution for certain nice to have things. If you think these things are worth spending money on you have the choice to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. You personally fork over additional money to pay for these good causes. So, I suggest that things like parks and recreational facilities be funded in the same democratic way. On your tax return you would have the opportunity to send to the government your own money for what you want the government to do which is over and above what is really necessary to do. If people like parks and recreation, people will send money in to support it, and people will pay for it with their own private money. My proposal will not force a few people to pay for what the tyrannical majority might like, which I consider immoral and akin to robbery.

So, instead of giving the deciding power to the majority, you're essentially giving it all to the wealthy. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or a bad idea, but I'd be curious to see how much money California actually gets from that strategy. On the one hand, I can't imagine that they would get very much money at all. But on the other hand, I can think of several different things I would personally contribute to. Parks and recreation is one example. But that's probably obvious by now.

[vorpal blade]

Makes sense, although there are probably lots of liberals who would disagree with this. Isn't Obama all about redistributing the wealth? Anyway, I agree that people should not expect governments to provide everything they want, but I don't think governments have to be so restricted that they only provide the bare necessities. Perhaps that's where we differ.

Hard to say. While a city could survive with dirt roads, there is something to be said for paving roads, which might not be considered a necessity by some. I'd have to look at it on a case by case basis. I don't know if just the "bare necessities" is where I would draw the line. Close to that, perhaps. But we probably do differ on exactly what government should provide and should not provide.

I would argue that part of the city government's responsibility is public improvement to encourage growth. If your city is so run-down that no one wants to live there or do business there, you've got yourself a city that will never grow.

Is growth a good thing? My town has about 20,000 inhabitants, and that is plenty big for me. More people just means more traffic lights, more traffic, more crowds, more frustration, and more problems. I liked Provo a lot more the way it was in the sixties. I can't see anything good about the increased growth. The businessmen in my town want the town to grow, for obvious reasons, but it doesn't do me any good. I think it is interesting that in the Book of Mormon it was the evil kings, like King Noah, who were interested in building grand buildings and monuments. The things we may point to as evidence of a great civilization came at the cost of slavery and high taxes. What constitutes the common welfare and public improvement is an interesting question.

So, instead of giving the deciding power to the majority, you're essentially giving it all to the wealthy. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or a bad idea, but I'd be curious to see how much money California actually gets from that strategy. On the one hand, I can't imagine that they would get very much money at all. But on the other hand, I can think of several different things I would personally contribute to. Parks and recreation is one example. But that's probably obvious by now.

I'm giving each person the power to decide for himself how he wants his hard-earned money spent. I think it is only fair that if it is my money I should decide how to spend it, not other people who gang up on me to take it from me.

[ahem.]

I thought people who advocate smaller government were mostly opposed to large federal (and sometimes state) laws and programs, but appreciated local/city government initiatives and programs. Apparently I am a bit confused.

[thebigcheese]

Is growth a good thing? My town has about 20,000 inhabitants, and that is plenty big for me. More people just means more traffic lights, more traffic, more crowds, more frustration, and more problems. I liked Provo a lot more the way it was in the sixties. I can't see anything good about the increased growth. The businessmen in my town want the town to grow, for obvious reasons, but it doesn't do me any good. I think it is interesting that in the Book of Mormon it was the evil kings, like King Noah, who were interested in building grand buildings and monuments. The things we may point to as evidence of a great civilization came at the cost of slavery and high taxes. What constitutes the common welfare and public improvement is an interesting question.

You know, this is where it gets really interesting. I suppose growth is a good thing if you want to be a big city. But you're a small town guy, so it makes sense that you would be opposed to big city improvements. Nothing wrong with that; some people like their one-stoplight town. But I grew up in Houston, which has a population of somewhere between 4 to 6 million (depending on whether you include all the suburbs), so for me, Provo is pretty small and it lacks some of the amenities that I consider normal (since I grew up in a place that has everything). With all the improvements that they're making in Provo and Salt Lake (recreation center, library, performing arts venue, freeway expansion, high speed train, museum of natural history, etc)...I just think, why did it take them this long to do that? Houston had all those things. Dozens of recreation centers, libraries, and arts venues. Freeways with something like 8 lanes each way. Maybe I need to spend some time living in a small town...

I'm giving each person the power to decide for himself how he wants his hard-earned money spent. I think it is only fair that if it is my money I should decide how to spend it, not other people who gang up on me to take it from me.

It seems to serve the purpose of making you feel better about your personal contribution, but I think the issue of "where MY money is going" is more of an emotional issue than a logical one. I think it's more logical to think about where THE money is going because that's how taxes operate. On a grander scale, it's still worth noting that some people have quite a lot more money than others, so that translates to more deciding power. I think my argument still stands because ultimately, the wealthy have the most to contribute. Also, some people just don't have the personal pocketbook to support the things they value, even if they'd like to. Besides, even if everyone contributes small amounts to the things they like, the popular ones still win out over the others. Maybe you're the only guy in all of California who supported the "Keep the Dirt Roads Foundation." So they are under-funded and can't operate because no one else cares. Majority rules.

[Marduk]

Just a snippet to say that no one can entirely support the argument of "I should decide where my money is going." It is a nice sound bite, but one that is too extreme to exist in reality. Even the most libertarian among us believes that government should have SOME role, and that role necessarily has a monetary cost. We must all be willing to give up some fiduciary liberty to protect life and property.

[vorpal blade]

and i think community rec centers are great and i wish my town had some because we really need them, especially in the summer. if we could have a safe place for kids to go, maybe our crime rates would drop a bit and our graduation rates would go up a bit because the kids would have constructive things to do.

This is a good example of the kind of argument that I think needs to be made, not whether we personally like community rec centers or would personally benefit from them. In response to this argument I would ask for evidence that community rec centers don't actually lead to more crime and lower graduation rates, which seems equally probable to me.