I did something yesterday that I have not done in a very long time–I voted. No, I didn’t vote for a Republican or a Democrat. I voted against a tax.
The state in which I live (Florida) has a sales tax rate of 6 percent. Each of the 67 counties in Florida has an option to add on a discretionary sales surtax. Only 9 counties have not done so. My county (Escambia–in the Florida panhandle) is one of four counties that has a rate higher than 1 percent. The 1.5 percent we pay on top of the state’s 6 percent consists of a 1 percent tax that expires in May 2007 and a .5 percent tax that expires in December 2007. The voters in Escambia county voted for these taxes in previous years.
Up for a vote yesterday was the 1 percent tax. I am sorry to say that it was extended by the voters until 2017 by a vote of 64 percent to 36 percent. Naturally, all of the elected officials in the county pushed for the extension of the tax. The county sent out a nice, expensive flyer (at taxpayer expense of course), called “Your Penny at Work,” to show all the people in the county all the parks, roads, and fire trucks that have resulted from the tax in previous years.
But regardless of the county’s propaganda about how important this tax is to county revenues, I still don’t understand why the majority of people in the county voted to pay this tax. People are always complaining about the government and taxes, but when given an option to discontinue a tax–they vote for it. Politicians must love these kinds of voters.
{ 15 comments }
Come to Oregon man, no new traditional taxes in years. It seems that florida politicans used the devide and conquer method to raise taxes.
|
|
…you erroneously say that:
“.. I still don’t understand why the majority of people in the county voted to pay this tax..”
====
The “majority” of “people” {..that is, eligible voters}
did NOT vote for this tax. Only a relatively small plurality of the ‘people’ voted for it … because a large number of eligible Escambia citizens did not formally vote at all.
That’s the secret of most American elections — ‘pluralities’, not democratic ‘majorities’ decide things.
Majority-Rule is the fundamental principle of democracy. Plurality-Rule ain’t democracy.
No American election/ballot result should be legally valid unless 51%+ of the “eligible electorate” formally votes for it.
That’s a simple & fair administrative rule change that would cleanse the current ‘corrupt’ American electoral system. Elective offices would remain empty until {..and if} citizen ‘majorities’ decided to fill them; ballot issues would be the same.
Congressional and state/local politicians will not permit legislative action without a quorum within their own chambers … they will not tolerate minority or plurality rule — but they love it for general elections among the citizenry, because minorities can then control things.
Voting within the current system is a waste of time, as you demonstrated here.
The “plurality” post above is often true. Another way that sales taxes are sold is that commuters, visitors, and other out-of-towners pay a portion of the sales tax, in theory (though not in practice) lessening the load on property taxes and homeowners. People seem to fall for that one every time.
I would go further to say that no issue up for vote which is binding on 100% of the population should be ratified unless 100% of the population votes for its adoption. Anything else is tyranny.
Laurence, you should not have voted against the tax. Here’s why:
1. If the tax were defeated, we’d still have a massive government bureaucracy.
2. The defeat of the tax would have retained the 16 amendment.
3. The defeat of the tax would have opened up the door to later tax increases, because people would think their taxes were low.
4. Defeating the tax would be a big redistribution scheme.
5. The Dubai Ports deal is a bad idea.
6. They might change the language of the measure one day so that by voting against it, you’re voting for more laws.
Oops, sorry, I didn’t mean to channel your FairTax articles there.
I should have been clearer. The majority of registered voters who voted (in this case about 20%) approved this tax. However, in the two previous positive votes on this tax, voter turnout was 52% (1992) and 66% (1997). I agree that “no American election/ballot result should be legally valid unless 51%+ of the ‘eligible electorate’ formally votes for it.” Normally, I would say that voting is a waste of time, especially when the choice is between a Democrat and a Republican, but I will gladly vote against any tax I can and take my chances.
Person: very funny, but very stupid. This was a choice between a tax and no tax, not a choice between an income tax and an income tax plus a sales tax of 23% that is really 30%.
Laurence: what’s stupid? In your articles, you specifically said the FairTax is a bad idea because it leaves bad parts of government X, Y, and Z unaffected. Hey! Just like your vote against the 1% tax! You said the result of the FairTax could be later increases in taxes. Hey! The same holds true for your vote against a tax! You said the FairTax is bad because other plans (i.e., compromised, manipulated version) are bad. The proposal not to raise taxes has the same downside. You opposed the FairTax on the grounds that before it gets to a vote, it might get manipulated so that it’s bad. Well, the same holds true for the proposal not to increase taxes.
I’m sorry for taking your article seriously.
I always vote, and I always vote “no”, and I always tell anyone who asks exactly that and why. But for some reason, the “exit poll highlights” never show me. Hmm….
Out here in California these things almost always pass. For one thing, a la public choice economics, the bad guys have proportionally more to gain, so they’re far better organized and financed. For another, much as people complain about government, they just don’t know any alternative. They think the scandals and inefficiencies they know about are the exceptions to the rule, and that without “adequate” tax revenues the roads and parks will go unmaintained, the libraries and hospitals will “underserve” us, and the children will grow up ignorant (and, worst of all, lacking opportunities to play on sports teams!).
Most people haven’t a clue that roads, parks, libraries, hospitals, and affordable education could even exist, much less operate better, without the heavy hand of the well-heeled State. And that when those “services” go into decline, it’s because government competition and restriction largely prevents such things from being created out the government.
Correction:
“out the government” should read “outside the government”.
Vote against ALREADY EXISTING 1% tax –> try to make it go away.
Vote for a NONEXISTENT “FairTax” –> try to add a NEW tax.
Are those two things totally different?
It’s (deliberately?) never clear from this sort of thing how much of the vote actually comes from people with a fairly direct interest in government activity and/or with little incidence from the tax. That would be people working directly for the bureaucracy or getting work from it, and people benefitting from subsidised services and surroundings without actually spending much in the area (people influenced by employing corporations? some types of part time residents?).
===============
|
…Escambia County Government reports that the voter turnout for this ballot was 19.94 %.
Therefore, 80% of the ‘people’ did NOT approve this tax measure.
This tax was thus imposed by 13% of the ‘people’.
Is that a fair & just measure of the democratic will of the citizenry ?
That Florida ‘balloting exercise” is total nonsense … and would be instantly voided by any rational electoral system — but it is highly representative of how most American elections operate.
In the 2004 Presidential election, 121,480,019 voted. That’s 40.4% of the population.
62,040,606 voted for Bush.
hat’s 20.6% of the population.
Is that majority rule? Is that democracy?
Participating in such a corrupt system by ‘voting’ …
merely endorses that corruption.
——————————–
How would 156,000,000 votes for Bush be any more legitimate than 62,000,000. What gives 51% of the population the right to violently enforce its ideas but not 20%.
Person, do you have anything better to do in your life than gnash your teeth over that FairTax article from, what, a month ago? Let it go, man!
Do you not see how ridiculous you are? The opposition by many Austrians to the FairTax PROPOSAL (as opposed to the FairTax per se) is based on more than just the theoretical merits (or demerits) of the FairTax itself. There is an element of realpolitik at work here! Process matters in the real world.
YOU CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE FAIRTAX PROPOSAL, AS IT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN, MADE NO PROVISION FOR REPEALING THE INCOME TAX!
Is this a deficiency of the FairTax itself? No. But it is a deficiency of the POLITICAL PROPOSAL TO GARNER SUPPORT FOR THE FAIRTAX.
Why? Because AS A PROCEDURAL MATTER, AS A MATTER OF REAL-WORLD POLITICS, a law that proposes to change the tax system at the level of a mere statute is LESS SECURE than a law that changes that system at the level of a Constitutional amendment.
Less secure. Procedurally. Politically.
On paper, as between the Income Tax and the FairTax, is one technically and theoretically better than the other?
Maybe. Who cares?
Many of the inadequacies of the FairTax PROPOSAL (as opposed to the FairTax per se) are more than just theoretical and technical. They are procedural and political.
These are legitimate deficiencies. You can bring up your petty nitpicks every time Lawrence Vance writes an article for the next 10 years and it won’t change these facts. You can tattoo your gripes into your forehead and it won’t make them any more convincing.
The FairTax proposal sucks.
Accept it.
Now, let the healing begin.
Comments on this entry are closed.