RAP Rant

Joshua thought it so important that I get straightened out on my views that he posted this rant to my post about the RAP tax. (It appeared twice, so I deleted the superfluous one) I'll let it stand on its own without comment from me.

"If you are that anti-tax why then do we pay our public officials with tax dollars? Public officials that you support. Why do we have any community services at all? Are you opposed to parks? Youth Sports and other community sponsered events? Should we do away with road maitenance or the fire and police departments? No no no, I am sure you consider those "needs". Basic civil services right? Well I am being taxed for them, yet I have never had NEED of the fire department, nor the police. I own a 4 wheel drive vehicle so I really don't care if the roads are bad. Why don't the private individuals who want those services pay for it and leave my money alone. I have no kids so i have no NEED for public education anymore yet they steal my money and tax my property to pay for it. HOW DARE THEY?! Those tax and spend liberals! The fact of the matter is this, we are taxed, where that tax money goes is a whole other question. Personally I would much rather see bright a new beacon of culture and sophistication grace my county then yet another strip mall, or another subdivision. Working in the real estate field I am stunned every day how much government assitance is given to "private sector" projects. For once it would be nice to see a project that is solely for the people have a chance to get up off the ground.

Oh, and anyone who is TRULY a fan of Shakespeare wants it forced on everyone. It goes with the territory. Reading a couple of sonets and seeing plays doesn't create a Shakespearian Dramturge. However his is always the first name to be pulled to try and make oneself sound cultured. The Bard worship doesn't impress anyone into thinking you really are "pro-arts". And thats okay, you don't have to be. The world is full because of all types in it.

You have a group of people in this area who want to do something great, who want to share their gifts with all around. They need a proper place to do it in. You wouldn't ask the firemen to try and do what they do with out trucks and a station. We obviously don't ask our mayor and city council to operate out of the basement of the mayors home. This group wants to give back to their community the best way they know how, they have tried for years to figure out on how to do it alone, and have gotten about half way there. All they are asking is for everyone to pitch in 1 penny for every 1 dollar you are going to spend fo eight years. That is less then the change you will lose in your sofa or in cleaning out your car. 1 penny at a time to build a place that ALL residents would be proud to have in their community. It is sad when we can't muster up even that amount of generosity of spirit to affect change for good in our communities because of fear-mongers, decrying "legalized plunder" and "tax and spend liberals". I would have you know on an interesting side note that the people who are highest up in this group are FAR FAR from liberal democrates. They are as ultra-conservitive republican as I have ever met. They just happen to be able to see the world for what it is and not what they want it to be."

Kill The RAP

Don't let your taxpayer dollars fund your hobby. Don't let them fund someone else's hobby.

Say no to RAP

SLTrib:S. Davis Arts Center plans remain in flux

RAP Tax Defined

A RAP tax (Recreation, Arts, Parks) is, by design, a way that certain aficionados of the arts shift the funding of their passion from themselves to everyone else. It falls into the category of 'legal plunder' that was defined by Bastiat 150 years ago. I think that I will always oppose these taxes for that reason. There is no cause for someone who enjoys the arts, and currently has access to them, to shift the burden for funding them to the taxpayers.

If Bountiful City wants to get a RAP tax going, let them leave the other cities alone. North Salt Lake's Mayor Schaefermeyer has already come out in opposition to this tax.

RAP Tax: Rumors Of Its Death

Why is North Salt Lake consistently opposed to tax and fee increases in this county?

That is the question that, I'm sure, Bountiful, and other city officials ask when it comes time to promote the next "best" increase for someone's pet project.

North Salt Lake opposed the fee increase for transportation corridor preservation. They now oppose the RAP tax, and the city residents were the only city to vote against the Recreation Center. The Utah Rattler first pointed out the hypocrisy of Bountiful's opposition to the County tax increase/property valuations. Of course we ought to side with Bountiful when they are right.

I'm glad that I live in a city that bucks trends towards higher taxes and fees. This city fights, not only, for its own best interest, but for its residents sound finances.

Mayor Schaefermeyer deserves a big star for her efforts and leadership.

Hat tip: Utah Rattler.

Property Taxes: Four Points Of Pain

There are four principles at play here with our property taxes that ought to be addressed.

First, most of the south end of Davis County had their assessed property values go up this year. For me, I'll pay $300 more dollars than last. Many will pay more than that. I think it's only fair to be taxed on the correct value of your home. That's a real number, and the fact that so many got reassessed just goes to show the good work that our County Assessor is doing.

This brings me to point two. There is only so much money more than the previous years budget that the county is allowed to take in. This means that with the many reassessments that happened, and home values increasing, the county is going to have to lower the county portion of the tax rate. But the solution to this problem is intrinsically unfair to the individual, while it is balanced in the favor of the larger population. Let's say that half the county had their home values increase and now pay more. When the rates are lowered, the half whose home values stay the same will have a disproportionate amount of money flowing back their way. $100 of my dollars, for example, could flow into the bank of someone, let's call him Joe, who did not earn that $100. Now next year, hypothetically, my home is not reassessed at a higher value and Joe's $100 flows back to me. There are some who would say that both Joe and I profited in the exchange!

When money travels via government channels there is no such thing as a profit, only plunder! Bastiat called it "legalized plunder". It is the taking of money from one who earned it to give to another that did not earn it.

Point three is that, last December, the retiring county commission voted to increase taxes by 32%. As their terms expired they spread a myth that because actual dollars flowing into the coffers of the county from a tax increase is less than the dollars coming in from county growth that the tax was small! They said that the tax increase was insignificant!

The tax increase was a 32% increase, and that is statistically significant no matter how you fudge the numbers!

Point four is that what naturally flows from a tax increase, with extra dollars flooding in, is an increase in expenditures. This new commission intends to vote to increase spending by 49.5%. This spending increase, plus the tax increase, is a slap in the face to those of us who are now paying on more valuable properties than last year. It is an affront to those who just purchased a home in the county for the first time this year when the housing market was hot! It's offensive to those whose home assessments increase by 250% this year(as happened to my brother). It will prevent people from moving here that would otherwise, and it will give incentives for others to leave the county.

It has been pointed out to me that Davis County is second in our senior citizen population only to Washington County. This means that there is a high number of seniors on fixed incomes that will have to rely upon the government if the county increases spending. We can let these folks pay for themselves by keeping their taxes low, or we can push them into the open arms of the government.

Just don't tell me that they will profit by it, as the county did last December!

Uninsured Seeking Care:A Number Between 3 And 15

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that Davis County has received one-half million dollars to open a Health Clinic in the County, whereas the Deseret News is saying that the grant was a puff of smoke.

Don't they know that smoking isn't allowed?

My wish would be that the County didn't get the money. Here is why. The county says that 10% of the population of the county is uninsured. That is about 27,500 by my figuring. The Midtown facility turns away 20 per day, of which we don't know how many are actually Davis County residents, but if they were all from Davis County (not likely) that would come to 7,300 seeking care at Midtown. Midtown actually cares for 1,000 from Davis County which is 3 percent of the total uninsured. You add that figure to those seeking care at Midtown that will now come to Davis County and you will have 30 percent of the total number seeking care at Davis County with only 15 percent of the total number getting care. What percentage of the 15 percent actually live in Davis County is anyone's guess? Somewhere between 3 and 15 percent is the right answer.

What are the odds that we will be treating one of the uninsured 27,500 Davis County residents out of the 4,300 annually when we have to pick a number between 3 and 15?

I want to see how many of those turned away at Midtown are from Davis County before I worry about the uninsured in Davis County.

This is all before asking the question, 'Why is 10 percent of Davis County uninsured'? And why am I paying for them?

Still Missing Something

The Clipper today highlights how one-third of our tax hike is being spent. What is unsaid is what is most important.

Utah Rattler Outs Members Of Historical Board

The Utah Rattler has outed board members of the 'Bountiful Historical yadayda' as being members of the City Council and, formerly, the sitting Mayor.

Joe Johnson is entrenched in a number of extra-curricular boards.

Question, yet unanswered. Is it illegal for a sitting elected official to fund raise on the clock, and on the taxpayers bill, for a non-profit?

Of Battles And Boundaries

I would have registered my outrage earlier today about the $10 fee that the County is imposing, but I was fighting a little fee of my own. It turns out that our home has one of the most camouflaged off-street parking spots in the state of Utah. The police can't always tell the difference between our property and the city street. Since parking is forbidden, during the winter months on the street, we were given two parking tickets in three days. That's $50.00--not much--just the price of five pizza's.

This interesting situation began many years before we lived here. The city had decided to extend the cul-de-sac by our house. Rather than narrowing the street at our house, our neighbor proposed that the city leave things as they were. It was a win-win scenario. The city would save the cost of reformatting the street, and two homes would have ready-made 45 degree parking. The first thing my friendly neighbor across the street explained to us when we moved in was that every once in a while, we'd get a ticket for parking on our property.

So, off we go to city hall. Wondering all the way how we're going to explain this situation. It went quite smoothly, however, because the bailiff vouched for us. It seems that our neighbor spoke from some good experience.

Now, it's been suggested to me that, in this circumstance, the city ought to have paid us for our trouble. I must respectfully disagree with this, because, at the end of the day, order was restored. The government has held up its end of our little agreement. You can be sure that my wife and I were probably the only two people today to have left that courtroom smiling.

For me, just a $10 fine would have been worth a visit to a judge because of the land that the money represents. My land, not the city's.

And a similar $10 fee, though small, for 'corridor preservation', sounds like the same situation. This time, both the County and the State have forgotten their boundaries. Like so much camouflaged parking.

The Davis County Commission says that this money only represents a cheese pie, but I'm sure that it means much more. To the State it means that it pays half of its obligation--of our taxpayer dollars. So much of what we pay in taxes goes toward transportation funding that we should think of this new fee as triple the increase in spending than is being represented. Not only the $10 we pay in fees, but the $10 matched from the state, and the $10 that would have been spent on this need, but that now goes towards something else. We should realize that the money not paid by the state, as a result, will be redistributed to other programs. Some are worthy programs, and some not.

Mostly not, because the state will have succeeded in shirking its second largest fiscal responsibility. (The first being education.) Who's to say that Utah will act rightly in other areas, when it hasn't in this one? It's better to let the state fund the larger needs, rather than asking, or forcing, others too.

So, today, I won my little $50 battle, but the county lost its bigger $10 war.

Restaurant Spending Bill Withheld

SB68S01 got withheld by its sponsor on Wednesday, meaning that it probably won't go into law. The Utah Restaurant Association wanted the legislation to force counties to pay up on "tourism" taxes collected from Restaurants that is supposed to go towards tourism. The URA doesn't think counties are spending that money correctly. They even question whether the restaurant tax is a fair tax at all.

Let me stop right here to say that the restaurant tax does not equal a "tourism" tax. Many Utahns eat out as part of their regular routine. We don't leave the state every time we want our restaurant fix! And, the URA is probably right to question the fairness of the tax. If, in taxing restaurants, all that occurs is that the money is recycled back into restaurant hands, it would have been better to leave that money with the dining patrons in the first place. Likely, restaurants would adjust prices upward if a tax were removed. But it is far better for everyone if the money charged doesn't make its way through the intestinal tract of government first.

Clipper:Restaurant Bill No Longer On The Menu

SB0068S01: Restaurant's To Tax Counties

SB0068, that would require counties to pay towards Utah Restaurant Associations advertising campaigns, has been substituted with a bill that does the same thing, but spreading its burden across more counties.

In addition to taxing more counties, the bill favors counties with 'qualifying' debt. That is, if a county has debt from a qualifying bond, then the amount used to pay off the debt that year can be subtracted from 3% of the revenue that the county would usually pay. This may pressure counties to move their debt to this area so that it can pay less toward the restaurant fund, and gain more of its own revenues back.

Update: This bill is now on hold in the Senate Workforce Services and Community and Economic Development Committee.

Update: Eating Out

I heard back from Commissioner Hansen that the Utah Restaurant Association has come to the County for money before and has been refused. They will refuse them again this year. It looks that the U.R.A may lobby the Legislature this year to force Counties to give money. The Davis County Commission plans to fight this if it occurs.

Many thanks to the new Commission for taking a stand on this issue.

Please be ready to knock down your legislators doors if this gets put into a bill.

I'll try keep you updated.

Update: Allie says that the Association of Counties plans to fight the U.R.A. in this regard.

Utah: Dead Last For Restaurants

Utah has the lowest number of Restaurants (per capita) of any other State. This means that while it may take longer in Utah to arrive at our eating establishments, we should have no trouble listing all of them. Picking our favorites.

In 2004 we had 4,691 places to eat. That's compared to California, which has 87,225. Do we really need government funded advertising to tell us where to find an Olive Garden, or a Crown Burger?

The Utah Restaurant Association knows this fact, which is probably why they want to spend money on advertising. To grow the restaurant business.

We, who want our government to spend wisely, should not fail to take some other statistics into account. The fact that Utah has the highest birth rate (per 1000), and the most women who have given birth in the last 12 months. We have the highest percentage of both married couples, and married couples with children. We have the largest household size. And, we have the lowest number of children with both parents in the workplace.

We seem to be extraordinarily dedicated to family life in Utah. We seem to know something about the home.

And, we know that nothing beats home cooking!

Why should the government encourage us to eat out when we've already decided what is needful to keep our financial house together? Again, last year the sales tax was lowered on unprepared food to give incentive to preparing much of our food at home.

We still eat out, but the restaurants should be trying to encourage that, not the government.

What a fine way for this new Commission to show their mettle.

Please tell the Commission to spend our money wisely.

By email at commissioners@daviscountyutah.gov

I've also included all the County Commission contact information in my sidebar.

Check back for an update.

Letter to the New Commission: Eating Out

Below is an email I just sent to our new Commisioners. They can be reached by email at commissioners@daviscountyutah.gov

Dear Commissioners,

I was concerned to read an article in the Deseret News that indicates the Utah Restaurant Association will be asking Davis County to contribute $36,000 to television advertising.

I would encourage the Commission to refuse this request as using taxpayer dollars to raise revenue for restaurants steals from other important programs. Programs such as the jail, flood control, and senior programs that were the purpose of our last tax increase. The URA will tell you that by contributing to the campaign to encourage eating out, you will be raising revenue for the county. Please, do not believe them. Businesses are perfectly capable of funding themselves, and people need no extra encouragement to "eat out".

It would also be contradictory of the government to, on the one hand, lower sales tax on unprepared food as an incentive to eat at home, and then fund commercials for prepared foods. There are plenty of opportunities for growth in the county that will occur without this kind of intervention.

If the URA wishes to have people visit their website, to learn about these smaller restaurants, I would be happy to drive traffic there by providing a link on my website. I'm certain that other websites would be happy to oblige in this manner as well.

It is my hope that this new Commission will exercise the 'common sense government' that is their mandate.

Many Thanks,

Tyler Farrer

Let's Eat Out?

The Utah Restaurant Association plans to start an add campaign to get people to eat out more, and they want Counties to flip some of the bill. Davis County's portion would be $36,000.

Really, the dollar amount is irrelevant, because a government contribution of pennies would be a bad idea!

The U.R.A is betting that the advertising campaign will benefit those businesses that can't afford T.V. advertising, and it will help Counties by bringing in more tax revenue.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, taking money from the taxpayers to give to one particular group is legal plunder. And, spending taxpayer dollars to raise tax revenue is ludicrous.

Maybe if we promise to eat out more often this year, the U.R.A can skip the whole government funded ad campaign?

Eating out is something that doesn't need to be encouraged by the government. People love to eat out! Why are we, on the one hand, asking people to cook at home by lowering sales tax on unprepared foods, and then asking taxpayers to flip the bill for restaurants?

If the U.R.A. wants to help smaller restaurants, then ask for a monetary contribution from businesses. It has been done before.

I'm hoping my commission will show some common sense and opt out of the campaign.

Tax break for eating out often??

Check back for an update.

Davis residents groan over 37% tax hike

An article in the Deseret News has some free advertising for this blog, with a couple of quotes from yours truly.

(shameless self-promotion over)

""I don't know what good it did us to go out in pounding rain, when they paid no attention," Gulbransen said.

Gulbransen, a widow on a fixed income, said the tax increase, which amounts to $60 per year on the average home valued at $171,000, will make her rethink how she spends money. Since she lives in a home worth more than $171,000, her tax increase will be more than the average, she said.
"It just means that I will have to pay it, and I'll have to let something else go," she said.
That something might be some of the money she usually gives her grandchildren for Christmas, she said."

Davis residents groan over 37% tax hike

Quote of the Day: Dannie McConkie

"I enjoy the protection of the the county government just like every other citizen in the county."

Davis Property taxes to rise 37%

Triple-threat Tax increase

Yesterday, the County Commission voted to approve the 2007 budget. Included in the budget is a roughly $60 per $171,000 household tax increase. This, after tabling the vote at the public hearing where the commissioners heard a number of senior citizens and business owners decrying the tax.

The 37% tax increase went in when almost nobody was looking, Tuesday morning. Perhaps people thought that the Commissioners were going to reduce the tax, or defer it until the incoming group could consider its merits.

Not this commission!

I wonder what Commissioner McConkie meant at the Convention when he said, "I've learned my lesson"?

I wonder what Alan Hansen was thinking when he voted for the tax that will become his legacy?

Supply is demand, is supply, and our seniors who haven't 'needed' the aging services may now see a reason to start.

At the public hearing last week the Director of the Davis County Health Department said that the County could not meet the demand for these services. What is wrong with that? Many of these services are provided by the private sector, or volunteers, or are already funded by the Federal government. Many are of no cost to the County at all.

Steve Rawlings told me that the County had land, acquired to prevent flood issues that they could sell to get revenue.

Now we have a flood-tax increase, urged by Mr. Rawlings himself!

Citizens for Fax Fairness urged the County to slim the budget to make maintenance of the expanded Jail feasible without a tax increase.

The vote for the Jail was not a blank check for an additional tax.

This, lame-duck, Commission wants to go out with a bang.

[Davis County Watch: Creative Solutions] Politics is not that important

It's often bemoaned that so few people are interested in politics, or that so few participate in it. I've often felt that I would rather that many people were not attuned to politics, and that the engine that drives political action would not require constant vigilance.

Some people get a buzz from politics, a thrill from implementing change, or being part of the progress that is our government.

I do not feel this way.

I surprise people when I say this. After all I operate a political blog, and from time to time, I spend my own time at meetings. I speak to, and correspond with politicians. How could I not, also, derive some pleasure from it?

Years ago, it was all that I could do to get the latest writings and thoughts from *Hugh Nibley (more liberal politically than myself). He once identified a distinction between goods of the first, and second intent. The distinction he gave is this: goods of the first intent are things that are desirable intrinsically, but goods of the second intent only have value in that they may enable one to achieve those things that are inherently good.

Politics is not that important, or rather, it should not be that important. Or, put another way, the engine of government is best that operates with little or no attention.

Now, I've covered Bastiat a lot lately, and I won't make this post the exception. He said that there are two types of plunder-- legal, and illegal. He had little worry about the illegal variety in that it is obviously wrong. Legal plunder, however, is accomplished by the law itself. It is a perversion of the law, and can be operated by a majority. For, when people see what is gained by those in power through the act of plunder, they have two reactions. They, either, seek to join those who plunder, or they seek to stop the plunder from occurring. Bastiat felt that legal plunder led to an exaggerated emphasis on politics.

So, when I go to these public meetings, and hear an elected official, or a citizen complain that so few are present, I recognize in them the desire that more people would flock to stand behind their own special interest. They may be interested in stopping plunder, or they may be interested in furthering plunder for their group.

I wish that fewer would show an interest in politics that do. I wish that politics were relegated to the order, in the large picture, that it belongs. Politics belongs behind family, second to progress, and under economy. Those who have given sacrifice to this country have not done so to its politics, but to its right government.

Politics and government are not equivalent.

When we focus on goods of the first intent, we do not need to justify our expenditure on a ledger, or explain it to ourselves. It is simply good. Others may not understand why, but it is only our feeling that has any merit.

We should remember the difference between first and second.

*The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 9: Approaching Zion

--
Posted by Tyler Farrer to Davis County Watch: Creative Solutions at 12/15/2006 03:00:00 PM

[Davis County Watch: Citizenship] Commission to table the tax increase

I made it to the Public Meeting last night. I was able to arrange for the Scouting activity that night to be the meeting. I spoke, and so did about fifteen others. Most were Seniors and most opposed the tax increase because it would place a burden on them.

The Commission tabled the vote on the budget. They said they wanted to think about it.

That may be half of a victory. The fact still remains that they seemed to be very much in favor of the tax, and they may just vote it in in the next commission meeting when they don't have an audience.

Thanks to the citizens who came! This would have breezed by without the dissent.

More about the meeting can be found in the Deseret News and Standard Examiner.

Update: One more article in the Salt Lake Tribune with more comments of the public.

--
Posted by Tyler Farrer to Davis County Watch: Citizenship at 12/14/2006 07:41:00 AM