Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Summit Daily News’

2D an economic must for Breckenridge?

So, why is 2D a must? First it’s not a tax on locals. I feel better now. Tax the s@*% of those gapers! That will get them to come back for more.

Second, the Breckenridge Lodging Association supports 2D. Count me in, then. They know best.

Third, 2D can help revitalize our real estate industry. Wow! That’s a stretch. Lower prices generally cause people to buy more but don’t taxes increase prices? And when the gapers get here and say “Holy crap, it’s everything is so expensive….., do you really think they are going to buy real estate?

Fourth, our way of life is dependent on tourism. Every recreational amenity….requires tourist tax dollars…”. Correct, and when the tourist arrives with say, $2,000 to spend and $200 of that goes to taxes, it means that they won’t spend that money on a dinner (for 2 because of taxes). Make no mistake, TAXES SIPHON OFF DISPOSABLE INCOME – IT GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT, NOT SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

Fifth, 2D will make us more competitive with Vail and Aspen. Wrong! Higher prices do not make a “business” (the town) more competitive. Lower prices do. Vail and Aspen will not “prevail” because of higher prices and higher taxes. In fact, over the long run, people will see the value that Breckenridge has to offer because of lower taxes which result in lower prices.

Six-Twenty – wish I had time to visit http://www.yeson2D.com but the arguments for a “yes” vote can’t be any better than 1-5.
Instead of a tax increase, how about a free weekend at Grand Timber Lodge to get more visitors?

Advertisements

Vote “yes” for Summit County schools

The “heat is on” Summit County taxpayers. Dip into your wallet for unprecedented requests for tax hikes this year – all in the face of an “energizer bunny” recession.

Let’s  look at a 10/6/10 “Editorial” post in the Summit Daily News and try to ferret out some truth.  It looks pretty good through the 1st 4 paragraphs. But then it gets a little cloudy with the following opinions.

First, “…is managing the crisis wisely…with a host of budget cuts…”.  It would be nice if there was a little more “meat” to this opinion.
Second, “…not an ideal time to ask voters for more money….”.  No s%*@! In fact, I would say it’s the worst time possible in the last 20 years but that isn’t stopping the government/school district from asking you (Summit County taxpayers) to pay MORE for reduced services during nearly unprecendented economic duress.
Third, “…legitimate and reasonable request…”.  Maybe. But is the request more legitimate and reasonable than the alternative opinion? Which is, “It is a legitimate and reasonable expectation that Summit County taxpayers not have to bare the burden of additional tax increases during this recession”.

Fourth, “…nor did the school district create this mess…”.  Perhaps not, but in fact they did contribute to this mess. Because if they had a long-term budget plan in place to deal with loss of revenue scenarios like the one they currently face, then much of these problems wouldn’t exist today. And, I am not talking about 1, 2 or 3 year budgets – I am talking about 5, 10 and 15 year budgets. Budgets that don’t build in “pie-in-the-sky” revenues projections or revenues that have an ever upward trajectory. Budgets that don’t require coming back to the Summit County taxpayers for a renewal of an expiring mill levy/bond EVERY time that mill levy/bond expires. Budgets that don’t give pay raises of 7%!

Last, it is clear that the editorial board doesn’t understand the favorite government game of “taking from one pocket and hiding it in another” when they insist that “an interest free loan program…at no additional costs…”.  In fact, when the Summit Daily News government says something is “free”, hold onto your pocketbooks. This “interest free” program is socialized borrowing. Every taxpayer in the state including Summit County taxpayers pay for this loan since the state must pay for it when they borrow the money to fund the school district loan. And since there’s a loan shark government middle man who gets a cut paid to administer the program, the costs are most likely higher than if all the school districts would create a reserve fund and borrow from that when timing issues related to property tax collections arose. This program is “cost shifting” from the school district to the state, not “free” money. And we wonder why “local control” doesn’t really exist when the school district has to suck on the government teat.