"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP" wrote in message
...

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

A single example are..."Fees"..which are not considered "taxes"

Fees are not taxes. Look it up.

I don't want any part of the larger debate you guys have going, but
this is a pet peeve. When the government cannot increase taxes, either
for political reasons or because the legislature has forbidden it,
then the solution is to add or increase fees. The net result is
extraction of more and more money from the citizens.
Play semantics all you want, but the net result is more money to
support more government.

As long as the fees are in line or below the cost of providing the
service, they are user fees, not to levy them forces the rest of the
population to subsidize the users of that service. That seems pretty
clear to me. The value proposition of how much we pay versus how much
we get from government is a separate question, and I agree that fee
increases without offsetting tax decreases or additional services
represents an increased cost of government with no extra benefit.

Most fees are local. They amount to 22% of local revenue, which stands
to reason, because there are relatively few local taxes, except for
ad-valorem property taxes. They include building permits, water use,
etc.

At the federal level, the most pessimistic view of "fees" places them at
less than 2% of revenue. More realistically, they amount to 0.5% of
revenue.

So it's a tempest in a teapot. If you'd rather be "taxed" for building
permits, car registration, etc., you can call them taxes if you wish.

--
Ed Huntress
22% of local revenue in NY is a big number.

Look at what they are. Then tell us which ones you want to convert to
taxes, so they don't be "hidden." That was the original point of the
discussion.

And when you get to building inspections, and municipal water, etc., tell
us how you would run these services without user fees. The whole country
would love to have answers to those things.

If my local government starts charging to use a previously free park, for
example, I don't dispute that the charge is a fee, but the government
should still be accountable for what they are doing with the extra
revenue.

Every state publishes its budget. It shows all revenues and expenses. Have
you looked at it?

Same goes for tuition increases at state colleges. Fee increases on the
local and state level in NY have been significant in recent years.

Of course they have. State colleges are tax-supported. States are running
out of tax money. So they raise tuition and fees -- still to something
much less than the true costs -- because they can't support them with
taxes as much as they used to.

Do you have a better solution?

RBnDFW is right, unless previously tax supported functions were
converted to fee supported functions on a revenue neutral basis, the
government is taking more money from citizens.

If you know of some that are being converted to fee-support, without a
commensurate reduction in the taxes dedicated to that purpose, it will be
interesting to compare them with those that are simply not being supported
as much as they used to be, regardless of the source. Our schools,
including colleges, in NJ fall into the latter category.

Take a look at the actual budgets. You're speculating about where the
money is coming from and going to. I can give you hard numbers about New
Jersey. Have you looked at hard numbers in New York?

While you're looking, keep in mind that taxes per capita in the US are now
at the lowest level they've been since 1954. Yes, I can give you hard
numbers about that, too.

The bottom line is that states and local governments have a revenue
crisis, and they've cut costs ruthlessly in some states (NJ being one of
the most brutal), and they've converted tax-support to fee-support in
others.

But that's state and local governments, not the federal government. Aren't
conservatives in favor of state and local governments running their own
affairs anymore? That's how they've been forced to run them.

I don't think you'll find that the "fees" are actually hidden taxes in the
majority of cases. What you'll find is that tax money is running out, and
fees are being raised to users to try to keep those services afloat. If
there was any "hiding," it was the previous case of supporting services
with taxes that made it difficult to determine their true costs. That's
happening all over the country.

--
Ed Huntress
I jumped in late and somewhat out of context. I don't disagree with most of
what you're stating, with the exception of the local tax level. I don't
think fees are hidden taxes, and it's usually pretty clear if you read the
news where the revenue in a budget is coming from. The only deception is
when a campaigning politician tells only part of the story by talking about
taxes and not fees, borrowing and revenue generating gimmicks.
As far as supporting services, revenues are rarely earmarked for specific
services or programs. SUNY tuition increases don't go directly to the
university system, lottery funds go to the general fund, not education as
originally promised, etc.. The money is going to increased expenses such as
the bloated public pension system, health care costs, etc.. We need to take
on the public unions starting with the teachers and the police. That won't
be as hard as freeing Congress from AIPAC, but will be a formidable task.