quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
wrinkle...
Why are you saying that it will raise sales taxes to over ten cents, then admitting that the language is not clear? Now you are saying outrageous stuff like 30 mills?
Is this some sort of early scare tactic dis-information strategy?
You have been writing post after post finding fault with the street package and now it turns to be stuff you just made up or assumed?
Remind me to not believe you until one thing you say is proven true.
This is a forum, as I understand it.
The plan is void of detail and left for us to speculate as to what's being said. The 10-Cent plus Sales Tax was based solely on the actual statements made. It fits. Someone here suggesting it otherwise needs to put the language down as to how that lays out, because I flat don't see it working at all that way, and don't see wording of a proposition which makes that practical.
Either it'll be too expensive from a bonding standpoint, will take at least two more years to begin work or will not solve the immediate problem of bumps and dents in the roads (i.e., resurfacing rather than reconstructions).
So, come to your own conclusions.
Here's a little game for you:
You have $62 million and need another $62 million.
You can use only 1/9th of the population to produce the extra $62 million.
How do you see that working out?
If 3.3 mills by 9/9ths produces the correct amount, then 1/9th doing the same is 29.7 mills.
Scare tactics???
Disinformation???
I do believe it's called 'analysis'.
It was put out as not only a possible resolution as to what was presented, it is quite probable.
If someone says it doesn't kick in until 2011, 2012 and 2017, then just how is that worded in the proposition and on the ballot, in one proposition? And, how does that pay out?
I'm open to suggestions.
Going a step further, how does a tax which doesn't begin for three or four years solve today's problems?
We'll get a bond, you say?
So, we add the cost of unusally long term bonding to taxpayers, making it that much more expensive? Actually, just getting much less for each $1.00.
The tax which would start next year, Ad Valorem, won't resurface any roads, it's dedicated to capital projects of road reconstructions.
Somebody needs to provide more detail before any of this can really be evaluated at all.
But, what I've stated in my postings are the only logical scenarios which tie all the ends, as I see it. And, that's only if you agree with the political aspects of what's presented.
Tell me how you see it happening.
Believe what you want.
RM, in the future it may benefit your sensitivities if you assume I have no inside tract. I don't. Only what the public is given.