26 replies to this topic

[bunnyeyes]

I had a pretty good converstaion with my mother in law about this last night. (she is heading up the campaign for someone running for school super intendant) If the sales tax doesn't go through, not only will the kids suffer but we will loose more teachers. I think in her district alone they will cut at least 50 teachers which will increase class size to 30-45 students. To put things in persptective consider this. Arizona has some of the lowest property taxes in the US and some of the highest corperate tax breaks. If they were to suspend those corporate tax breaks for just one year they would have enough money to fund everything. Do I agree the sales tax is the best way to solve the situation? No. But as a mother of a school age child what choice do we really have?

[differently biotic]

not only the corporate tax breaks but to lure businesses here, the wage is lower than competitve wages from most states.


Come to AZ! Your corporation gets tax breaks AND your employee wage will be lower.



I am still gonna vote no. I will not be manipulated by fear tactics.

[rudolpho of pensacola]

Exactly what "fear tactics" are you speaking of?
I know the bits I have shared are very real things happening.
Exactly who do you think you're teaching a lesson
by voting no? Do you even know how much the increase is?
How much it would cost you per item bought and spent?
All the little luxuries you enjoy in your life?

[illya]

would i write to these same legislators to tell them that instead of increasing our taxes to pay for this stuff (which should be a priority, by the way), they should stop paying for frivolous things like sculptures of geckos on our freeways.

transonic? where you at?

Here's the frustrating thing:

Raising taxes when revenues are low is the job of your elected legislators. That's how it's worked in most states this last year or two. It is NOT our job. By voting yes on this proposal, you are basically affirming our (Republican/conservative/teabagger) government's right not to govern (or to govern badly). In other words, left or center leaning voters are forced to govern instead of the wingnut elected officials - who happen to be gleefully gutting the institutions the left or center leaning voter cares about. So the way I see it, a NO vote moves us a step closer to forcing the cons to face the consequences of their failure to govern - whereas a YES vote gives them a pass.

Not certain how I'm going to vote - no argument that the state desperately needs the $. BUT I think this is the wrong way to get it, and I fear that we'll be sorrier in the long run if the cons aren't forced to do any hard work. And I wouldn't dismiss Illya's point that this approach unfairly burdens those who can least afford it.

well put, i agree that the revenue issue is the job of your elected legislators. And you are right, it is not our job. OUR job, is to hold those elected officials accountable, by writing letters to legislators and local news stations and newspapers, making phone calls, voting, telling other people what you know and what your experience is, and overall and, as trite as it sounds, making sure that your voice is heard.

My point is this: if the public does not participate in democracy and hold it's elected officials accountable for their actions, then they deserve the government they get.

I don't disagree with your point, skeksis, that a NO vote may mean that legislators will have to face the consequences. The reality, however, is that the consequences for most legislators will be that they may lose their re-election bids. The consequences for us are that government services will be severely reduced further than they have already been reduced.

[allisonorphan]

the DDD cuts will affect my daughter's services in a huge way.
pretty bummed about these cuts, we're already losing music therapy because it's
not recognized by the state as a "real" therapy.
next up speech therapy, occupational therapy, respite maybe HAB and kindergarten half days instead of full days.
thanks arizona as if i didn't hate living in you enough already.

i love the 'real therapy' debate.
i am graduating in 3 weeks with my masters in marital and family therapy/clinical art therapy. my experience has been that while agencies love the art therapy modality, the state (ca) does not. when i wrote medi-cal notes, i had to assume the role as a purely verbal therapist only because the art component is not seen as valid. while i am fortunate to have secured a full time position as an an art therapist at a therapeutic school, many of my fellow graduates are stressing because of the lack of mental health jobs here in ca. entire agencies have stopped providing services. it is a tough time everywhere.

[Tony]

Do you even know how much the increase is?
How much it would cost you per item bought and spent?
All the little luxuries you enjoy in your life?

i estimate that this will cost my household somewhere north of $300. that's not a trivial amount. i don't mind paying it, but i have the feeling that maybe 1/3 of it will make an impact. i believe the rest will get pissed away, like so much other government spending. if this were an actual company, it would have gone out of business by now.

i'm not in the tea party or anything, i'm not some sort of conservative radical. but at what point do i get to say no? at least put somebody who knows what they're doing in charge. instead, we spend money on lawsuits to sue the federal government about healthcare, or state vehicles, or freeway widening.

arizona: pro life until you're born.

[illya]

Do you even know how much the increase is?
How much it would cost you per item bought and spent?
All the little luxuries you enjoy in your life?

i estimate that this will cost my household somewhere north of $300. that's not a trivial amount. i don't mind paying it, but i have the feeling that maybe 1/3 of it will make an impact. i believe the rest will get pissed away, like so much other government spending. if this were an actual company, it would have gone out of business by now.

i'm not in the tea party or anything, i'm not some sort of conservative radical. but at what point do i get to say no? at least put somebody who knows what they're doing in charge. instead, we spend money on lawsuits to sue the federal government about healthcare, or state vehicles, or freeway widening.

arizona: pro life until you're born.

why 1/3? based on what?

[Tony]

Do you even know how much the increase is?
How much it would cost you per item bought and spent?
All the little luxuries you enjoy in your life?

i estimate that this will cost my household somewhere north of $300. that's not a trivial amount. i don't mind paying it, but i have the feeling that maybe 1/3 of it will make an impact. i believe the rest will get pissed away, like so much other government spending. if this were an actual company, it would have gone out of business by now.

i'm not in the tea party or anything, i'm not some sort of conservative radical. but at what point do i get to say no? at least put somebody who knows what they're doing in charge. instead, we spend money on lawsuits to sue the federal government about healthcare, or state vehicles, or freeway widening.

arizona: pro life until you're born.

why 1/3? based on what?

sorry - i had a more elaborate post the first time and accidentally hit the back button on my browser, thereby deleting it. and i was lazy the second time through. i don't have any facts to confirm my hunch, i just don't trust the government to get the money where it needs to get. i was kind of throwing 1/3 out there as an example. the point being, why should i assume that they'll distribute this new tax money appropriately when they can't properly manage the money they have? what possible evidence do we have that they're not going to waste it or mis-appropriate it?

i'm not saying everyone who works for the government is evil or stupid or incapable of doing good, but there are enough people like that in a system that rewards failure that i no longer have the confidence in them to make the right decisions. how many times have we read about abuses of spending? how many elected and appointed officials have state vehicles? how much is being spent to widen the 202? what about lawsuits to sue the federal government over healthcare? and you want me to believe that if i pony up an extra 1% of my spending that it's all going to get allocated properly? 1/3 is not an accurate number - but i'm sure there's some government study (that we paid for) that has a more quantifiable explanation for how it all gets spent.

that said, i'm going to vote for the tax. i'm not punishing the state by voting no, i'm punishing the people who need the support. it's not their fault that the system is broken.

[unluckycharm]

My wife could be out of a job if this doesn't go through. That makes the voting decision easy for me.

[bunnyeyes]

http://www.azcentral...on-layoffs.html

Well next month is contract renewal time for teachers and it seems the layoffs are already starting. From what I just learned about the sales tax the money is earmarked for education and health. It talks about it in the article above.

[differently biotic]

I'm losing my job as well. And I'm still voting no.

[unluckycharm]

Vote is happening Tomorrow! (Tuesday the 18th)

here is an article in the Tucson Weekly about this tax:

http://www.tucsonwee...ent?oid=1930660