JEREMY P BOGGESS
Idaho State Senate District 4
CK HERE FOR FREE YARD SIGNS
IMPACT FEES or NEW PROPERTY TAXES
·
We need to eliminate taxes on necessities required to sustain life such as food and necessary medicine and medical expenses.
· We need to create more tax responsibility and bring “reality” back to spending for Idaho’s citizens.
·
Before we consider raising or lowering taxes we should seek a re-budgeting and/or restructuring that is efficient. Before raising or lowering taxes we need to look at where it may be being misused. We have to think of it as a reservoir of water with sprinkling holes in it to water your garden. If you put more in it the water will just run out faster. If you stop putting water in, it will just go dry quicker. Before we consider putting in more water or taking some out, we have to plug up the holes that are wasteful. Most people would believe in contributing to the public good and would be proud of where their taxes go; if they actually believed that their current taxation is fair and not being squandered and going towards something worthwhile for the common good.
·
If we do find that we have no other choice but to raise revenue from taxation, (whether it’s income tax, sales tax, tax on certain products/services, property tax or any other taxation); it is for the voters to decide.
· We need more direct taxpayer involvement in the decision process of where our taxes are spent. If we do find that we have no other choice than to raise revenue through taxes; it is best for the voters to decide how to access those funds. We need to enable taxpayers to directly vote on where a guaranteed reasonable percentage of taxes should go and be used; possibly though a questionnaire or survey that gathers information on what areas, issues, and departments that citizens feel require more, unchanged or less funding attention. Too many people feel that their taxes are being wasted or spent incorrectly/inefficiently.
·
We should encourage the State of Idaho’s tax responsibility instead of passing it on to the local taxpayers. We also need to encourage the State of Idahos’ tax responsibility and prevent cuts in funding of those programs that would ultimately shift the responsibility onto the local taxpayer (including property taxes) of what should be the State of Idaho’s responsibility, (while existing taxes from the state are still collected at the same level.) It is unfair to pay more in taxes and receive fewer services.The state should maintain its proportional support without raising taxes proportionally. It is unfair to pay more of a tax percentage and get a less percentage of the pie.
·
We need stronger restrictions, prevention and searching of state contracts that abuse the “system”. We need stronger prosecution and restrictions of those who have a habit of abusing the “system” or over billing for products, services or project(s) billed to the state.
·
Reward those state organizations, companies, and contractors that give quality within budget, and on time with additional consideration of additional contracts.
·
We need stronger prosecution and empowerment for local and state governments to collect adequate fines, penalties and restitution from corrupt and fraudulent individuals, organizations and corporations that defraud or break the laws that we all must live by; resulting in burdening the average Idaho taxpayer. Too often they get away with crimes that the average taxpayer could not even think of and often the individual taxpayer is “slipped the bill”.
·
Stop officials from giving themselves pay raises without general public vote.
·
Eliminate “pork barrel” and “pet” projects that benefit only a small minority of the population. Begin funding projects that are necessary for the general public good. Too often we find out there is not enough money for worthy projects only after dedicating funds on projects that line the pockets of a small minority. We need to do honest unbiased research and funds allocation for a problem before initiating a project.
·
Eliminate and/or reduce bureaucracy. Reward those Idaho State Departments that stay in budget and restructure or consider eliminating those who consistently run over. Those departments or programs that consistently run over budget, not due to budget cuts of the previous year, need to be, at the very least, restructured or (at the very most) cut all together and the services they provide incorporated into other departments. They should be giving the ultimatum of fix it or loose it.
·
Create atmosphere were government offices/departments need not fear losing part of their budget the following year if they don’t use all of it the existing year. Too often, departments are forced to use their entire budget to show a need or it will be cut the next year. We have to reward those departments or programs that stay within their budget with a sense of security in the next year and perhaps a trust fund for those unexpected expenditures in the future.
·
Idaho residents should be the last to be taxed not the first.
Impact Fees or New Property Taxes:
·
Existing taxpayers and property owners should not be burdened from infrastructure and amenities needed to accommodate new development. Development should be able to pay for itself and not burden those who are already here. Growth should not diminish the average Idahoans’ quality of life or burden the Idaho taxpayer in the long run. Before we develop, we need to ask ourselves; how will the existing support for the social amenities (fire, school, parks and police to name a few) be effected and how long or if the new tax base can supply those additional community needs? Will the existing tax base be adversely affected? Development should respect the integrity of the community. We need to encourage responsible growth and development that is sustainable in the long-term and takes responsibility for the future communities.
·
Introduce impact to lessen the burden on the local existing property taxpayer.
·
Allow cities and counties to determine their own impact fees and limits instead of imposing the burden onto existing taxpayers and property owners for infrastructure and amenities resulting from new development.It is unfair for existing taxpayers to supply the needs of new residents until their tax base is fully utilized. Existing taxpayers shouldn’t be burdened by new development. These Impact fees would be utilized so as not to burden existing taxpayers. In the mean time we must also look for something else other than a one-time fee that does not burden industry or existing taxpayers.
There is a current argument that increased fees may dampen growth
. However, we must acknowledge that cities and counties with real long-term financial sense are not going to do anything that is financially detrimental to them whether it is encouraging or discouraging specific growth.If cities and counties feel that impact fees will have an adverse effect on growth and development or their overall financial outlook they will not authorize them. If they feel that these fees are needed to offset the burden on public services they will authorize it. Either way they need to be given that option and choice.
Paid by Jeremy Boggess 4 Idaho
Jeremy Boggess, Treasurer OUTSIDE LINKS:
(YOU MAY EXIT THIS SITE!)
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES:
LEGISLATIVE MAPS: