|
|||
|
This article by Bill Bodden of Redmond was published in The (Bend) Bulletin in December 2001 Your editorial (SDC-backed loan... - 11/27/01) is remarkable for being one of The Bulletin’s clearer statements acknowledging the connection between growth and the need for increased infrastructure. Has there ever been a similar editorial recognizing a need for system development charges (SDCs) to help pay for schools? Hopefully, your publication of Jack Flatt’s commendable letter on the subject indicates your support of this concept. An attempt was made during the 2001 session in Salem to make possible the collection of SDCs for schools, but the effort failed. Is there in Deschutes County any school board member or school administration official who made a sincere effort to support the proposed bill? If not, why not? There is nothing better that we can do for the youngest generation than give them a good education even if a significant portion of young people are incapable of appreciating this conclusion. However, the recent single-minded focus and tactic of evoking sympathy for students while callously ignoring the consequences to people with tight budgets is another factor contributing to a disintegration of community. Since most Oregonians, like people in other states, have become inured to the immorality of exploiting the weak, uneducated and vulnerable with a lottery to help fund schools then it should not be surprising if they are indifferent to sticking someone with limited income and possibly high prescription bills with an additional tax. (Just for the record, my points are not based on self-interest.) Contrary to what anarchists and others too cheap to pay taxes would argue, government is necessary to provide certain essential services. Contrary to popular faith-based self-interest that it is primarily a ticket to benefits, rights and privileges, citizenship means that those of us that can afford to pay our fair share for those services should do so. True compassion, as opposed to the conservative version, calls for exempting the less fortunate among us from paying a portion or all of the taxes that might otherwise be assigned to them. Clearly, we need an exemption written into the tax laws to provide genuine relief to people in lower economic brackets from being punished by taxes they can’t afford. As I understand it, there is a provision that allows low-income people to defer their taxes, but this is not appropriate. This is merely a disingenuous and insensitive method of postponing collection of taxes. Most likely, people given this dubious privilege will be unable to leave an inheritance to their (probably similarly low-income) children. In other cases, people could not leave the state, possibly for health or family reasons, without first paying taxes due plus interest. In this latter instance, the consequence would likely be leaving the state broke or enforced residency. Politicians and voters have recently shown compassion for the wealthiest members of our society when it comes to taxes and inheritance. If we have not totally entered a brave new world where we worry about people living in luxury and disdain others with financial burdens, then we should let our politicians know it is time to provide a fair tax policy for the less fortunate. Redmond will be submitting another school bond in 2002. The good news for the Redmond School Board is that the people I have talked to would like to see students get the buildings they need. The bad news is that these same people are more concerned with the injury that will be inflicted on residents that can’t afford an increase in taxes; especially those that have helped to pay for all the schools already in place. My understanding is that building industry lobbyists are responsible for laws limiting SDCs. Perhaps some representative could clarify the industry’s position on SDCs. Back to Education Home Page Back to Schools Home Page |
|
||