Picking, choosing taxes to pay won’t work

Regarding the letter “Those who use rail should pay for upgrades”: The writer seems to fully favor a “pay per use” type of system for public services. I would like to look at other services this kind of system could provide.

Public safety: I have never used nor do I plan to use the publicly funded fire department, so I would like my portion of the property taxes I have paid to be refunded to me. I would like to only pay for the services of law enforcement as I need them. It would likely be much easier to pay a couple hundred dollars whenever I need to call them on loud and obnoxious neighbors having a pre-Fourth of July party. That would be so much better than having them sitting around just sucking up tax dollars.

Public transportation: Since I have never taken a bus or train in my life, why not give me all these years of taxes back? I am sure the poor that rely on these services are more than willing to pay more for the privilege of riding the bus. There is no way that could ever cause an issue, unless one frequents a business whose employees use public transportation as their sole means of getting to and from work.

Can I stop paying for roads and infrastructure in areas I will never visit? It is highly unlikely I will ever make it to Pasco, so I should not have to pay to keep their roads intact. If I ever do go there, I will just complain about how these places never keep their roads in good condition.

Sarcasm aside, I agree that some of the bill for the upgrades to commercially used infrastructure should be paid in part by the industries that use them. Which it is, via taxation and corporate fees.

The writer seems to believe that only users of the service should have to pay for them. To that I say: If you yield a benefit from these services then you are using them. In the case of Seattle and public transportation, I am sure that there are far less cars on the road due to heavy use of the bus and train system and therefore reducing traffic congestion. I would certainly call that a benefit.

The idea of pay-for-use is a bad libertarian concept and needs to be stamped out as it is detrimental to a civilized and productive society.

Robert Ray

Granite Falls

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Friday, Jan. 19

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Editorial: Help community colleges meet job training needs

Lost in the focus on K-12 school funding, have been the needs of community and technical colleges.

Ignatius: How military trains to let others do the fighting

The struggle for the U.S. military has been to accept letting other nations fight their own battles.

Milbank: Trump’s fine, but his Trumpism may be contagious

Trump may be in ‘excellent’ health, but has the White House doctor contracted his hyperbolic style.

Harrop: Immigration won’t get a fix because GOP doesn’t want it

Trump and Republicans in Congress prefer the status quo and their ability to use it politically.

County needs to plan better to prevent sprawl

Thank you for printing the commentary by Tom Campbell (“Time is now… Continue reading

This is how a stable president acts?

While claiming mental stability along with intellectual “genius” status, President Trump shows… Continue reading

Even a ‘limited’ nuclear war would be devastating

I wish to second the thoughts in the Jan. 12 letter to… Continue reading

Editorial cartoons for Thursday, Jan. 18

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Most Read