Skip to main content

Alabama has the lowest taxes in the country according to this. My question is would you pay more taxes for more and/or improved services? Personally I would be willing to pay more in fuel taxes for better roads, bridges etc. I might be willing to pay a little more in income taxes to improve services to the disadvantaged, mentally ill and foster parents. Of course this assumes that the money will go where its supposed to and not just some politician's pocket.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Better roads and bridges? I would imagine some politician will have money funnelled back through heavy construction or paving companies...a deal as old as, well, the New South.

And I echo the comment about the "disadvantaged"...sorry, the history of the government so far has been using tax dollars to buy votes from those same "disadvantaged" voters. Count me out.
My question is would you pay more taxes for more and/or improved services? Personally I would be willing to pay more in fuel taxes for better roads, bridges etc. I might be willing to pay a little more in income taxes to improve services to the disadvantaged, mentally ill and foster parents.

No, I would not voluntarily pay more taxes for any of what you listed. However, I would give my money to a private organization I believed was capable of effectively providing the things you mentioned.
Every time I hear of someone wanting to raise taxes just because Alabama has a low tax rate, I’m reminded of…

“Amendment One

“In the first year of his administration, Riley proposed "Amendment One", which would have made swift changes to the state's tax system. The plan essentially consisted of income tax breaks for lower brackets, offset by various tax hikes on consumption, property and income from higher brackets. Part of the problem that this plan sought to address was the strong dependence the Alabama tax system placed upon sales tax, which makes the state budget dependent upon the economy in the state. The plan was estimated to yield an overall state revenue increase of $1.2 billion per year.[2] The plan also included accountability reforms, including changes to teacher tenure policies, accountability for school systems, and bans on pass-through pork. This plan also included provisions for a scholarship program for Alabama students to attend college and funding of other education initiatives.

“Support as well as opposition for this plan came from traditionally opposing forces in Alabama, crossing party lines. This included support from pro-business organizations, including the Business Council of Alabama and many Chambers of Commerce, as well as prominent education organizations, including the Alabama Education Association. Other progressively-minded non-profit groups supported this plan, including many organizations that had sought changes in the Alabama tax system for many years. These organizations saw this as an opportunity for Alabama to invest in the future of the state through investments in education and governmental reforms. Riley also presented this plan using Christian terms, building upon language already present in the state to argue that the Alabama tax system placed the heaviest burden upon the poorest citizens of the state. Opponents to the plan included the Alabama chapter of the Christian Coalition (splitting with the national Christian Coalition who endorsed the plan), and the Alabama Farmers Federation (ALFA). A number of the people who opposed this plan, included both organizations mentioned, had strongly supported Riley for Governor in 2002. These opponents based a campaign upon a criticism of the state legislature and used the complexity of the plans to claim that taxes would go up on people in the state. While proponents had pointed to studies of the plan showing the majority of Alabamians seeing a lower overall tax burden, polls indicated that most citizens - likely influenced by the proposed property tax increase - believed their personal taxes would be higher under the plan.

“Amendment One was rejected by voters on September 9, 2003, with 68 percent opposed. While Riley's Amendment One was soundly rejected by Alabama voters, it did gain him national recognition. For his leadership in addressing the state’s fiscal crisis, Governor Riley was named the “Public Official of the Year” by Governing magazine[3] in 2003, and Time magazine hailed him for being one of the nation’s “most courageous politicians.”[4]

“The overwhelming rejection of this plan forced Riley to mend fences within his own base and seek to do some reforms without the broad tax increases that Amendment One sought. Some parts of the proposal have been enacted, such as efforts to raise the minimum tax threshold in Alabama.”

Seems to me “responsibility” was a tag line as if we have to spend more tax dollars to ensure more fisical responsibility. Yeah, that confused the heck out of me, too.

It danged near gaged me to quote this source, but see how the press dealt with this? Despite press releases like this biased wiki piece, 2/3 of the voters in the state rejected Amendment One and the media rewards a bad idea. Anybody think Taxachusetts has a better idea?

And what’s so bad about using sales tax to increase revenue? Or as TigerTrek suggested a fuel tax for roads and bridges. These are user taxes. If I spend more than you for expensive or frivilous things, tax me more. If I drive a gas guzzler and you drive an ecomony car, tax me more. If I take recreational trips and you take only necessary trips, tax me more on my gas, food, entertainment. But to tax your income at the same rate I’m being taxed for my lifestyle is just plain wrong.

BTW, I’m a SINK [single income, no kids], all grown and on their own. When it comes to raising taxes for education, no, hell no!

No to raising my income tax for anything until the states gets away from this antiquated tenure system. An 80 year old tenured state secretary making ¼ million a year? A teacher convicted of sexual abuse still drawing a salary while serving time in prison? With apologies to drunken sailors everywhere, but spending money like this is foolish and these are but a couple of examples that have made headlines. On the local level, if you are involved with your school system, even if you are a teacher, you know darn well there are those in the system that would have been fired long ago if it weren’t for the tenure system. So don’t give me any grief about depriving some poor child of educational opportunities.

Just look for the cars bearing tags with the “union apple.” They are the ones tolerating this abuse. Honk if you don’t like tenure.

Should the US voters vote for a higher Alabama tax rate just because we have the lowest? Stupid question, right? But since moving to Alabama, there is one thing I’ve never understood. Everytime I go to the polls, there are some amendments having to do with particular counties that the whole state votes on. I think that is that those counties’ concerns, not mine, and I don’t vote on them. The entire state voted a tax increase for Lawrence County last year because LawCo was paying less. That cost me a 14% increase in property taxes this year and I get jack in return.

Look out Lauderdale! It’s payback time. Bend over.

Add Reply

Untitled Document
Link copied to your clipboard.