Fremont County, there's no need to pass the 1 percent tax

Nov 4, 2012 Tracy Mitchell, Crowheart


With regards to the 1 percent ballot question: I'm proud to reside in Fremont County, one of three counties that doesn't have to pass it before we know what's in it.

Tax monies are best managed with full representation. Who cares that the deck is stacked against the 49 percent county franchise and pocketbook? "Infrastructure" is a loose term, much more "misleading" than 1 percent simply being "one cent." Ironically, this initiative would generate far more than the purported "small stream of revenue." Who, but government, dares to ask for an 82 percent raise?

Despite resolutions, it is a general use and sales tax. I immediately think of Social Security; and believe that when government "needs" revenue, there are "effective" ways to obtain it.

I find nothing fair or wise about a consumption-based tax imposed for property-based, bond-worthy projects. If municipalities are meritorious, then state legislators should have little difficulty passing such a bill. "Body corporates" are NOT static, helpless baby kittens - state law would do well to reflect that.

One can only imagine what the state or federal governments have planned (in taxes) for us. Just think, fueling lawn and garden equipment might help finance the highway system (that's pounded by an alarming ratio of tax-exempt/public service vehicles). At current rates, I've calculated that my yearly contribution to this initiative would be $26.36. That is above the $105.44 state tax for revolving bills such as electricity and LP. $26.36! And I haven't even traveled the roads to shop.

No, Fremont County, we don't "need" to pass it.

Print Story
Read The Ranger...