Deduct the amount of the bill from your next property tax payment. Be sure to send a copy to the local media.

They need to slow down, stop and think this through before they give this asinine idea the green light.

come on, this thread ain't so bad

lajimi: Deduct the amount of the bill from your next property tax payment. Be sure to send a copy to the local media.

Let us know how that works out. But it'll have to be snail mail since I think you lose your internet access in prison.

Send them teabags

Well heartless greedy conservatives should pay for all them services. Lightbulbs don't light themselves. Everyone should have a monitor they wear to quantify how many photons they receive.

Terrible analogy to road user fees, but jeez this is getting nuts.

FTA: But last July, Winter Haven became one of a few dozen cities in the country to start charging "accident response fees." The idea is to shift the expense of tending to and cleaning up crashes directly to at-fault drivers. Either they, or their insurers, are expected to pay.

Such cash-per-crash ordinances tend to infuriate motorists, and they often generate bad press, but a lot of cities are finding them hard to resist. With the economy flailing and budgets strained, state and local governments are being creative about ways to raise money. And the go-to idea is to invent a fee - or simply raise one.

Or they could, you know, cut spending.

HMMMMM. Seems to me we all pay streetlight useage fees by paying city, state, and federal taxes. As far as I'm concerned they can turn off the damn things and let night be dark as nature intended.

I may be the minority, but charging the at fault party for cleanup doesnt seem like a bad plan to me. At least for the car accidents the fees seem reasonable to me, just drive carefully so if you involved in a crash you arnt the one who caused it.

Would you get a user fee if there are no streetlights for several miles from your home?

Government: enslaving people since the beginning of time

Next up, oxygen tax.

That being said charging for streetlight use is retarded. I don't need streetlights, thats what I have headlights for.

thenateman: FTA: But last July, Winter Haven became one of a few dozen cities in the country to start charging "accident response fees." The idea is to shift the expense of tending to and cleaning up crashes directly to at-fault drivers. Either they, or their insurers, are expected to pay.

Such cash-per-crash ordinances tend to infuriate motorists, and they often generate bad press, but a lot of cities are finding them hard to resist. With the economy flailing and budgets strained, state and local governments are being creative about ways to raise money. And the go-to idea is to invent a fee - or simply raise one.

Or they could, you know, cut spending.

I read your post, then reread it. That just doesn't make any sense.

Fano: thenateman: FTA: But last July, Winter Haven became one of a few dozen cities in the country to start charging "accident response fees." The idea is to shift the expense of tending to and cleaning up crashes directly to at-fault drivers. Either they, or their insurers, are expected to pay.

Such cash-per-crash ordinances tend to infuriate motorists, and they often generate bad press, but a lot of cities are finding them hard to resist. With the economy flailing and budgets strained, state and local governments are being creative about ways to raise money. And the go-to idea is to invent a fee - or simply raise one.

Or they could, you know, cut spending.

I read your post, then reread it. That just doesn't make any sense.

Did you read that part?

People biatch if they cut services, people biatch if they increase taxes, people biatch if they introduce fees.

In short, people want stuff they just don't want to pay for it.

I'm all for charging at-fault drivers the cost of the accident, they've been doing that up here for years (I buddy of mine had to pay to replace a stop sign he hit...1500 bucks).

The streetlight fee is just retarded. But fees for fishing, hunting, dog licenses etc: are open targets because if you don't want to pay don't fish.

I'm just waiting for the sidewalk tax.

I'm rich.

*My* car has headlights, so I can see in the dark without your pathetic streetlights.

Ms. Kimel, the S.U.V. driver in Florida, will not make the numbers look any better. She has no idea whether the city will come after her for that $316 bill, but she doesn't care.

"I'm not paying," she said, "because it isn't fair."


Maybe you shouldn't have sideswiped someone you stuck up biatch

Ms. Kimel, the S.U.V. driver in Florida, will not make the numbers look any better. She has no idea whether the city will come after her for that $316 bill, but she doesn't care.

"I'm not paying," she said, "because it isn't fair."

And yet she'll be shocked when they do come after her, and when she eventually has to pay that amount with interest or go to jail.

Sure, you're allowed to not comply with the government when you think they're being unfair. It's called civil disobedience, and it's been around for a heck of a lot longer than the forty or so years since the civil rights movement made it popular. What fewer and fewer people are grasping now is that the real "statement" part of the action comes in accepting the consequences because you think they're better than the original action. Rosa Parks really did prefer to spend a night in jail than to lose her dignity by giving up that bus seat. I bet nine out of ten idiots like Ms. Kimel up there would much sooner ante up for the government's ridiculous fee than spend even one night in jail; once an officer knocks on her door and she has to make that choice, the checkbook will come right out.

thenateman: Fano: thenateman: FTA: But last July, Winter Haven became one of a few dozen cities in the country to start charging "accident response fees." The idea is to shift the expense of tending to and cleaning up crashes directly to at-fault drivers. Either they, or their insurers, are expected to pay.

Such cash-per-crash ordinances tend to infuriate motorists, and they often generate bad press, but a lot of cities are finding them hard to resist. With the economy flailing and budgets strained, state and local governments are being creative about ways to raise money. And the go-to idea is to invent a fee - or simply raise one.

Or they could, you know, cut spending.

I read your post, then reread it. That just doesn't make any sense.

Did you read that part?

But how can you cut spending? That's impossible! Programs need to grow, and we need more programs!

So, the government is now getting ideas from the Sweethaven taxman from the Popeye movie? Great.

I'd prefer they turn the streetlights the fark off. Those new low-intensity orange farkers they've got up everywhere now make it HARDER to see when driving. They don't provide enough light to see, but they provide just enough light to make your headlights stop working, covering the whole area with a dimly-lit haze.

rob.d: I'm just waiting for the sidewalk tax.

Too late. Many cities have already had the brilliant idea of charging the folks who own property the organized crime extortion rates for concrete work whenever the city decides to pay off their crews. God forbid they decide to put a new sidewalk infront of your house... you might as well sell the property and flee.

thenateman:

Or they could, you know, cut spending.

Ha-hah! Good one...

Seriously though, what the fark do we care? It's not our money.

Love,

The Government

Burn_Atlanta: lajimi: Deduct the amount of the bill from your next property tax payment. Be sure to send a copy to the local media.

Let us know how that works out. But it'll have to be snail mail since I think you lose your internet access in prison.

That's way you involve the media. Last time I looked property tax violations were pursued in civil court, not criminal. Didn't they teach you that at the Great Internet School of Law and Fast Food Service?

AmazingRuss: Next up, oxygen tax.

Almost. You don't get taxed for breathing the O2 in, you get taxed for breathing the CO2 out. It's the Carbon Tax, and it's coming soon to a government near you.

Or.... they could just CUT SPENDING.

Oh no.. that can't be. We must SPEND.

Liberal Democrats... IDIOTS.

We'd have a better view of the stars if we eliminated the street lights.

FTFA: "There is a mentality here that Johnny can't walk 100 feet, he has to be dropped off right at the front of the school - and frankly that's why Johnny is as pudgy as he is."

So much THIS!!! When I was a kid, we lived close enough to the schools that my sister and I had to walk, and we did every day until high school when we had to start riding the bus. My parents both worked and were unable to drive us less than a half mile to the school, drop us off, right at the front door, and head to work. Never was a fat kid.

It stuns me that I have two coworkers, and my boss, who both insist on not just dropping off their kids at school, but keeping their kids in the car until the doors to the school open. Me, I have no kids, so I am actually required to be at work on time every day.

Why is this so surprising? You didn't think that all of those multi-billion-dollar handouts to banks and corporations was going to be free, did you?

The banks have us by the balls. If they fail, and keep failing, eventually there will only be two or three banks that own all the rest. So those two or three banks will own most of everything.

Banks with no competition would be scary. Imagine paying $100 for a book of new checks. Or paying 40% interest on those student loans. Or paying an overdraft fee equal to the amount of money in your savings account. The possibilities are endless.

Of course, the government COULD fix it by letting the banks fail, and starting up a bank of its own. Then they seize the assets of the failed banks and business resumes as normal.

It's a streetlight (fee)

Streetlights are an abomination to my religious beliefs. I have protection from taxation on these heathen devices, so the rest of you Farkers will have to split the $4.25 that I WON'T be paying.

Sorry for the added expense in these hard times.

Hrist: Why is this so surprising? You didn't think that all of those multi-billion-dollar handouts to banks and corporations was going to be free, did you?

The banks have us by the balls. If they fail, and keep failing, eventually there will only be two or three banks that own all the rest. So those two or three banks will own most of everything.

Banks with no competition would be scary. Imagine paying $100 for a book of new checks. Or paying 40% interest on those student loans. Or paying an overdraft fee equal to the amount of money in your savings account. The possibilities are endless.

Of course, the government COULD fix it by letting the banks fail, and starting up a bank of its own. Then they seize the assets of the failed banks and business resumes as normal.

Do you REALLY think letting the government run the only bank in the U.S. is a good idea? The best part about a private banking institution is that the government doesn't have the direct ability to access my finances.

I say we should let the current banks fail, that will allow new banks to form, and those new banks will have the lessons of the failed banks to go on for the future.

Why not turn off the damn streetlights? I hear cars have headlights nowadays. Or at least make them more efficient by reflecting all of the light downward.

FTFA:
Ohio's governor has proposed a budget with more than 150 new or increased fees, including a fivefold increase in the cost to renew a livestock license, as well as larger sums to register a car, order a birth certificate or dump trash in a landfill. Other fees take aim at landlords, cigarette sellers and hospitals, to name a few.

First, which will now be cheaper, the landfill fees, or the fine for dumping trash off a cliff, getting caught, the 12 glossy 8x10s with the circles and arrows and a description on the back of each one?

Secondly, taking aim at landlords will only result in the rent of their tenants going up.

Next, hospitals? Are you serious?

Can I punch someone in the nuts over this? Isn't this included as some other tax I'm already paying? Did they overspend on the Governor's mansion and they need to get more money and make it sound like it's something I need?

GreySpectre: I may be the minority, but charging the at fault party for cleanup doesnt seem like a bad plan to me. At least for the car accidents the fees seem reasonable to me, just drive carefully so if you involved in a crash you arnt the one who caused it.

Agreed. So long as fees truly are just fees for service delivered I have no problem with them.

Where I have a problem is when the system is either inefficient or the fees collected are in excess of the cost of providing the service.

Great Janitor: FTFA: "There is a mentality here that Johnny can't walk 100 feet, he has to be dropped off right at the front of the school - and frankly that's why Johnny is as pudgy as he is."

So much THIS!!! When I was a kid, we lived close enough to the schools that my sister and I had to walk, and we did every day until high school when we had to start riding the bus. My parents both worked and were unable to drive us less than a half mile to the school, drop us off, right at the front door, and head to work. Never was a fat kid.

It stuns me that I have two coworkers, and my boss, who both insist on not just dropping off their kids at school, but keeping their kids in the car until the doors to the school open. Me, I have no kids, so I am actually required to be at work on time every day.

Yeah. I was never driven to school except the few years I attended a private school much too far away to reach on my own. Grade school was 2/3 of a mile, high school was 1 1/2 miles.

On the bit of keeping them in the car until the school opens--maybe there are bully problems? One of the things we tried with the private school was riding on a bus to a different (but across the street) school--unfortunately, it got me there too early and that wasn't safe.

So, you all will be happy to explain to me why my reasoning is wrong, I'm sure.

Just because the economy is down does not mean entropy stops or even slows down. If one is a homeowner, one stops or reduces maintenance at is/her own peril. Ignoring the leaky roof, not patching a hole in a wall, putting off replacing that leaning rotting fence can be done, but only at a much higher future cost. Why do we expect that a government should "cut spending" on maintenance of the infrastructure we need in order to function? Especially given that a lot of new infrastructure was put into place in the last fake boom cycle and now can either be kept together or let to rot/decay/rust/weaken, etc.

What do we do? Let this stuff rot and then regret it later or do we try everything we can to keep it together to avoid the high cost of repair or replacement later.

Some examples in my town are the long wooden pier that juts out into the ocean, a few bridges/freeway overpasses that have been shedding concrete blocks onto the streets below and a sewage system that spills into the estuary regularly.

I really want these things kept up, I do NOT want deferred maintenance to make them worse, force them to close, restrict their use, etc.

I'm willing to continue to pay to have that status quo. Am I wrong?

Not exactly related to the article, but my town has a pet census every year. One must pay for having a cat or a dog. I have one cat. I tell the city I have no cat. Granted, it's only $15 a year to have a registered cat, but fark them. She's been spayed, I don't ever, ever let her outside, and I'm not paying $15 a year so the city knows she exists. Farking taxes.

Actually, the county I live in charges $3.50/month for street lights on your county water bill.

Or at least, they are supposed to. We had them put in a few years ago, and still haven't seen the fee show up. yet.

But then I pay under $2000/year in property and car tax to the county on 3 cars, a boat, and a boat trailer, so I really can't complain too much.

Loren: GreySpectre: I may be the minority, but charging the at fault party for cleanup doesnt seem like a bad plan to me. At least for the car accidents the fees seem reasonable to me, just drive carefully so if you involved in a crash you arnt the one who caused it.

Agreed. So long as fees truly are just fees for service delivered I have no problem with them.

Where I have a problem is when the system is either inefficient or the fees collected are in excess of the cost of providing the service.

Great Janitor: FTFA: "There is a mentality here that Johnny can't walk 100 feet, he has to be dropped off right at the front of the school - and frankly that's why Johnny is as pudgy as he is."

So much THIS!!! When I was a kid, we lived close enough to the schools that my sister and I had to walk, and we did every day until high school when we had to start riding the bus. My parents both worked and were unable to drive us less than a half mile to the school, drop us off, right at the front door, and head to work. Never was a fat kid.

It stuns me that I have two coworkers, and my boss, who both insist on not just dropping off their kids at school, but keeping their kids in the car until the doors to the school open. Me, I have no kids, so I am actually required to be at work on time every day.

Yeah. I was never driven to school except the few years I attended a private school much too far away to reach on my own. Grade school was 2/3 of a mile, high school was 1 1/2 miles.

On the bit of keeping them in the car until the school opens--maybe there are bully problems? One of the things we tried with the private school was riding on a bus to a different (but across the street) school--unfortunately, it got me there too early and that wasn't safe.

The reasoning my coworkers and boss have given for keeping their kids in the cars until the doors open, someone might walk onto campus and take their children. So they actually not only wait until the school doors open, but wait until their kids are inside the buildings. The reasoning of "It got to take a lot of farking balls to walk onto a campus during morning drop offs to take a kid in front of the teachers, other students, school security and parents" doesn't seem to matter.

But I really can't blame the parents 100%. My niece is in the first grade and when my sister goes to pick her up she has to walk into the cafeteria, sign in, hold up a card that says who she is, wait until her daughter's class is in the cafeteria, then her daughter must come to her, when the teacher gives her daughter permission. My sister's husband can not pick up their daughter because he called their system complete bullshiat, which identified him as a dangerous parent, put the school into lock down and banned him from campus for life.

IonBeam2: Why not turn off the damn streetlights? I hear cars have headlights nowadays. Or at least make them more efficient by reflecting all of the light downward.

Seconded! Maybe people will start remembering that there really are stars in the night sky and not just a dull orange glow all over.

/pet peeve
// no light pollution + high speed internet equals my perfect home. Now I just have to find it (and be able to afford it). :(

GreySpectre: I may be the minority, but charging the at fault party for cleanup doesnt seem like a bad plan to me. At least for the car accidents the fees seem reasonable to me, just drive carefully so if you involved in a crash you arnt the one who caused it.

You've apparently never been deemed at fault for something that was not your fault.

desynch: Or.... they could just CUT SPENDING.

Oh no.. that can't be. We must SPEND.

Liberal Democrats... IDIOTS.

Yes because only Democrats spend retarded amounts of money right?

Fizz753: IonBeam2: Why not turn off the damn streetlights? I hear cars have headlights nowadays. Or at least make them more efficient by reflecting all of the light downward.

Seconded! Maybe people will start remembering that there really are stars in the night sky and not just a dull orange glow all over.

/pet peeve
// no light pollution + high speed internet equals my perfect home. Now I just have to find it (and be able to afford it). :(

Flagstaff is really nice stars as the city has really stringent light requirements due to the nearby observatory. However, the town is small, and there are lots of hippies.

desynch:

Refresh my memory...

Who farked the economy?

Excellent.

The next time I complain about taxes and some "big government" douchebag tells me "it goes to police, emergency services, and streetlights", I can tell them to fark themselves, right?

I'd rather see my power bill go up a bit to pay for the Yucca Mountain Facility, but whatever.

lajimi: Deduct the amount of the bill from your next property tax payment. Be sure to send a copy to the local media.

What media? All of the newspapers that the politicrats would pay any attention to are on their way to bankruptcy.

Want to make your city leaders pay attention? Staple the tax bill to their dog and throw the carcass on their front porch

Mega_Doof: So, you all will be happy to explain to me why my reasoning is wrong, I'm sure.

Just because the economy is down does not mean entropy stops or even slows down. If one is a homeowner, one stops or reduces maintenance at is/her own peril. Ignoring the leaky roof, not patching a hole in a wall, putting off replacing that leaning rotting fence can be done, but only at a much higher future cost. Why do we expect that a government should "cut spending" on maintenance of the infrastructure we need in order to function? Especially given that a lot of new infrastructure was put into place in the last fake boom cycle and now can either be kept together or let to rot/decay/rust/weaken, etc.

What do we do? Let this stuff rot and then regret it later or do we try everything we can to keep it together to avoid the high cost of repair or replacement later.

Some examples in my town are the long wooden pier that juts out into the ocean, a few bridges/freeway overpasses that have been shedding concrete blocks onto the streets below and a sewage system that spills into the estuary regularly.

I really want these things kept up, I do NOT want deferred maintenance to make them worse, force them to close, restrict their use, etc.

I'm willing to continue to pay to have that status quo. Am I wrong?

Because there's plenty of stuff they spend that isn't necessary. Or they cheat. For instance, it's better politically to build a new bridge than to maintain an old one, so guess what? New bridge gets built, money gets spent, big ribbon cutting and the money that was supposed to be in reserve for maintanence is suddenly not there. Oh noes! They say. Emergency levy time or all the bridges will collapse!

Also, establishing huge new programs when you can't pay for the ones you already have. Don't come crying to me for money for a program after you've already told me you can't pay for social security and medicare, for example.

Great Janitor: My sister's husband can not pick up their daughter because he called their system complete bullshiat, which identified him as a dangerous parent, put the school into lock down and banned him from campus for life.

Someone needs to buy him a beer and a month of TF for that.

Teaching your children to be aware of their environment and how to react in bad situations is much more helpful than teaching them to simply be afraid of everything.

/we need to start taxing stupid
//or maybe a per instance user fee on stupid

robohobo: Not exactly related to the article, but my town has a pet census every year. One must pay for having a cat or a dog. I have one cat. I tell the city I have no cat. Granted, it's only $15 a year to have a registered cat, but fark them. She's been spayed, I don't ever, ever let her outside, and I'm not paying $15 a year so the city knows she exists. Farking taxes.

You pussy tax evader!