Specter
User
Platinum Board Member
| Posts: 1116 |  |
|
Re:Pay for Play is up to $150.00 per child per sport last year it was $75.0 - 2006/10/15 23:22
I have been following this discussion with interest. I agree that the pay-for-play is getting a bit draconian - at least it could be limited by the number of times it has to be paid each year or by family. If we are going to keep the pay $ for activities, then it should be applied to ALL extra-curricular activities. Band, Clubs, Drama, everything. Doing it any other way is prejudicial to those who have to pay now.
But - the real bottom line here is our out-of-control spending in town. This year was the smallest tax increase in 15 years. That was only because our state reps found some money that the town was owed and hadn't been paid. The question becomes how in the world are we ever going to get expenditures under control? Or maybe more, how will we do that, and build a viable commercial base for property tax?
Although I have not finished writing the article yet - I'll go back to SHARE's FAQs. At their site they talk about alternatives to the large retail center. Things like:
· Insurance/financial services
· High-technology manufacturing
· Biotechnology
· Fuel cells
· Film/television production (thanks to generous new CT tax credits)
· Medical spa
· Conventional medical/healthcare facilities
· High-tech agri-business
· Community theater
· Indoor sports facility
· For-profit educational facility
SHARE's reasoning is sound for most of these concepts - they could bring in more tax revenue than a retail center. BIG could. I suspect an office building could. The problem with this line is that there are no other candidates lining up to develop the site. None. Nada. So, while their solution makes some sense, what shall we do about taxes in the mean time? Just let the land lie fallow for 20 years? That isn't helping to build the tax base. Funny thing is, that to attract business like the ones SHARE would like, we would probably have to give lots and lots of tax exemptions - so it would not help the tax base anyways.
Our options are fairly simple to envision, but harder to achieve. First - we could stop raising taxes. Of course this would take actual work on the part of bureaucrats to find ways to trim budgets. It would mean cutting non-essential things. Not likely to happen.
Second - we could get the government to pay for all the things we want (sports for the kids, music, etc.). That will require a much larger tax increase. Remember, governments do not work like businesses. They don't have to be aware of their expenses because they can just raise their prices (tax more).
Third - We can rely on groups like SHARE to make building developments even more difficult than it is already is. In essence, NO DEVELOPMENT.
Fourth - We can just pay more for our kids to benefit from the activities.
Fifth - We can put a new government in place that is responsible about expenses (how much revenue has the Band Shell generated for the town? How many of you have had the opportunity to see a show there?)
Personally, I think that as far a pay-for-play goes, the parents should pay. Not all kids play sports. It really is not fair for the town to pay for all of it because then some people are getting rooked. But, that said, it means that the fair way to go is to charge student's families for ALL activities. Whatever the pro-rata is for the sports activities (i.e. $150/Total Sports Expenditure by School) - that percentage should be applied to all clubs and other extra-curricular activities that children participate in. Oh - and I agree that we don't need broadway type expenditures for our drama productions. If the kids parents want that - let them pay for it.
Post edited by: Specter, at: 2006/10/15 23:22
___________________
Talk atya L8r,
Specter
The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth. - Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964); SHARE (2005 - ) |
Specter (1116)
