SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
FIND US ON:
Bookmans News
My fellow Tucsonans,
I am writing you once more about the upcoming vote for the pawn/secondhand tax. I know that today in study session the Chief of Police will give you his recommendation that you enact this ordinance. As clearly as possible I want to say this is bad law based on flawed logic. The justification for this new tax, on a certain segment of our community, is that we cause more work for our public servants and therefore should pay some of those costs. If this rational were carried to its logical conclusion then any of us that cause "extra work" would have to pay for that burden. Should neighborhoods that have more crime and require more visits from our police pay higher taxes? How about areas of town with old houses paying more because the fire department has more calls to that area? This is not the way things are done in our society. Or perhaps those who already pay more taxes do deserve a faster response time? This is not the way it is supposed to work. We all expect and deserve an equal amount of service regardless of our contribution to the governments coffers. I am asking you to really consider the message you are sending with this law if it passes. Tying any governmental service to how much you pay is bad law and bad precedence.
Please consider a minor flat increase in the business license tax across the board to help our police department provide the services that all businesses need regardless of our particular chosen professions.
Thank you,
Bob Oldfather
CEO and Founder, Bookmans
Twitter Updates
Archive
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- May 2007
- April 2007

May 11, 2010
Actually, that is precisely how taxes should work.
The better argument to take here is that the tax will effectively serve as added insurance against property theft for the ENTIRE population, but the cost of that insurance will be paid regressively only by those who shop second hand. If the general population wishes additional protection, the general population should pay for it. They should not ask me, a frequent purchaser of second hand books and a law-abiding citizen, to pay for that protection for them.