GregBickal
New Member
oh goody more sales tax increases, just what my business needs. If people want the goverment to have your money, just send them your check, but do not vote to force me to give them my money.
If that money pays for any more bike trails I will be pissed!
If that money pays for any more bike trails I will be pissed!
Last edited:
GregBickal
New Member
I chewed out a biker the other day for not using his hand signals when he turned. Just because you are on a bike doesnt mean you dont have to follow the laws of the road. Signals people, signals.
I would have rather seen this fund be something on your Iowa income tax refund, like the cow/calf fund. Im not apposed to the fund, I am apposed to more taxes.
Ive worked for government too long to see how they can twist things to use the money for their advantage. If a pork project will "help clean water" it can use the money. Sure 3/8ths of 1% will go to the fund. That leaves 5/8ths free and clear for them to squander.
I would have rather seen this fund be something on your Iowa income tax refund, like the cow/calf fund. Im not apposed to the fund, I am apposed to more taxes.
Ive worked for government too long to see how they can twist things to use the money for their advantage. If a pork project will "help clean water" it can use the money. Sure 3/8ths of 1% will go to the fund. That leaves 5/8ths free and clear for them to squander.
Last edited:
DannyBoy
Well-Known Member
I understand your stance, Greg. But being an amendment, doesn't that make it more difficult for the shysters in politics to tap into that fund and delegate the money to some other nonsense?
I really think that if the money is used where it needs to be, i.e., wetland improvement, watershed management, soil/tile work, etc, it will save the state money in the long run by preventing a lot of disasters. Not to mention it has the potential to improve our parks and possibly our hunting as well as clean up our water sources... Let's just hope that's the case, anyways.
I really think that if the money is used where it needs to be, i.e., wetland improvement, watershed management, soil/tile work, etc, it will save the state money in the long run by preventing a lot of disasters. Not to mention it has the potential to improve our parks and possibly our hunting as well as clean up our water sources... Let's just hope that's the case, anyways.
Thinkin Rut
PMA Member
OMG...someone on my side!
letemmature
Member
don t worry guys i was thinking like you. more bike trails and more game management areas where i can t hunt. Oh and I get to pay for all of this, thats f***ing awesome!!!!
Thinkin Rut
PMA Member
Well....maybe just for this one issue.:grin:I know, I didn't think there was one either.
GregBickal
New Member
Ive seen how FEMA blew through money during the flood recovery. Government always has a loophole to get what they want done, Amendment or not. You name a project and I bet you I can figure a way they can use that money on it.
The more tax money you give the government the more powerful they become. Remember why we came to this country in the first place, so we could quit giving all of our money to the Queen.
The more tax money you give the government the more powerful they become. Remember why we came to this country in the first place, so we could quit giving all of our money to the Queen.
Last edited:
Some of you guys don't understand the Conservation Fund.There will be tax increases no matter what I assume.If the Conservation Fund hadn't passed then NONE of the funds would have gone to conservation most likely.
From what I gather the conservation fund ISN'T a tax increase.It is to insure that if/when there is one that a portion of the money goes to conservation.What could possibly be wrong with that?
From what I gather the conservation fund ISN'T a tax increase.It is to insure that if/when there is one that a portion of the money goes to conservation.What could possibly be wrong with that?
GregBickal
New Member
This was a "get your foot in the door" type of move. Same as handing out a free toaster to get you to start up a checking account.
From the Des Moines Register
Remember when Iowa's Sales tax was 5%? Then 6%, plus everyone started voting for the 7% local option so they made that statewide. Now possibly 8%. With federal taxes thats over 20% of my income that the government is getting. When is it going to end?
From the Des Moines Register
Remember when Iowa's Sales tax was 5%? Then 6%, plus everyone started voting for the 7% local option so they made that statewide. Now possibly 8%. With federal taxes thats over 20% of my income that the government is getting. When is it going to end?
baggin_bucks
Active Member
Greg,
I think you are argueing about tax increases not the amendment. I don't want a tax increase either but if/when it happens I'm sure glad part of the increase is going into the conservation fund. It has been stated many times that the talk is the tax increase is probably five years out. I personally don't think the amendment in it's self will bring that date ahead any. Either way I guess everyone has their opinion and we are just stating our own. :way:
I think you are argueing about tax increases not the amendment. I don't want a tax increase either but if/when it happens I'm sure glad part of the increase is going into the conservation fund. It has been stated many times that the talk is the tax increase is probably five years out. I personally don't think the amendment in it's self will bring that date ahead any. Either way I guess everyone has their opinion and we are just stating our own. :way:
baggin_bucks
Active Member
Unfortunately the answer to your question is probably never. Which brings up my opinion of the amendment again, might as well have a portion of it help conservation.
Last edited:
You're right archery95. I voted for the ammendment because I think that we need to have more funds dedicated for conservation and for conservation only (and things related that are spelled out in the wording of the ammendment) and this ammendment basically guarantees that.
What kind of shocks me is that some people don't understand that if the government think's its necessary to increase the sales tax by 1% to generate funds for projects, budget shortfalls or whatever and the Ammendment is taking 3/8 of that percent, they're going to have to come up with that 3/8 percent somewhere. And more than likely it's going to come in the form of another or a higher gross tax increase so they can net the same amount after the Ammendment gets their 3/8%. So in essense, IMO, even though the Ammendment isn't a 'tax increase' in the way it was proposed and drafted, it will still increase taxes at some point.