This is an email from my dad who lives in southern Arizona :
"Tomorrow evening, I'm planning to stand up and comment about the Sonoita-Elgin Fire Departments plans on increasing our tax rate. Since the property values have fallen, keeping the same rate per hundred dollars of assessed value of our property means that they won't get as much money. I agree and think that they need to spend less money rather than take a larger percentage of our worth. They don't drop the rates when our values go up. They say that they will have to lower the service they give us if they have to cut. They also make anyone who doesn't want to give them more seem greedy and cruel. They put the burden on us to take away from them when they are such nice people doing so much for the community. I'm finding it hard to come up with a convincing argument to make them responsible for doing damage to our community by sucking more wealth from us that could be used to help the local economy. Many people here are retired with fixed incomes that aren't being increased and with the inflation of energy and food are having to already live with less. This isn't a nationwide economic debate but a local one and they seem to always win because people always look at increases as not being so much so are willing to pay rather than fight. I find it to be reprehensible that even local government would keep taking a larger share of the communities wealth and liquid assets for their own purposes rather than try to live with the same economic pressures that the communities residents have to live with. I am finding it really difficult to come up with a bulletproof argument that would win the day. Do you have any ideas?"
I honestly believe he'll be wasting his time...
Any suggestions?
That is a tough one. In general success in appealing to people and being persuasive hinges a lot on the people you're trying to persuade. And the forum you're speaking in matters considerably too. Is he going to have the floor and actual time to make an argument, or will this be more of a "ask your question and sit down" setting?
It's possible the most effective route would be to get some actual figures and simply address the status quo. How many tax raises have there been in how many years? What has been the rate of increase? How many fires have occured? How much damage has been incurred? As he said, the rates don't drop when property values go up...so what do the fluctuations in property values actually look like, and how often have they gotten more money this way?
Most importantly...is "cutting service" so bad? We've got the same issue with the federal government right now. Someone says how we should cut the budget by half and everyone gasps and rattles off how that's just nutty...whoever is saying that is a radical kook nutjob. There's no way the government could function on half the budget. Only problem is, government was functioning on half the current budget...in 2002. I remember 2002. Do you? Wasn't exactly that long ago. Last time I checked, the world didn't end and grandma wasn't starving in the street. Same thing in your father's town. He should find out what they were spending and the quality of the service. I can almost guarantee you it was just fine. Odds are if you chart the data, it'll look a lot like the Dept. of Education info: spending/taxes have continuously gone up, while service/incidents of fire have remained roughly the same (or even gone down...meaning there is less of a need for fire services).
I think that's really his best bet. Where he's going to get that data, I'm not completely sure...especially not in 24 hours...but a lot of counties have quite a bit of info online. And he might even take a visit to a couple different public buildings and see if he can get ahold of some data that way. You never know.
If he can't get the actual data, he could always just appeal to the people and their memory. "Do things really seem that much worse? Is there some need that won't be met without a tax increase? What services will be cut? Should be not be provided with specific things we would lose so that we can make an informed decision as to whether we want to pay for it?"
But the comment about being labeled greedy reminds me of a comment made in a Mises documentary: "There is a three-word lexicon that explains the tax economy: need, greed, and compassion. 'Need' now means wanting someone else's money, 'greed' means wanting to keep your own, and 'compassion' is the sentiment of the politician who wants to arrange the transfer."
Thank you for your reply!
I also think it is a tough one. Given the fact that they are throwing slanders around, I believe he'll be facing a nice thick brick wall. Unfortunately I have no idea what the setting is going to be like.
I agree that collecting all that data could help, but in such a short time I don't know if it will be possible to analyse all of it and build a case against the Fire Department.
Anyways I forwarded your reply to my dad so hopefully it will provide him with some ideas.