3 ms·
That's quite an ignorant view. The solution is simple: keep a reserve, put everything into the budget and don't spend the money if it gets rejected. For example
by Hermel 10y ago
That's quite an ignorant view. The solution is simple: keep a reserve, put everything into the budget and don't spend the money if it gets rejected. For example, my local community has liquid assets of about 50 millions and no debt. So if there is a vote on a new school for 20 millions that gets rejected, the 50 millions stay there for future ideas. It's quite simple, really. I find the idea that a budget must always be fully used somewhat strange.
- alkonaut 10y ago"Keep a reserve" is the hard part. Most countries are in debt. Even if you have a reserve to begin with we can disregard it as a temporary luxury - long term the budget must be in balance or the reserve will disappear. If you vote for "2% raised taxes" or "expand railway network" only the combination (yes, yes) and (no, no) can balance the budget. People would likely vote against the tax increase but for the infrastructure investment. And even if you could afford it - how do you prioritize it against something else that was also accepted through referendum?
- jdavis703 10y agoIt's quite common to have both bundled together when voting on ballot measures. In the East Bay there was recently a proposition to expand public transport via a temporary increase in sales tax called measure BB.