8 ms·

> until voters turned down a tax increase that would have kept the library system open Is anyone else wondering why a tax increase is needed to keep the librar

by dgzl 8y ago

> until voters turned down a tax increase that would have kept the library system open Is anyone else wondering why a tax increase is needed to keep the library open? Does that mean it wasn't sustainable? Could it be due to rising minimum wage? Is it reasonable to blame the voters? I grew up on generational property in rural southern Oregon, and it's true that there's plenty of anti-tax sentiment, including from Myself. A small town near where I grew up ceased it's police force, and is instead patrolled by county sheriffs stationed in nearby towns. The truth is there are many people out here who just want to live their private country lives, many of who have small income, and spend their year fishing and hunting for food.

tomjen3 8y ago
I don't think a library has been self-sustaining since they stopped being private and started being public. Technically libraries should get cheaper to operate, since at least the once around here now don't have staff most of the time, requiring a card to get in. Honestly, it seems like most of those communities are dying out though.
- dgzl 8y ago
  Sorry, by sustainable I meant with including whatever standard tax the library collected each year, minus the increase that apparently is needed. You could say the communities are shrinking, but you have to understand that they weren't really ever big to begin with.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Libraries don't collect taxes.
jacobolus 8y ago
City dwellers dramatically subsidize American suburbs and rural areas. Roads, water, the electric grid, communication networks, hospitals, fire suppression, law enforcement, courts, schools, mail delivery, .... public infrastructure and services get more expensive per capita when people are more spread out. On top of that, the federal government intentionally spends large amounts of money in poorer areas of the country (e.g. on military bases and weapons contractors) as an explicit geographical wealth redistribution scheme. 80 years ago the rural poverty in many parts of America was a story of shocking destitution. If people want to reduce the tax burden on folks with low incomes just scraping by, the way to accomplish that is by increasing taxes on corporate profits, very large incomes, large inheritances, etc., expand enforcement against tax evasion, and eliminate legal or quasi-legal tax-avoidance loopholes. However, the wealthy in this country have largely succeeded in a 50-year campaign to redistribute wealth upward.
- black6 8y ago
  > If people want to reduce the tax burden on folks with low incomes just scraping by, the way to accomplish that is by increasing taxes on corporate profits, very large incomes, large inheritances, etc. However, the wealthy in this country have largely succeeded in a 50-year campaign to redistribute wealth upward. It's an unpopular opinion (because of the propaganda campaigns waged by the wealthy), but a wealth tax is very much needed in this country. The income tax is fundamentally designed to prevent the accumulation of wealth. So us worker bees bear the costs of financing government, while the wealthy, who owing to their accumulated wealth, do not need or have an income, get to reap the benefits.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    The wealthy paid taxes on their wealth back when it was income. And they pay capital gains tax if their wealth grows.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Only if they realize those gains.
      - twblalock 8y ago
        Why should unrealized gains be taxed?
        derefr 8y ago
        You can get interest-free loans against your illiquid assets. With enough income coming in to replace the spent money, it's essentially as if you're spending the illiquid assets themselves, without having had to liquidate (and thereby pay taxes on) them.
        twblalock 8y ago
        This is really more like using the illiquid assets as collateral, not like spending them. The loan payments still need to be made from income, or by liquidating assets, both of which would be taxed.
twblalock 8y ago
> Is anyone else wondering why a tax increase is needed to keep the library open? Does that mean it wasn't sustainable? Could it be due to rising minimum wage? Is it reasonable to blame the voters? Of course it is reasonable to blame the voters. There was a ballot measure that would have saved the library and they chose to vote against it. It was entirely in their control.
- dgzl 8y ago
  Blame then for what? If something becomes too expensive, and it's irresponsible to fund it, then you take that thing out of the budget. Why would a library need additional money other than to pay utilities, staff wage, and new books? Besides new books, that's just operational cost and shouldn't need a tax increase.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    I don't know the specific reason in this case, but buildings don't last forever so maintenance and renovations could have been part of the increase in cost.
    - twblalock 8y ago
      Maintenance often gets deferred because there was never enough taxpayer money provided for it in the first place, until it becomes such a big problem that libraries and schools need to resort to ballot measures and municipal bonds. There was probably not enough taxpayer funding of the library system in the first place, and eventually it became impossible to continue operations.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Of course it is reasonable to blame the voters. There was a ballot measure that would have saved the library and they chose to vote against it. It was entirely in their control. This is the folly of modern day politics among the citizenry. That the only option is take more money or fail, so it's obvious that the ones given two bad choices are at fault. Was there a ballot measure to reroute funds from somewhere else? Why not? We should not pretend budget-making is entirely in the voters' control when the only options they are given is to throw more money at a problem or lose a library.
sandworm101 8y ago
And there are more people who want to live in a wild west dreamland. Without police, those with the money always win. Those with land. Those with cash. Those with relatives. Those with guns. Want to dump you used motor oil in the river? Move to somewhere without enviromental officers. Good luck with that fishing. Want to abuse your kids? Move to a town without social workers. Want to be a racist? Move somewhere with no functional legal system. Cops may often be corrupt, but not having any cops is always corrupt.
- dgzl 8y ago
  I know plenty of people living the Wild West Dream without abusing the environment or their families.
  - wavefunction 8y ago
    Nah, the Wild West is long gone and exists only in Hollywood characterisations which people today imbibe as truth.
derstander 8y ago
> Does that mean it wasn't sustainable? Could it be due to rising minimum wage? One recent trend that could incur additional costs for libraries would be e-books. I had always sort of assumed (without evidence) that the cost to benefit ratio for ebooks greatly favors publishers vs. consumers. I found a couple articles that suggest as much [0][1], but they do seem to be biased against ebook publishers. Does anyone have more information? I know a library doesn't -need- to jump on the ebook bandwagon, but ebooks are one way for libraries to service a more rural clientele. I know the Boston Public Library and New York Public Library (probably among others) offer library cards -- including ebook borrowing privileges -- to all residents of the state. [0] https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/here-is-a-breakdown-of-how-much-libraries-pay-for-ebooks-from-publishers https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/here-is-a-breakdown... [1] https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/why-do-libraries-pay-more-money-for-e-books https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/why-do-libraries-pa...
hankhill 8y ago
you guys have fun with that whole "no public services" thing
lukeschlather 8y ago
Calling it a tax increase is somewhat misleading. County services were primarily funded by the federal government charging fees to timber harvesters. This money was redirected by Congress, so the county needed to find another revenue source to keep services going. On the net, yes, it's a tax increase, but it's really only looking to keep the share of tax money going to libraries constant. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/douglas_county_libraries_to_cl.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/dougla... https://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/12/federal_payments_to_timber_cou.html#incart_river https://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/12/federal_p... This newsletter also suggests that library funding was being regularly cut prior to the loss of federal money. https://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1856&context=olaq https://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=htt...
ip26 8y ago
Is anyone else wondering why a tax increase is needed to keep the library open? Does that mean it wasn't sustainable? Declining timber revenues. https://www.vocativ.com/news/434974/douglas-county-oregon-last-library/index.html https://www.vocativ.com/news/434974/douglas-county-oregon-la... https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/douglas_county_libraries_to_cl.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/dougla...
zackmorris 8y ago
I live in southern Idaho and we have similar problems with poverty in rural areas due to declining timber, grazing and mining industries. Those problems are due to a hundred years of unsustainable mismanagement and were anticipated by environmentalists decades before they played out. There is a strong anti-tax sentiment here, especially in northern and southeastern Idaho, but I don't share it. The truth is that the vast majority of federal tax money today goes to the military, corporate welfare (tax breaks) and debt service. At the state level, the biggest costs are due to loss of taxes as incentives for corporations to relocate to certain cities, the loss of main street small business taxes that closed when Walmart/Amazon took over, and subsidies to factory farm conglomerates like Simplot (where your french fries come from). So a $6 tax to keep libraries open is a pittance. To me it represents a last desperate dismissal by the people of a government that has utterly failed them. Sadly all of the above causes stem from good ol' boys in Republican clothing, who made backroom deals to enrich themselves and their cronies while working folks got taken. But we keep voting for them so the situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. The saddest part of all is that due to the electoral college and overrepresentation of low-population states like mine in the US Senate, our short-term populist thinking has spread to the national stage. People don't generally change political parties, and unlike us fringe intellectuals frequenting HN, are hesitant to examine their own ignorance and learn from the past. For me there is little alternative but to spread the truth about what happened in us flyover states and wait for the youth to vote for a better future.
- noobermin 8y ago
  I know this people say that people in red states vote against their interests, but I think it misses some aspects. Red states tend to have onerous voter disenfranchisement which tends to target people of color but also poor whites as well who are also likely to not have IDs. Moreover, poor people have to work, and aren't as willing to lose time in the day and get fired in order to vote. It's similar to the discussion about 2016. Forever the media narrative has been poor whites voted for Trump, but the exit polls show that his voter base skewed towards higher pay than did Clinton's, and that doesn't even count the myriad of people who never vote because they don't see the exercise as having a positive benefit for them. May be the media and politicians in red states hypes taxes etc., but polls show a majority of people in the US support raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations[0]. So, I've never really believed people in red states really that anti-tax in the majority. The ones who I've come across who are tend to be wealthy. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx
briffle 8y ago
For decades, local counties in Oregon were allowed to put a small tax/fee on each load of timber hauled out of the national forests. This was because while it was federal forests, the county still had to maintain roads, build hospitals, schools, etc. In the 90's, logging was drastically cut back, due to several factors (the spotted owl being a major one). For about 20 years, the federal government kept making those payments. About 10 or so years ago, those payments stopped. Most of the counties couldn't/wouldn't cut back, even though they knew that it was coming (their senators had brought home the bacon the past years, etc). But no longer having that subsidy, plus the very anti-government (this is the state of jefferson [1]) anti-tax people that lived there meant funds were re-allocated to critical infrastructure only. (ie, parks are no longer watered/mowed, no libraries, the bare minimum gaurds at jails, (not what is best practices), etc [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...

by dgzl 8y ago

tomjen3 8y ago

I don't think a library has been self-sustaining since they stopped being private and started being public. Technically libraries should get cheaper to operate, since at least the once around here now don't have staff most of the time, requiring a card to get in. Honestly, it seems like most of those communities are dying out though.

dgzl 8y ago
Sorry, by sustainable I meant with including whatever standard tax the library collected each year, minus the increase that apparently is needed. You could say the communities are shrinking, but you have to understand that they weren't really ever big to begin with.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Libraries don't collect taxes.

jacobolus 8y ago

City dwellers dramatically subsidize American suburbs and rural areas. Roads, water, the electric grid, communication networks, hospitals, fire suppression, law enforcement, courts, schools, mail delivery, .... public infrastructure and services get more expensive per capita when people are more spread out. On top of that, the federal government intentionally spends large amounts of money in poorer areas of the country (e.g. on military bases and weapons contractors) as an explicit geographical wealth redistribution scheme. 80 years ago the rural poverty in many parts of America was a story of shocking destitution. If people want to reduce the tax burden on folks with low incomes just scraping by, the way to accomplish that is by increasing taxes on corporate profits, very large incomes, large inheritances, etc., expand enforcement against tax evasion, and eliminate legal or quasi-legal tax-avoidance loopholes. However, the wealthy in this country have largely succeeded in a 50-year campaign to redistribute wealth upward.

black6 8y ago
> If people want to reduce the tax burden on folks with low incomes just scraping by, the way to accomplish that is by increasing taxes on corporate profits, very large incomes, large inheritances, etc. However, the wealthy in this country have largely succeeded in a 50-year campaign to redistribute wealth upward. It's an unpopular opinion (because of the propaganda campaigns waged by the wealthy), but a wealth tax is very much needed in this country. The income tax is fundamentally designed to prevent the accumulation of wealth. So us worker bees bear the costs of financing government, while the wealthy, who owing to their accumulated wealth, do not need or have an income, get to reap the benefits.
- twblalock 8y ago
  The wealthy paid taxes on their wealth back when it was income. And they pay capital gains tax if their wealth grows.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Only if they realize those gains.
    - twblalock 8y ago
      Why should unrealized gains be taxed?
      - derefr 8y ago
        You can get interest-free loans against your illiquid assets. With enough income coming in to replace the spent money, it's essentially as if you're spending the illiquid assets themselves, without having had to liquidate (and thereby pay taxes on) them.
        twblalock 8y ago
        This is really more like using the illiquid assets as collateral, not like spending them. The loan payments still need to be made from income, or by liquidating assets, both of which would be taxed.

twblalock 8y ago

> Is anyone else wondering why a tax increase is needed to keep the library open? Does that mean it wasn't sustainable? Could it be due to rising minimum wage? Is it reasonable to blame the voters? Of course it is reasonable to blame the voters. There was a ballot measure that would have saved the library and they chose to vote against it. It was entirely in their control.

dgzl 8y ago
Blame then for what? If something becomes too expensive, and it's irresponsible to fund it, then you take that thing out of the budget. Why would a library need additional money other than to pay utilities, staff wage, and new books? Besides new books, that's just operational cost and shouldn't need a tax increase.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  I don't know the specific reason in this case, but buildings don't last forever so maintenance and renovations could have been part of the increase in cost.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    Maintenance often gets deferred because there was never enough taxpayer money provided for it in the first place, until it becomes such a big problem that libraries and schools need to resort to ballot measures and municipal bonds. There was probably not enough taxpayer funding of the library system in the first place, and eventually it became impossible to continue operations.
kodablah 8y ago
> Of course it is reasonable to blame the voters. There was a ballot measure that would have saved the library and they chose to vote against it. It was entirely in their control. This is the folly of modern day politics among the citizenry. That the only option is take more money or fail, so it's obvious that the ones given two bad choices are at fault. Was there a ballot measure to reroute funds from somewhere else? Why not? We should not pretend budget-making is entirely in the voters' control when the only options they are given is to throw more money at a problem or lose a library.

sandworm101 8y ago

And there are more people who want to live in a wild west dreamland. Without police, those with the money always win. Those with land. Those with cash. Those with relatives. Those with guns. Want to dump you used motor oil in the river? Move to somewhere without enviromental officers. Good luck with that fishing. Want to abuse your kids? Move to a town without social workers. Want to be a racist? Move somewhere with no functional legal system. Cops may often be corrupt, but not having any cops is always corrupt.

dgzl 8y ago
I know plenty of people living the Wild West Dream without abusing the environment or their families.
- wavefunction 8y ago
  Nah, the Wild West is long gone and exists only in Hollywood characterisations which people today imbibe as truth.

derstander 8y ago

> Does that mean it wasn't sustainable? Could it be due to rising minimum wage? One recent trend that could incur additional costs for libraries would be e-books. I had always sort of assumed (without evidence) that the cost to benefit ratio for ebooks greatly favors publishers vs. consumers. I found a couple articles that suggest as much [0][1], but they do seem to be biased against ebook publishers. Does anyone have more information? I know a library doesn't -need- to jump on the ebook bandwagon, but ebooks are one way for libraries to service a more rural clientele. I know the Boston Public Library and New York Public Library (probably among others) offer library cards -- including ebook borrowing privileges -- to all residents of the state. [0] https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/here-is-a-breakdown-of-how-much-libraries-pay-for-ebooks-from-publishers https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/here-is-a-breakdown... [1] https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/why-do-libraries-pay-more-money-for-e-books https://goodereader.com/blog/e-book-news/why-do-libraries-pa...

hankhill 8y ago

you guys have fun with that whole "no public services" thing

lukeschlather 8y ago

Calling it a tax increase is somewhat misleading. County services were primarily funded by the federal government charging fees to timber harvesters. This money was redirected by Congress, so the county needed to find another revenue source to keep services going. On the net, yes, it's a tax increase, but it's really only looking to keep the share of tax money going to libraries constant. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/douglas_county_libraries_to_cl.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/dougla... https://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/12/federal_payments_to_timber_cou.html#incart_river https://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/12/federal_p... This newsletter also suggests that library funding was being regularly cut prior to the loss of federal money. https://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1856&context=olaq https://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=htt...

ip26 8y ago

Is anyone else wondering why a tax increase is needed to keep the library open? Does that mean it wasn't sustainable? Declining timber revenues. https://www.vocativ.com/news/434974/douglas-county-oregon-last-library/index.html https://www.vocativ.com/news/434974/douglas-county-oregon-la... https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/douglas_county_libraries_to_cl.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/dougla...

zackmorris 8y ago

I live in southern Idaho and we have similar problems with poverty in rural areas due to declining timber, grazing and mining industries. Those problems are due to a hundred years of unsustainable mismanagement and were anticipated by environmentalists decades before they played out. There is a strong anti-tax sentiment here, especially in northern and southeastern Idaho, but I don't share it. The truth is that the vast majority of federal tax money today goes to the military, corporate welfare (tax breaks) and debt service. At the state level, the biggest costs are due to loss of taxes as incentives for corporations to relocate to certain cities, the loss of main street small business taxes that closed when Walmart/Amazon took over, and subsidies to factory farm conglomerates like Simplot (where your french fries come from). So a $6 tax to keep libraries open is a pittance. To me it represents a last desperate dismissal by the people of a government that has utterly failed them. Sadly all of the above causes stem from good ol' boys in Republican clothing, who made backroom deals to enrich themselves and their cronies while working folks got taken. But we keep voting for them so the situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. The saddest part of all is that due to the electoral college and overrepresentation of low-population states like mine in the US Senate, our short-term populist thinking has spread to the national stage. People don't generally change political parties, and unlike us fringe intellectuals frequenting HN, are hesitant to examine their own ignorance and learn from the past. For me there is little alternative but to spread the truth about what happened in us flyover states and wait for the youth to vote for a better future.

noobermin 8y ago
I know this people say that people in red states vote against their interests, but I think it misses some aspects. Red states tend to have onerous voter disenfranchisement which tends to target people of color but also poor whites as well who are also likely to not have IDs. Moreover, poor people have to work, and aren't as willing to lose time in the day and get fired in order to vote. It's similar to the discussion about 2016. Forever the media narrative has been poor whites voted for Trump, but the exit polls show that his voter base skewed towards higher pay than did Clinton's, and that doesn't even count the myriad of people who never vote because they don't see the exercise as having a positive benefit for them. May be the media and politicians in red states hypes taxes etc., but polls show a majority of people in the US support raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations[0]. So, I've never really believed people in red states really that anti-tax in the majority. The ones who I've come across who are tend to be wealthy. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx

briffle 8y ago

For decades, local counties in Oregon were allowed to put a small tax/fee on each load of timber hauled out of the national forests. This was because while it was federal forests, the county still had to maintain roads, build hospitals, schools, etc. In the 90's, logging was drastically cut back, due to several factors (the spotted owl being a major one). For about 20 years, the federal government kept making those payments. About 10 or so years ago, those payments stopped. Most of the counties couldn't/wouldn't cut back, even though they knew that it was coming (their senators had brought home the bacon the past years, etc). But no longer having that subsidy, plus the very anti-government (this is the state of jefferson [1]) anti-tax people that lived there meant funds were re-allocated to critical infrastructure only. (ie, parks are no longer watered/mowed, no libraries, the bare minimum gaurds at jails, (not what is best practices), etc [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...