Home › Forums › Open Discussion › User fees for state parks?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 8, 2011 at 12:34 am #597881
skeeterParticipantThe state has pretty severe budget problems, so there are proposals in Olympia to charge a day use fee for entering a state park. Currently, entry into the state parks is free. You only have to pay if you want to launch a boat or get a reserved camping space.
I’m torn on this. On one hand, it makes sense to charge people who visit the parks. On the other hand, there are MANY taxpayer services that are free. For example, I can go to the library, use a computer, check out a book, and read a magazine for free. Why are libraries free but state parks would not be?
Other thoughts?
February 8, 2011 at 12:38 am #716708
ZenguyParticipantAgree with your concern, maybe they could go to a suggested donation for those that can afford it or a free day like the museum.
February 8, 2011 at 12:50 am #716709
DPMemberLibrary late fees and some other fees have gone up recently, skeeter. Granted, this won’t apply to most patrons, but some will now be shelling out.
I recently got a book through interlibrary loan, for example.
Old I-LL fee: $0.00
New I-LL fee: $5.00
Moreover, library hours and (I think) acquisitions have been curtailed too. So, in a sense, libraries and patrons are doing their part to save money.
Besides this, libraries have a loooong tradition of not charging patrons to check out materials, and that figures into it as well. State and national parks, on the other hand, have historically charged various kinds of “user fees,” as you point out.
–DP
Just curious, by the way, skeeter: How did you vote on I-1098?
February 8, 2011 at 12:55 am #716710
ZenguyParticipantSad, that the people that need the books the most might not be able to have access to them.
February 8, 2011 at 1:12 am #716711
Genesee HillParticipantMy thoughts are:
I have no problem paying an additional fee.
There is already a voluntary five dollar fee that one can pay on their motor vehicle license tab renewal, which I opt to pay.
I voted for I 1098 and almost every other tax increase. Call me stupid, or whatever, but I am willing to pay for “quality of life” public works.
February 8, 2011 at 1:13 am #716712
skeeterParticipantDP, I voted “no” on 1098. Washington’s tax structure creates a tremendous competitive advantage in attracting talent and high-paying jobs. That trickles down to little folks like me and gives us the opportunity to work hard and enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. I didn’t want to see that go away.
I am aware, though, that my statement above is a statement of opinion, not fact. Many would disagree with it on both economic and moral grounds.
February 8, 2011 at 1:38 am #716713
maplesyrupParticipantI’m fine with it. My family pays anyway when we use the parks, and people gotta realize that it costs money to use government services.
February 8, 2011 at 1:46 am #716714
ZenguyParticipantI prefer not to think of them as taxes, rather as investments in my state. That is not to say that I vote for every one.
February 8, 2011 at 1:58 am #716715
Genesee HillParticipantFebruary 8, 2011 at 2:40 am #716716
DPMemberskeeter: You could be right about preserving the middle-class lifestyle. Macro-economics isn’t really a hard science, after all, and I’m sure that many intelligent people voted the same way you did on I-1098, and for the same reasons.
However, as I see it, the “middle-class lifestyle” you’re talking about is a relatively abstract thing, while parks, libraries, and other public services are more concrete. And we’re losing these things in the here and now, all because we voted down I-1098.
The salad days are over. If we simply refuse to raise taxes on wealthy people, we might eventually find ourselves having to give up lots of amenities we formerly took for granted. And at some point along this continuum, only the wealthy will be able to afford to go to parks, read books, stay healthy, and so on.
There goes your middle-class lifestyle . . .
February 8, 2011 at 2:57 am #716717
ZenguyParticipantAgreed DP. And who do the rich think work to make them rich…there are many societies that have overthrown the rich and taken back their countries. It is about understanding that we all need each other and cannot exist alone.
February 8, 2011 at 9:05 am #716718
HMC RichParticipantI say let the park users pay to use the state parks. A consumption tax if you will, or as Zenguy put it, an investment in the state. I always donate when I go to state parks.
Time to license the Chupacabras and jackalopes too.
February 8, 2011 at 4:48 pm #716719
JoBParticipantHMCRich
heaven forbid that actual citizens should benefit from the taxes they pay.
and yes.. even poor people pay the taxes built into everything they purchase.
February 8, 2011 at 5:32 pm #716720
skeeterParticipantI don’t know DP. Oregon and California both have state income taxes. Their job growth is significantly slower than ours. Washington already has high property taxes and sales taxes. Adding an income tax would make other states more attractive. We could go around and around, though, and probably never agree.
As for the state parks charging an admission fee, the thing I struggle with is MY taxes didn’t go down. I pay the same property tax and the same sales tax. And now I’m receiving fewer services. It’s just frustrating.
February 8, 2011 at 5:36 pm #716721
Genesee HillParticipantMy property taxes went down in 2010. The economy is “on the ropes”. Less money to go around. I think the choice regarding Washington State Parks is: shut some of them down, or charge a fee.
I choose to pay a fee.
February 8, 2011 at 6:37 pm #716722
SmittyParticipant“Agreed DP. And who do the rich think work to make them rich”
Sincerely, Arianna Huffington
February 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm #716723
hooper1961Memberif the state would reduce social service and health care spending more money would be available for other items.
February 9, 2011 at 12:58 am #716724
DPMemberhooper: Do you mean specifically “slash health-care waste” —or do you mean you want to just slash health-care spending across the board?
No wait. Don’t tell me. You think this is not even a problem because everyone can afford their own insurance, right?
Here we go again . . .
*************************************************************************************
On wealth and taxation in general:
Of course I recognize that many rich people have worked hard for their money. I admire them. Other rich people inherited their money, however, or essentially swiped it on Wall Street and places like that. I don’t admire this second group, but I don’t believe in doing away with the capitalist system for all that. In some ways it’s still a very good system, in spite of its flaws.
I do believe in taxing wealthier people at a higher rate, even though I recognize this to be fundamentally unfair to the rich who worked hard for their money. But you see, progressive taxation is the only way to ensure that we, as a society, can meet everyone’s basic needs, without throttling the entrepreneurial spirit that helped make this country great.
How would America fare under a system of progressive taxation?
— The hard-working poor would benefit most, by taking advantage of better health care and educational opportunities.
— The hard-working rich might suffer under progressive taxation (it depends on a lot of things) or they might actually benefit, from a healthier, smarter workforce. (See: “Germany.”) In any case, the hard-working rich wouldn’t go extinct under such a system.
— The lazy rich would suffer most under progressive taxation. But who cares? They’re parasites anyway. Let ’em work for a change, like everyone else.
–David
February 9, 2011 at 5:15 am #716725
nighthawkParticipantI would prefer that things like state taxes be supported through tax dollars because I think they should be available to all and I know that if you are on the lower end of the economic scale user fees can be a deterrent.
I know that a few years ago we had the day fee or you could buy a year pass for state parks. I think going back to that model would be ok with the budget like it is.
I don’t remember what the car fee was maybe $5? and $50 for the year.
February 9, 2011 at 8:46 am #716726
HMC RichParticipantSigh…
JoB, I want all people to enjoy the parks but they are not a necessity. There are plenty of city, county, port parks that are “free” to all tax payers.
And, if one doesn’t buy a pack of cigarettes or a 12 pack of soda and maybe the $5.00 user fee wouldn’t be so bad.
Yes, I would rather not pay but Government revenues are down. The private sector citizens can help out a bit. Plus, some people from all income classes do not use the State Parks. I guess they are getting ripped off by the government if I use your line of thinking.
February 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm #716727
JoBParticipantHMCRich…
As a single mom who relied on state parks for major outings with my kids i can assure you that cigarettes and beer aren’t what i would have to give up today to fund a visit.
shame on you for the use of such a demeaning stereotype.
that $5 might not mean much to you
but to someone struggling to feed their children..
that’s the choice between the park
and the picnic you had hoped to eat there.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.