I'm totally opposed to the "Forest Adventure Pass"

[XemaSab]

where citizens of Southern California have to pay 30 bucks in order to park on Forest Service land and enjoy the national forests down here.

It's not Disneyland or a private theme park where you have to pay to play. It's the property of the citizens!

It's public land!

The people own it!

For that matter, I am opposed to any fees for using public land with the possible exception of county parks and OHV areas.

What do we pay taxes for? I would guess that Southern California sends more money to the Feds than is spent here, so how is it that the rest of the country gets funding from the government in order to pay for the forests but Southern California doesn't?

[Squatch]

1. It's a "pay-as-you-go" tax.

And, frankly, I think they need to be seriously considered in other areas of public administration, too.

For instance, a portion of your taxes go to paying for public schools. Isn't it unfair on people who don't have and/or never will have children to levy that tax?

I don't know the answer to that, but I think such tax programs need to be examined. Anybody have any thoughts on that?

[elehhhhna]

2. I never had a fire but still pay for the fire dept.

[Hugin]

3. Do you benefit from the children of others?

Then they are worth the investment.

[XemaSab]

8. I benefit from the children of others not going on the dole

or becoming criminals. Or both.

[Hugin]

10. My point being...

Have you ever gained anything from someone who has passed
through the public educational system? (other than them not being
incarcerated or on perpetual welfare.)

I know I have... Many times over the years.

So, I feel paying for the education of others is worth it.

Besides, the availability of public education is the only hedge
against a monopoly of private school educated people taking *all*
of the jobs.

[MadHound]

5. It is in the best interest of *every* citizen

For the US public to be literate and educated. It helps society run better, and keeps people from being a drag on this country. Besides, that young whippersnapper doctor who cures your cancer might just have gotten their start at the local school which was partially funded with your taxes.

[dysfunctional press]

6. public schools benefit everyone.

i never attended public schools, and we have no children- but i don't mind my taxes supporting them.

HOWEVER- if they're going to justify giving "vouchers" to people to take their tax dollars OUT of the public schools, then they had damn well better plan on giving me a "voucher" for my tax dollars too.

[Hugin]

7. Hear, Hear!

True discretion.

[AndyTiedye]

13. Education is Expensive, But Ignorance is A Lot More So

[LSK]

28. where did you go to school?

I might not have kids that go to public school, but I went to them.

[Hugin]

4. Fees are a form of Regressive Taxation.

Puts the burden on those least able to pay.

It's also a hidden means of keeping out the riff-raff. (i.e. Anybody who isn't
like whoever set up the rules and we all know the folks with the gold make the
rules here in New-America)

[jobycom]

9. Funny, I was going to post that it was a progressive tax

And still will make that claim. It charges only the people who use it, and therefore allows those who can't afford it to opt out of paying for it. If it is federal park land, then we all pay towards preserving the land, but the additional level of expense caused by maintaining it for tourists is footed by the tourists.

[Hugin]

11. Well, maybe they don't use it because they can't afford to use it.

The discussion at hand is about "park lands".

However, if Regressive Taxation takes hold there, what is to keep it
from being implemented in all areas of public service?

You want the fire in your house extinguished? Can you afford it? No?
Well, then... Burn, baby... Burn!

[jobycom]

17. They won't pay less if the tax if the fee is eliminated.

The fee won't go away just because they collect it differently. That $30 per visitor will be paid, if not by the people using the park, then as an addition al tax somewhere, or a spending cut somewhere (and we know that the cuts will not hurt the wealthy, and the tax increases won't charge the wealthy). The fee has to come from somewhere. There are poor people who aren't going to use the park because of a number of reasons. If they raise taxes somewhere to cover the $30 fee, then these people will have to pay the additional fee, and still not use the park.

In short, those who can't afford to use the park will still have to pay the fee, whether they use it or not. The money has to come from somewhere, and short of selling the parks to corporate sponsors or miraculously taxing the wealthy, it will come from the poorest, whether they use the park or not. Maybe some will be able to use the park who couldn't use it before. But a lot still won't be able to.

As for the red herring about fire departments, I could flip that and ask if taxpayers should pay for all food served at federal parks, too. Everyone gets all the free food they can eat by showing up. Surely you'll say that's a non-sequitar. Same with the fire department analogy.

[Hugin]

19. Not true...

The $30.00 fee is implemented because the taxes are being squandered elsewhere. (like
on an optional war... for instance)

If the taxes were distributed properly there would be no fee. So, therefore the fee is
*IN ADDITION* to taxation.

So, those who pay taxes are being double billed for the same services.

Nope, the fire department argument is not in any way a non-sequitar... Unless you don't
really understand the definition of Regressive Taxation. Which I'm beginning to suspect.

[jobycom]

21. Well, if you can create a perfect tax system that allocates money perfectl

and which satisfies everyone, you've got my vote. Until then, misspent money is part of the game.

And yes, the fire department argument is still a non-sequitar, and I fully understand the concept of regressive versus progressive taxation, and frankly, I share your suspicion that the person I'm discussing this with doesn't. If you want to hurl insults, let's hurl insults, though frankly, when I someone insults me when I haven't insulted them, I assume they are admitting defeat.

[Hugin]

23. No defeat here...

You were first with the insults...

Regressive taxation:

When a person of less means pays a higher percentage of their
income to receive the same services as someone with a higher
income.

Progressive taxation:

When people of different incomes pay equal percentages of their
income to receive the same services.

In the case of the park services, what you propose is a "Pay-to-Play"
system. A very REPUBLICAN idea, fits right in with the current administration's
Ownership Society. Too bad the people have already bought those parks years ago.

[Lars39]

12. There is *nothing* progressive about denying poor people

access to public lands that was originally set aside for everyone to enjoy.

[jobycom]

14. You think it's progressive to tax someone for something they don't use?

If the park maintenance costs "x" dollars, they will collect the dollars somewhere. If they collect it from people who aren't using the park, they are being taxed for something they can't use, and they will lose the money anyway. If they are only taxed if they use the park, they have the choice of how whether to spend the money in the first place. To me, that's progressive. It's regressive to make people who never use the park to foot the bill.

That $30 a person has to be paid by someone, or else the services have to be cut. The fee won't go away just because they collect it differently.

[Hugin]

15. I'll never use "women's health research"...

So, are you saying I should have the choice not to pay for anything I'll never use?

How kind. :eyes:

[jobycom]

18. No, and you know damn good and well that's not what I'm saying

[Lars39]

16. The parks were set aside for everyone and contribute

to the betterment of society as a whole.

[jobycom]

20. Absolutely. And we all pay for the park lands, and for maintenance

and for legal fees to fight the bastards who try to drill on them, and all of that. The entrance fee is for the additional fee caused by people visiting the park. Road fees, trash clean-up, personnel, etc. That money has to come from somewhere--why not from the people who create the additional expense? Or worse, what happens when BushCo or some equivalent decides to just spare the expense and close the parks to public use to save the money?

With a fee, the people who use the additional resources pay for the additional resources, and they pay more the more they use them. We all pay for the preservation of the land (as much as it is being preserved these days). This fee is for additional expenses caused by use. You really want to pay to repair the dirt roads that some joker in a Hummer tore up?

[Lars39]

22. Any way you slice your argument, poor people are excluded

from enjoying public lands.

[Bridget Burke]

26. Yes, but the Not-Poor-People might save Precious Tax Dollars....

Actually, it won't work that way. But the possibility gets them all excited.

[Hugin]

24. So, if I never flush my toilet I shouldn't have to pay for sewage?

Cool.

Great idea!

[XemaSab]

33. "Services" in this case include

staffing 5 ranger stations, maintaining roads that are used for both public access and fire fighting, arranging timber sales, and fighting fires.

Most of these expenses would still be there even if the forest had no visitors.

Should we pay for forests and national wildlife refuges in Alaska that have no visitors? Or should parks, forests, refuges, BLM land, and other PUBLIC LANDS only be supported by user fees?

[XemaSab]

32. It's not even park land

It's national forest land, and it's basically the only areas down here with pine trees.

[LSK]

25. so if I'm driving down the road and to pull off and take a hike

I have to get a permit just to pull of the road to park for like 2 hours???

:wtf:

[frylock]

29. yep - it's a load of bs..

and frankly, I never pay it. Of course, I don't make into Cleveland Natl as much as I used to because of these lousy fees.

[XemaSab]

30. Or 5 minutes

:eyes:

It's bullshit. That's why I'm totally opposed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. It's like soda machines in schools.

The public can't get its act together and pay for it responsibly so they've got to come up with these bullshit ways of making ends meet.

[XemaSab]

31. It's a national forest

How come all the other national forests are federally funded, but not the Angeles, Los Padres, Cleveland, and San Bernardino forests?