Especially in this weeks SMT paper dated 11/22 there was one letter to the editor trying to slip just under the radar that wins the award for just down right clever. Basically a dear john letter to his constituents, to say I'm sorry but I had to break it off in you one more time and here's why I'm proud of it.
I thought it was great to present such a caring and thoughtful way to enact and justify the "PET TAX". It is as shameful as playing on the backs of our children for the "HOME TAX" that our elustrious representative finds a new mark and is playing on the backs of the pet owners.
Will they do anything for money?
In all fairness below are only portions of the letter but it is the bottom line.
Rabies tag fee will help with population.
“A fee of $.25 was added to the cost of a rabies tag, with $.05 to fund rabies education and prevention programs and $.20 credited to a Spay/Neuter account for statewide programs.”
“It is the intent of this fee to reduce the numbers of unwanted dogs and cats and improve the safety of the citizens and our pets by reducing the threat of rabies from these unwanted or feral animals; and to reduce the operating expense of county and city animal shelters. It is a good law, perhaps overdue, and I was pleased to vote in favor of its enactment.”
Phil Haire
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I can not honestly believe you are complaining about a fee of ONE QUARTER!!!
How do you think services are funded? The tooth fairy? Do you deny that there is a problem with stray pets in Swain County? That sure would be a surprise to PAWS, which is currently having to drive local strays they get to NEW JERSEY for adoption. But maybe that's okay, because someone else DONATES the money, and it doesn't cost Mr. (or Mrs. or Miss, whatever the case may be) Swain Conscience anything extra.
Not to point out the obvious, but if a pet is neutered, there is no way a stray can be 'created' by that pet. In your wisdom, who else but pet owners *should* take responsibility for strays? Unfortunately, it becomes the very, very, very slight burden on those of us pet owners who are responsible to handle the problem caused by those pet owners who aren't. But maybe it makes more sense to charge everyone a sales tax, so Pet Owners aren't singled out. Or better yet, just ignore the problem all together and count on the fine folks at PAWS and those who are civic minded enough to donate their time and money supporting it to deal with a problem they didn't create.
Being as this 25 cent fee once every few years is apparently an unbearable burden, please enlighten us all as to your proposal for how the state could better and more efficiently handle the issue of stray pets, a problem that has gotten quite a bit of play in our local press over the past year.
The opposition to *any* fees of *any* sort for *any* services simply borders on the ridiculous. Is there any fee for anything you would find acceptable?
You are complaining about $0.25 cents. TWENTY FIVE CENTS!!
Fee's are a necessary evil when responsibility for whatever falls to the government, to monitor and correct. Is it the government's responsibility to deal with this issue? It would assume so, if the public wishes to saddle it with this problem.
In today's time it is virtually impossible to find anything that isn't effected by a government levied fee or tax
Everything in our lives in some way is touched by fees. Isn't it time to say enough is enough?
While I feel for the plight of the animals mentioned and the noble efforts of those who help where they can. Should there be fees leveied against everyone who wishes to have a pet that is properly cared for?
The responsibility for these animals lays with the owners who neglected them. That allowed the situation to become such a problem. They are the ones which should be held responsible.
Our government can and will continuously find ways to generate revenue to gain money's as long as no body raises the question, what will be the cause tomorrow?
By the way $.25 over a couple of thousand in Swain County every couple of years, multiplied by 100 other counties, + municipalities equals a large chunk of change. This is a state fee, just how much will come back to Swain when the smoke clears?
As far as the pet tax, maybe they are going to use it to spay and neuter other democrats. We sure do not need any more "unwanted pets" running around.
Whether or not its twenty five cents or twenty five dollars. Just when and where does it stop, do the democrats ever have any sense of an individual's personal responsibilty for anything?? We have become a nation of "empowerees". The more the government does the more the public expects. Sometime, somewhere, somehow, we must wake up and accecpt responsiblity for our actions or in-action. But, regrettably, let's do the easy thing, put it off on someone or government else and we can walk away from the situation. Complaint yes, solution yes, very simple. When the animal is adopted from whatever source, pet owner up front pays for the spay/neuter. Yes, expense up front, but, if there is an investment in the beginnning, then the purchaser will want a return on their money. Therefore, they will have the animal spayed or neutered.
Post a Comment