Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Town Votes "no" to Debt Exclusion in Special Election | Main | Community Gathers for a Day of Fun »

Monday, June 06, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sean

Mr. Goddard,

I agree with you completely. It is evident that a large portion of the Wrentham Community lack an understanding of what is important. Our children's education should be of primary importance.

I overheard three "No" voters at an establishment before the vote. They were going on and on about "I'm tired of paying taxes" and "all those other folk make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year". I simply shook my head. They are narrow minded and ignorant. I can say my family certainly doesn't make that - most don't.

For those individuals who get up in arms about taxes, they should remember that local taxes are the ones we have the most control over - unlike Federal taxes or even State taxes, we have a direct say over how local taxes are spent. Local taxes directly affect where we live and as you state the services which directly affect ourselves and our children.

So, as our police force grows smaller and our fireman become over taxed and our children's education is negatively impacted leading to higher crime, greater risk to our homes, and poor MCAS scores and lower college acceptances - the "No" voters should sit back and reap what they have sown.

By the way, as all those things happen, those folks who do make money and pay the majority of the local and state taxes will move and Wrentham will go from being a desirable location to one that people shun.

uncle, uncle

Yes you are correct local taxes are the taxes we have the most control over… That’s why we voted them down! The majority of MA voters keep voting for the tax and spend liberals on Beacon Hill (and in Washington) that spend like drunken sailors, cut local aid to the bone but continue to give raises to state employees while funding the best health care plans and pensions for those same employees. I personally was unemployed for over a year (2008 – 2009) took a 25% pay cut when I did land a job and am forced to pay health insurance costs that I cannot afford that have risen 41% since I started my private sector job 1 ½ years ago. I don’t want to hear how the town employees have sacrificed for the good of the town, there is more to give if they wanted to. What could the town save if the town employees agreed to the GIC insurance plan? How about not taking the cuts in local aid lying down? What if all towns fought the state back to receive a set amount of the overall state revenues back to cities and towns? Town governments are at a huge disadvantage, they are charged with supplying the services most people use and want (Schools, Police, Fire, Trash, DPW) but are not given the ability (other than more taxes) to pay for those services. I think if overall we all were less taxed (Federal, State, Fees, Mandates) we’d be more agreeable to pay more to the town for those services we all agree are important.

The comments to this entry are closed.