Sunday 19 Jan 2020


County Works To Gain Support For Sales Tax Proposal

Wayne County is working to put together a coalition of support for the proposed quarter-of-a-cent sales tax increase that’s on the ballot in March.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Wayne County Manager Craig Honeycutt informed the Board of Commissioners that the Town of Mount Olive had approved a resolution expressing support for the quarter-of-a-cent local sales tax option.

Honeycutt also says the county has already received similar support from the town of Fremont, and the proposed sales tax increase will be discussed with other local government boards and community organizations in the coming weeks.

Commissioner Bill Pate says there’s a cross section of the community already supporting the sales tax proposal.

Commissioner Joe Daughtery noted the county has to provide the funding to meet the state’s new K-3 classroom size mandate.

County Board Chair Ray Mayo says the funds will also assist with security at the county’s schools.

If approved by voters on March 3rd, the sales tax referendum will generate approximately $2.6 million in revenue per year in Wayne County to facilitate school construction.

The sales & use tax referendum excludes gas, prescription medication, and non-prepared foods or groceries.

12 Comments

  1. Elmo Leonard says:

    Cheap simpletons. Cough it up for your sad sack children. Do you know how many people I run into in Wayne County that can’t even spell their names? Smh

    Reply
  2. hotwatermaker says:

    If I remember correctly, that’s exactly what they said when they wanted to get the lottery passed. With all the BILLIONS raised by the education lottery, why do we need to piddle with a paltry little 2.6 million??? Just goes to show that, even at the local level, the only answer that politicians can come up with is to raise taxes.

    Reply
  3. bettablocker says:

    so much for tax “breaks”. i do the majority of my shopping online anyway so…good luck with that!

    Reply
  4. Libertarian of Wayne says:

    Taxation Is Theft.

    Reply
    • McCoy says:

      Only in an anarchy state.

      Reply
      • Libertarian of Wayne says:

        … or the United States prior to 1861. Taxes are taken without consent. That, my friend, is the definition of theft.

        Reply
        • McCoy says:

          How ridiculous! Of course you consent to taxation. You could certainly move to a state or even a foreign nation with a taxing program more in line with your political views, but you don’t. You remain here and I dare say consume the very public resources those taxes pay for. That’s not theft, that’s a social contract. But if you aren’t interested in being a party to that, I’ll thank you to stay off of the public roads, police your own neighborhood, and otherwise forgo the resources that my tax dollars support. Otherwise you’re just another freeloader.

          Reply
          • Libertarian of Wayne says:

            Be careful, your “Left” is showing. I am far from a freeloader. I was pointing out that the United States somehow survived until 1861 without taking from its citizens, and was only to fund the Civil War.
            Where is this “social contract” you speak of? I’d like to see it.
            Let me give you an example: I approach you and threaten force if you do not give me 20 of your dollars. I take your money, but leave you with a book on Libertarian principles that is worth $20, but that you have no desire to read. Would you still call me a thief?

      • Libertarian of Wayne says:

        In fact, MY tax dollars are used to fund freeloaders. SMH

        Reply
        • McCoy says:

          You really need to spend some time reading my friend. Taxes weren’t invented in 1861, but are as old as our Republic and have existed in many forms for as long as their have been “Americans”. The current income tax withholding plan is relatively new by comparison, but our governments (federal, state, and local) have always needed revenue. As for the social contract, the theory was developed by John Locke (ironically the founder of modern libertarian thought). It’s pretty interesting theory if you have some time to read and care about the facts of your arguments. But at the end of the day, this is about a local option sales tax, which if you’re concerned about government overreach in your finances, is really the purest form of tax, since you can decide to spend or not and this control your own taxation level. I’m certainly no “left” leaning ideologue, but I do support the local option sales tax because I see the needs our community has and hope the next generation can get the education they deserve.

          Reply
    • Libertarian of Wayne says:

      I sure do appreciate your suggestion.
      You never did tell me if my example is considered “theft” in your mind.
      John Locke was actually known as the “Father of Liberalism” not Libertarianism, my friend. Essentially all libertarians rely on Lockean homesteading and cite him in the evolution of their thought. But he was not in any way libertarian. He insisted on regulation of markets, limitations of property rights and redistribution of wealth. But his theory of property (which many libertarians adopt) also supported expropriation, enslavement, and serfdom, none of which Libertarians agree with.
      I agree that of all taxes, the local sales tax is the least invasive, and gives people a choice to shop in Wayne County or not. Doing the same on the Federal level would be more fair than the current income tax, in my opinion, but that’s a completely different argument all together.

      Reply
      • McCoy says:

        Glad that you seem to have looked into a little classical political thought. As for your example, I suppose it would be theft, although it is also irrelevant to this discussion. Your example creates a situation where the one being “robbed” has no option other than to give in or suffer violence. But we live in the real world, which affords citizens lots of other options. Millions of residents flee high tax states like NY and CA every year to settle in lower tax states. In the end though, it’s all an academic discussion. The simple truth is that all governments must have revenue to operate. Unless we’re going to return to a state of anarchy, our discussion is about how and how much to tax, not whether to do so.

        Reply

Leave a Comment

GoldsboroDailyNews.com welcomes and encourages all our users to contribute and voice their opinions. We do not discriminate against any political or ideological views. In order to maintain a civil discussion, the following guidelines will be adhered to:

1.Profanity is not allowed. Comments containing anything that is deemed profane may be deleted entirely.
2.Hate speech will not be tolerated. Comments against a person based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. may be deleted entirely.
3.Threats will not be tolerated. Comments threatening harm or violence to a person or persons may be deleted entirely.

Goldsboro Daily News staff reserves the right to approve, edit, or delete any comments as they see fit based upon these guidelines. User-submit views and comments do not necessary reflect the views and opinions of staff and management of GoldsboroDailyNews.com.