A justified tax for a justified cause

10:21 a.m. July 29, 2025

ROBERT BRACEWELL
Metro Council member, District 2

This month’s council meeting was relatively scant on intriguing agenda items. The projected revenues for the county were lowered, a few small parcels were rezoned from agricultural to residential use, and funds were authorized for the purchase of new water meters, which will hopefully resolve the massive water loss issues that have plagued MUD for years. The purchase of the meters was more of a cosigning, as far as the council is concerned, for MUD than an actual allocation of funds.

Most of the council met on 7/10 in a work session to discuss the TCRS retirement plan I wrote about last month. My assessment may be inaccurate, but the impression I got from that meeting is that several members of the council see the benefit to employees – especially those nearing retirement age – of entering the plan.

However, too few members are willing to spend the money on it, given our recent tax increase. It was not discussed further at the latest council meeting. I expect it to keep coming before the council. I’m not convinced it’s ultimately a good deal for county employees or for future residents compared to a 401(k), and there has been a lot of talk about the shortsightedness of our local government.

Another item brought up at the work session, and discussed further at the council meeting, was a wheel tax. This was introduced as a potential means of funding the TCRS retirement plan. I suggested we use a wheel tax to pay off the county’s debt. I was informed by another council member that “you don’t run a government like you run your personal finances.” I was told that children or future residents should help pay for the things since they will be using them. I agreed that our children – if they choose to reside in this county – are already paying for our decisions.

The Case for a Wheel Tax

This is where I’d like to camp out in this article and make the case for a wheel tax – but only if you, the public, are willing to uphold your civic responsibility by remaining aware of what is transpiring in your government and holding those whom you elect accountable.

Quick aside: I mentioned in May’s article that I would have more information in June on the Sheriff’s Department and EMS. As I tell my children when plans change, it’s not lying if you had every intention of doing it when you made the statement. Every promise must be made with the caveat, “if the Lord wills.” I am still gathering information and developing solutions to address what I intend to argue is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

After explicitly acknowledging that revenue is not the problem, I will encourage you to support a new tax. If you haven’t followed my articles from the beginning, know this: I’m opposed to property taxes. They are an unjust form of taxation that discourages property improvement, disproportionately injures the poor and elderly, and promotes real estate as a consumer good to be bought and sold – often forcing long-term residents to leave, severing community ties.

This contributes to social isolation by breaking geographical and relational bonds. While not the sole cause of rising mental health issues, the correlation is clear. Injustice is sinful. Sin – private or public – always affects others and has unintended downstream consequences.

First, we have significant debt in this county. This was brought on by what some would call profligate and others forward-looking expenditures under the previous administration. It has saddled the people of Moore County with over $20 million in debt. This year, $921,149 from property taxes is being used to service that debt – $484,356 of which is just interest. That equates to about $0.093 in property tax, or roughly half of the recent property tax increase.

Most people once understood that debt – especially government debt – should be avoided whenever possible. Too many of us now accept revolving debt as a means to get what we want today, with vague plans to figure it out later. History, including our own, validates the principle in Proverbs 22:7: “The borrower is the slave of the lender.”

Politicians often invoke “the children” as justification for their proposals – but when it comes to debt, they are the ones most harmed. I don’t raise the issue of debt because it’s currently unmanageable. I raise it because it is manageable – now and in the future – if we reclaim the mindset that we should avoid it whenever possible.

A wheel tax is a just form of taxation – depending on how the resolution is written – because it imposes the exact cost on everyone for the same item, regardless of social or economic status. I oppose tax brackets and income-based taxes because they create perverse incentives to game the system and are not applied equally.

At the work session, I initially supported a cap of two or three vehicles per household. Upon further reflection, I no longer believe that a cap is just—it would be a carveout for those who own more vehicles. A one-time tax based on the type of vehicle use was also mentioned. After considering this, I contend that the exact cost and frequency across the board is the most just method. I remain open to opposing arguments, as this is a relatively new position for me.

If property taxes are ever to be eliminated or significantly reduced – and if we are to limit spending to only what is necessary for operating the government – we must find alternative sources of revenue. This won’t come from a single source and is unlikely to be accomplished in a decade or two. I reject the argument that how taxes are levied doesn’t matter because “the same people pay them.”

There is a moral chasm between how an electrician earns his money and how a prostitute earns hers. The legality of these professions does not determine whether they are morally right. Similarly, there’s a meaningful difference between equal taxation per item and arbitrary value-based taxation that assumes a higher value equates to a higher income, and therefore should be taxed more. That approach disproportionately harms the poor, who have worked hard to improve their property but lack the financial means to maintain it, forcing them to sell what they, and in many cases, generations of their family have built.

This leads to the dissolution of the social bonds that unite individuals and families to a place. With the influx of new people and the push by many—both new and long-time residents – for ever more government spending, we can rectify that in short order and be just like everyone else.

I would therefore, with qualifications, support a wheel tax. These qualifications include:

1.) the tax must sunset within 10 years;

2.) it must be used solely for debt service;

3.) the amount allocated to debt service must never be reduced, or the tax should immediately expire; and

4.) the tax and its frequency must be the same for every registered vehicle – excluding county vehicles.

According to TCA 5-8-102, there are two likely ways to implement this tax. The first is a two-thirds majority vote of the council on two readings of a resolution. The second is a simple majority vote of the council, followed by a referendum in which more than 50% of voters approve. If passed by a two-thirds council majority, the resolution could still be subject to a referendum if a petition is signed by 10% of voters from the last gubernatorial election and filed with the election commission within 30 days of passage.

So, how much money are we talking about? There are about 4,000 registered vehicles in the county. I don’t believe anyone is fixed on a specific number, but a range of $40 to $60 per vehicle was discussed. That would amount to approximately $160,000 to $240,000, respectively, that could be contributed to the principal and, over 10 years, used to pay down debt already on the books as we begin establishing 5-, 10-, and 20-year plans for growth and spending in our county.

If you’ve been persuaded by anything I’ve written, and this hypothetical resolution or referendum arises, I urge you to support it – but only if you are committed to engaging in your local government. Read at least one local media outlet consistently – like the one you’re reading now. Attend council meetings when issues you care about are on the agenda, and speak up. Contact your council members to let them know how you want them to vote. Pay attention to our votes. If you believe we’re not serving your interests, hold us accountable at the polls. But if you’re disengaged and have no intention of staying informed, then please vote no.

• The views and opinions expressed in opinion pieces published by the Moore County Observer are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Observer, its staff, or its advertisers. We encourage a diversity of perspectives and aim to provide a platform for thoughtful community dialogue. Submissions may be edited for clarity and grammar, but the opinions remain those of the contributors.