Tax spending - Relative or absolute?

People have a hard time with big numbers - and processes that control them.

Once a big purchase has been made people think of every additional expense related to that purchase as a percentage of the original - not in terms of the absolute value of the item.

So it was yesterday when I was at a meeting where someone argued that since the cost of an item was only 0.00072% of the overall budget of the project that it doesn't matter that the cost was unjustified or the city process that led to it being spent flawed.

That's an interesting perspective. That same person would likely never accept that the is-appropriation of 0.00072% of their assets - but if the city gives it to favoured group outside any mandated requirement or review process - it's supported - because it's hard to think of misspent tax money in the same way as miss-appropriated personal assets.

Of course the local councilor - who's waist deep in the handout wants to further blur the issue by suggesting that all city projects have funds set aside for special circumstances - suggesting the item I have concerns about is the same as the city pro-actively replacing lead water pipes as part of this project.

What a crock. Lead pipe replacement has been mandated and budget set aside - the 0.00072% has never been approved.

And what is that 0.00072% equal to - one installment of your typical taxpayers tax - $1800.00.

The way the city, and some groups, think about it spending that amount isn't worth a thought - which is why so many taxpayers see increases year after year - while the actually amount of money they send to th city increases - the city spends percentages not dollars.