There are perhaps five basic types of people.
1) The money is no object voter. Ed Naile has written about these people a few times referring to them as the "Yes" voters. These are the ones who vote yes on everything put up on the ballot regardless of it's tax impact.
2) The "No" voters. These are the people who vote no to everything. Polar opposite of the yes voter.
3) The thoughtful voter. These voters are also referred to as swing voters. They listen to arguments and vote for what they think is best for the town or tax payer at any given time. These are the people who say "yes we'll approve a new expense" but also argue "now isn't the best time given the economy for a new expense".
4) The "just don't care" people. These people live in town and have seen many different people come and go in local offices and they see no real difference either way. These are the people who for the most part have just given up.
5) The greed voter.
It's #5 I'd like to discuss here because in Merrimack we're starting to see these voters surface. These are the people who claim to be for lower taxes and against unnecessary spending also long as it's something that they don't benefit from. Suddenly when it's of benefit to them they claim it's the better option even if it costs everyone else more money.
No where is this more evident then in the current debate on whether or not the bring in pay as you throw for trash. Currently Merrimack's transfer station services about one third of the town but yet everyone in town pays for this $1.6+ million middleman trash service in their property taxes. To solve this problem the proposal would put some of the cost on those who actually use the station lowering the property taxes of the rest of the tax payers.
Here's where the greed voters come in, people who continue to claim to be fiscal conservatives who want to keep spending down are coming out in favor of keeping the system as it is using the weakest arguments you can find. What shocked me most was actually listening to someone who claims to want the lowest possible spending on the government use the "its only" argument, claiming that it would only save $30 on the average home owners taxes and then argue that since most of those who don't use the station live in condos or multiple family dwellings the savings they see would be insignificant.
So if condo owners don't save that much then its ok to force them to pay more then they should to subsidize your way?
Honestly folks, don't be taken in by these people. Read up and educate yourself on the issues and make sure you are an informed voter.