That is a tough one. In general success in appealing to people and being persuasive hinges a lot on the people you’re trying to persuade. And the forum you’re speaking in matters considerably too. Is he going to have the floor and actual time to make an argument, or will this be more of a “ask your question and sit down” setting?
It’s possible the most effective route would be to get some actual figures and simply address the status quo. How many tax raises have there been in how many years? What has been the rate of increase? How many fires have occured? How much damage has been incurred? As he said, the rates don’t drop when property values go up…so what do the fluctuations in property values actually look like, and how often have they gotten more money this way?
Most importantly…is “cutting service” so bad? We’ve got the same issue with the federal government right now. Someone says how we should cut the budget by half and everyone gasps and rattles off how that’s just nutty…whoever is saying that is a radical kook nutjob. There’s no way the government could function on half the budget. Only problem is, government was functioning on half the current budget…in 2002. I remember 2002. Do you? Wasn’t exactly that long ago. Last time I checked, the world didn’t end and grandma wasn’t starving in the street. Same thing in your father’s town. He should find out what they were spending and the quality of the service. I can almost guarantee you it was just fine. Odds are if you chart the data, it’ll look a lot like the Dept. of Education info: spending/taxes have continuously gone up, while service/incidents of fire have remained roughly the same (or even gone down…meaning there is less of a need for fire services).
I think that’s really his best bet. Where he’s going to get that data, I’m not completely sure…especially not in 24 hours…but a lot of counties have quite a bit of info online. And he might even take a visit to a couple different public buildings and see if he can get ahold of some data that way. You never know.
If he can’t get the actual data, he could always just appeal to the people and their memory. “Do things really seem that much worse? Is there some need that won’t be met without a tax increase? What services will be cut? Should be not be provided with specific things we would lose so that we can make an informed decision as to whether we want to pay for it?”
But the comment about being labeled greedy reminds me of a comment made in a Mises documentary: “There is a three-word lexicon that explains the tax economy: need, greed, and compassion. ‘Need’ now means wanting someone else’s money, ‘greed’ means wanting to keep your own, and ‘compassion’ is the sentiment of the politician who wants to arrange the transfer.”