RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeSo I get that we need issue 1 right now and I am not arguing against that. An aside from my real point is the republican-esqu scare tactics being used in the ad's... but my real point is, why is the income tax not temporary? Our real issue right now is wealthy people aren't making as much so there is less coming in. So when the economy turns around there will be a huge surplus which will then be thrust into more programs that will be underfunded the next time the economy has a down-turn. Why is it not worded as a 3 year with chance for renewal or something? I think it would pass with overwhelming support that way.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Everyday Chit Chat
My Problem With Issue 1
[177 posts] [31 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM
That's exactly my thought. I brought it up in another thread, and Mike Brown said (paraphrasing) that he didn't want to have a future administration have to make big cuts if/when the increase sunsetted. I will still vote for Issue 1, but I think it would be much better as a temporary measure. The economy will not always be this bad.
Posted 2 years ago # -
StowCbusCleveland
Jackson Township, Canton, OH
Login to Send PM
I tend to agree that a permanent tax code change to address a temporary problem is excessive. I feel like the change should either be temporary, or contain some sort of provision that automatically resets the rate back to 2% once tax receipts exceed X, or something. Whether it is intended this way or not, it does seem like an attempt to leverage a crisis to make a permanent power grab.
I think you're right that this would be a much easier sell if it were temporary.
Posted 2 years ago # -
pez
Login to Send PM
We are voting against it for a few reasons:
1. Its being snuck in on a non-tradition election day
2. Because I work in Dublin and live in Columbus, I will have to make quarterly tax payments and filings to the city.
3. I will have to pay for an additional tax return to be created, now Dublin and Columbus work it out.I would vote for it if the city passed a resolution stating that any donor to a mayoral or city council candidate could not be awarded a contract during that person's term.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Analogue Kid
5th by West-Northwest
Login to Send PM
pez wrote >>
2. Because I work in Dublin and live in Columbus, I will have to make quarterly tax payments and filings to the city.
3. I will have to pay for an additional tax return to be created, now Dublin and Columbus work it out.
I would vote for it if the city passed a resolution stating that any donor to a mayoral or city council candidate could not be awarded a contract during that person's term.I also work out side the city but I'm curious as to your source for this. I haven't seen any hard facts on this yet.
Posted 2 years ago # -
howatzer
Login to Send PM
This will answer your question:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/extras/taxes/readerquestions.html
At the current level of spending, a tax increase would be needed at some point, the sharp downturn this year just hastened the need.
There is no way around it - if we want the same amount of city spending, we will have to pay more taxes. If I lived outside of the city, I would certainly vote against it. But since they will just raise my property tax if prop 1 fails, I might as well vote for it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
howatzer
Login to Send PM
Gotta love the quote by a senior at a pro-tax rally targeted at retirees:
"Those who can afford it will pay the most," Johnson said. "Those who are poor will pay the least. For those of us living on pensions, we won't pay anything at all."That's it. No more helping grandma across the street.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM
Tigertree wrote >>
why is the income tax not temporary?The best, and most simple explanation that I heard was that it would be easier down the road for the administration (either this one, or the next one) to decrease the tax if/when necessary, rather than reissuing another vote to keep it going if necessary.
That makes enough sense to me, but I can understand everyone's concern that the tax would not be dropped back down when the time comes, and that the additional revenue would just be allotted to new services. Which totally would be the end of the world.
Posted 2 years ago # -
howatzer
Login to Send PM
Walker wrote >>
Tigertree wrote >>
why is the income tax not temporary?The best, and most simple explanation that I heard was that it would be easier down the road for the administration (either this one, or the next one) to decrease the tax if/when necessary, rather than reissuing another vote to keep it going if necessary.
That makes enough sense to me, but I can understand everyone's concern that the tax would not be dropped back down when the time comes, and that the additional revenue would just be allotted to new services. Which totally would be the end of the world.Just to be clear, this tax will be permanent, it will never be repealed, simply because Columbus has been spending more than it takes in for over a decade. And I think the concern is that if we raise taxes, and then add new services, we will need to raise taxes yet again down the road. The "end of the world?" no, but it could harm development.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Boyd
NW Indiana / Chicago Region
Login to Send PM
I agree with what was stated previously. This has actually been needed for quite some time. Spending has exceeded revenue for a while. The down economy just amplified the issue.
To Walker's point: While repealing it later would be "easier" than trying to pass it again later on, down the road... government is NEVER going to give back money. Once that thing is passed it will be there forever. I think it is necessary; higher taxes is just the cost of an expanding city trying to provide the services that it's population demands.
Posted 2 years ago # -
StowCbusCleveland
Jackson Township, Canton, OH
Login to Send PM
If we accept the premise that the tax increase is a permanent need, then I'd at least like to see some restraint going forward. When things inevitably get better, it is entirely possible that the city will have more tax revenue than they need to keep us at a good level of services. It's at that point that I'm hoping that they start paying down debt/building up the rainy day fund as quickly as possible rather than checking out all the cool new services we can buy with an extra .5% of taxes.
Budgeting every last dollar you have for stuff every year and then assuming perpetual revenue growth is what has put so many governments in a financial bind now, and I'd rather not see this cycle repeat next time there's some type of economic meltdown.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM
Boyd wrote >>
higher taxes is just the cost of an expanding city trying to provide the services that it's population demands.I disagree.
As you have an expanding population you have higher tax revenue.
That spending should increase faster than the population is contrary to economy of scale. If the reason for taxes is to pool resources to have a central body administer services (because it is less expensive than every one coordinating their own resources) then each person's tax should decrease as the population increases.Columbus / Ohio already has some of the highest tax rates in the nation.
I also disagree with increasing the cost of living on people when times are difficult.
Posted 2 years ago # -
howatzer
Login to Send PM
I'd much prefer to see a sales tax. Most big university towns have more sales tax and little or no income tax because of the large student populations, which require a lot of services but don't have incomes or property to tax. Basically we all are subsidizing OSU by not having a sales tax. I have never heard of someone not going to a particular college because the city sales tax is too high, and if you think college students don't have disposable income, I urge you to go to Panera in south campus gateway one morning and check out the youngsters with their grande mocha lattes.
You could also put in an exemption on groceries and thrift stores so that the poor would not be hurt.
Also, the mentality that the tax rate should grow with the city is absurd. By that reasoning NYC and LA should be centrally-planned communes.Posted 2 years ago # -
StowCbusCleveland
Jackson Township, Canton, OH
Login to Send PM
howatzer wrote >>
I'd much prefer to see a sales tax...Basically we all are subsidizing OSU by not having a sales tax.Even as an OSU student myself, I think this is exactly right (By the way, thank you all). Was a sales tax considered before they went for the income tax increase?
EDIT:
I do remember reading Coleman or somebody else here saying that an income tax increase was fairer in the sense that it hit everybody who lives or works in Columbus, and was thus the most broadly shared, fair way of dividing the burden among users of city services. I buy that. I guess I'm very easily swayed by tax arguments today.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM
That was the reasoning for Chicago's high tax rate.
The city has a large influx of workers during the day that leave the city at night. And then another group who come in at night for the night life.
A consumption tax put te burden on people who use the city services.Chicago has a high consumption tax, but no city tax and the state tax is a flat 3%.
Just a note thrown in. I still don't think that you need to continualy increase taxes.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Tigertree
771 N. High St.
Login to Send PM
I think a sales tax being introduced when retail is already hurting is a worse idea than a permanent income tax for a temporary economic downturn. As for the services, Walker, not the end of the world but I already made my point the extra services are why we'll need another hike in the future. Instead of being responsible and looking at programs that aren't working any more and using that money to fund new necessary programs, we'll use the surplus and be screwed in the future.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM
What extra services?
I also don't see how taking away peoples money when they make it, so they have less to spend, is worse than taking away extra money when they spend it.
At least if you tax them when they spend it they can determine what it gets spent on, like food and clothing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Tigertree
771 N. High St.
Login to Send PM
Sales tax has an absolute and provable effect on retail sales, that's why so many cities and states to sales tax holidays to help retailers out. I am not saying that one is worse than the other, I am saying a lot of retailers are struggling right now and can't hold the weight of too many more straws.
Posted 2 years ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
Tigertree wrote >>
Sales tax has an absolute and provable effect on retail sales, that's why so many cities and states to sales tax holidays to help retailers out. I am not saying that one is worse than the other, I am saying a lot of retailers are struggling right now and can't hold the weight of too many more straws.[sarcasm]
Well, if raise the tax rate high enough the government can provide all the services we need, then we won't need scum sucking capitalist pig-dog imperialist "retailers" any more!
[/sarcasm]Posted 2 years ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.