U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2011, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati near
2,511 posts, read 3,371,940 times
Reputation: 5621

Advertisements

A sales tax is extremely regressive, yet it passed by popular vote. Too many people are not shrewd enough to vote in their own economic best interest.

On the other hand, a property tax is bad for an already struggling real estate market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2011, 04:31 PM
 
405 posts, read 755,824 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill View Post
At least enough the 0.5% sales tax would pay for the stadiums. Of course, like most political projections it was based on increasing revenue. The opposite is true, the revenues have been decreasing. So the county is holding the bag.

Let's say you spent $10,000 in sales taxable purchases in Hamilton Co, within a year. This is quite a hefty sum. At the tax rate of 6.5% the total sales tax would be $650. The stadium tax, at 0.5% would be $50. Do you think that is going to pay for the stadiums? And look at the numbers, $10,000 in sales taxable purchases. Somebody really dropped the ball here and the ordinary taxpayers are stuck with the bill.
Absolutely. This is what I was getting at. The deal was completely mucked up, whoever fell for this original deal was either incompetent (our elected officials) or stood to benefit somehow.

Well, but now that the deal is there, someone has to hold the bag, and the county homeowners with lower priced houses hold the bag. I dont know, legally, if there is any way out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 04:35 PM
 
405 posts, read 755,824 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy View Post
A sales tax is extremely regressive, yet it passed by popular vote. Too many people are not shrewd enough to vote in their own economic best interest.

On the other hand, a property tax is bad for an already struggling real estate market.
Well you are absolutely right. Of course, millions of people didn't understand what a 1% rise in their interest payments would do to their monthly house payments (ARM fiasco). I assume many of them thought it meant a 1% increase in their monthly payment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Mason, OH
9,259 posts, read 13,415,280 times
Reputation: 1920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy View Post
A sales tax is extremely regressive, yet it passed by popular vote. Too many people are not shrewd enough to vote in their own economic best interest.

On the other hand, a property tax is bad for an already struggling real estate market.
But recognize the 0.5% sales tax for the stadiums was voted in 1996. The economy and in particular the real estate market were doing great. Everything was Up, Up, Up rather than the current Down, Down, Down. I am not sure what the legal ramifications are, but if the property tax rebate was revoked I believe the stadium shortfall would not be a problem. At least it would be distributed more in accordance with who can afford to pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 05:29 PM
 
7,783 posts, read 5,474,880 times
Reputation: 14553
I don't give a rat's a$$ how this works out! In the end, we are all screwed. Or, is that, were screwed by the city, county and Mikey Boy?

What I do care about is the title of this thread, Stadium tax rebate favors wealthy! I am sick and tired of this us vs. them - the 99% vs. the 1% - the two Americas- the corporate jet owners vs. everyone else.

All of this rhetoric is just plain ugly and dangerous!!!! I am not a rich American or a poor American. All I want is to see this great country still as great for my grand children as it was for my grand-parents, parents and my wife and myself!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Mason, OH
9,259 posts, read 13,415,280 times
Reputation: 1920
mike1003... You may disturbed by the title of the thread, but that is reality. The us vs. them argument does have some bearing, but this is not one of those cases. The rebate to the wealthy homeowners is disproportionate to the sales taxable expenditures they are making in Hamilton Co. over the course of year. They may be making a lot of purchases, but not necessarily sales taxable in Hamilton Co. If you have statistics to dispute that please put them forward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 07:27 PM
 
1,130 posts, read 2,032,256 times
Reputation: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill View Post
At least enough the 0.5% sales tax would pay for the stadiums. Of course, like most political projections it was based on increasing revenue. The opposite is true, the revenues have been decreasing. So the county is holding the bag.

Let's say you spent $10,000 in sales taxable purchases in Hamilton Co, within a year. This is quite a hefty sum. At the tax rate of 6.5% the total sales tax would be $650. The stadium tax, at 0.5% would be $50. Do you think that is going to pay for the stadiums? And look at the numbers, $10,000 in sales taxable purchases. Somebody really dropped the ball here and the ordinary taxpayers are stuck with the bill.
I would venture to say that the people who are getting this supposed big break are spending A LOT more than $10,000 a year in the county, and definitely more than the poor that this horribly researched Enquirer article is striving to champion.

I agree with Mike...let's get over this whole class envy thing. Why do we in this day and age villainize those who are successful and because of their hard work or smarts have more? I would rather live in a country where everybody pays their fair share, and on top of paying higher property taxes for a disproportionately low share of public services, not to mention incurring higher sales taxes because of their spending habits, the rich may well be the ones getting the shaft in this whole deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 07:30 PM
 
405 posts, read 755,824 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003 View Post

What I do care about is the title of this thread, Stadium tax rebate favors wealthy! I am sick and tired of this us vs. them - the 99% vs. the 1% - the two Americas- the corporate jet owners vs. everyone else.
That wasn't chosen for any reason except it was the title of the Enquirer article! Do you think the Enquirer is trying to push the class warfare or simply trying to make a statement about the stadium deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 07:47 PM
 
405 posts, read 755,824 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by t45209 View Post
...definitely more than the poor that this horribly researched Enquirer article is striving to champion.

I agree with Mike...let's get over this whole class envy thing. Why do we in this day and age villainize those who are successful
Whoa! This article had nothing to do with the "poor" -- did you read it? Unless you think someone owning a house worth 150,000--250,000 is poor?

This is more simple and has nothing to do with class, but mathematics. The deal was set up so that they raised the sales tax, but to compensate the county inhabitants, they gave a rebate on home taxes.

But the math was wrong-- the rebate over compensated people whose houses cost more.

As to your point that the wealthy are spending more than 10,000 that was just an illustrative number-- the problem is that the sales tax combined with the rebate doesn't pay for the stadiums! It has a 14 million dollar deficit!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 07:51 PM
 
1,130 posts, read 2,032,256 times
Reputation: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill View Post
mike1003... You may disturbed by the title of the thread, but that is reality. The us vs. them argument does have some bearing, but this is not one of those cases. The rebate to the wealthy homeowners is disproportionate to the sales taxable expenditures they are making in Hamilton Co. over the course of year. They may be making a lot of purchases, but not necessarily sales taxable in Hamilton Co. If you have statistics to dispute that please put them forward.
Look at it this way...why would anyone go outside of Hamilton County to make a majority of their purchases? Warren and Clermont are already 6.5% without a stadium tax, and Butler at 6.25% isn't that much cheaper to justify the gas and time it would take save a measly quarter point. They're darn sure not going to the 63 other Ohio counties that have a higher sales tax than Hamilton County. So, unless someone really has an axe to grind, and just hates the stadium that much, I seriously doubt that anyone is consciously avoiding spending money in Hamilton County.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top