Should Pittsburgh tax non-residents who work in the city? (Crafton: chapel, property taxes)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
I'd just note a lot of other states with decent education systems have a lot more state funding than we do.
It could be a good shift. I am not certain, but my guess is if local schools get more money from the state, they will just find ways to spend it and our property taxes will stay the same or of course go up every year via millage increases. EVERY YEAR!!!
I am not certain, but my guess is if local schools get more money from the state, they will just find ways to spend it and our property taxes will stay the same or of course go up every year via millage increases.
Since this is something I am doing with a magic wand--poof! No more local property taxes are going to schools.
More seriously, the state is ultimately in charge of the school system, and also local taxation. The only way this idea would have any chance at all politically is if it was coupled with a reform and reduction of local property taxes (which, again, I would fully support).
The following excuses, regurgitated on this board, as far as I know are just pulled out of some politicians' butt without any facts or studies to back them up:
Pittsburgh can't grow its borders like other cities. Therefore Pittsburgh needs more money. Indianapolis, Lexington and Miami tried this. It just spread their misery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faer
Instead expand the city borders, and thus the tax base. Pittsburgh is ridiculously small for the overall size of the metro area. Besides, does Allegheny County really need 100 different mayors, municipal councils, etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Emphasis on "largest". Annex enough territory, and you don't need a commuter tax.
If you find a city that can't annex anymore and is successful like, say, Dallas or Houston, it can't be compared to Pittsburgh because Pittsburgh is different:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday
Comparisons to other cities are not apples to apples either, since many other cities are larger in size and population, which means they contain a greater proportion of the metro area population. Pittsburgh has to serve a relatively large population of people relative to the size of its tax base.
Pittsburgh is the only city with a lot of non-profits gobbling up space:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HillsHollow
Let's face it. Pittsburgh's problem is the fact a majority of it's city is owned by nonprofits.
People live in suburbs and work in the city. Even if Cranberry Township, Braddock, and North Findley township employ more people than actually live in their municipalities, just like Pittsburgh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday
And how many hundred thousand people flock into your suburb each day without paying taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by supersoulty
Alot of the largest and fasting growing cities in the country are also... well, quite large. Alot of the "newer" southern and western cities are granted vast amounts of territory, or live in states that have very friendly annexation policies for large cities. One example, in Oklahoma the law is that a larger city can annex any smaller municipality, so long as it surrounds it on three sides. So, the practice has become that local business organizations in Oklahoma City go out and buy enough tiny plots of land (often times no larger than a couple of square feet), in order to surround a nearby town on three sides. They then donate the plots to the City, and it exercises it's right to annex the town. Business interests are willing to do this, because united municipal areas are far better for the economic climate, since they are more economically stable, can offer better incentives to attract business, and they are fiscally healthier.
This is not a privilege enjoyed by most Northwestern cities, which are locked in their current boundaries by historic animosities. But Pittsburgh is particularly notable, in that it is the smallest core city, relative to its metro area, of any of the Top 50 largest metros in the country. Population wise, the city makes up only about 1/7th of the Pittsburgh metro.
Annexation was a privilege enjoyed by northeastern cities during their periods of highest growth. This is why New York City is composed of five counties and how Pittsburgh got the neighborhoods of the North Side, Sheraden, Knoxville and the South Side. Eventually that unlimited annexation power is taken awa
Since this is something I am doing with a magic wand--poof! No more local property taxes are going to schools.
More seriously, the state is ultimately in charge of the school system, and also local taxation. The only way this idea would have any chance at all politically is if it was coupled with a reform and reduction of local property taxes (which, again, I would fully support).
I like the idea of no local property taxes, but this whole thing will probably shift the money from the working people to the people who don't work and don't care. In other words the haves will have to pay even more for the have nots. The haves usually work hard to have. The have nots... well many don't work or they work very little.
I am just guessing that this is your idea because you tend to lean towards that style of government. Some people work hard some don't, but everyone gets about the same money, or the hard workers have to pay more expenses for the people who don't want to work.
The following excuses, regurgitated on this board, as far as I know are just pulled out of some politicians' butt without any facts or studies to back them up
The radically different sizes of various central cities is an easily confirmable fact. To be clear, I'm not suggesting annexation, or having a large central city in general, solves all problems. I'm just pointing out it has rather obvious implications for the specific issue of a commuter tax.
Now if you have a real response to that point, OK, let's hear it. But if your only response is that it isn't based on facts, well, you're just wrong about that.
The following excuses, regurgitated on this board, as far as I know are just pulled out of some politicians' butt without any facts or studies to back them up:
I like the idea of no local property taxes, but this whole thing will probably shift the money from the working people to the people who don't work and don't care. In other words the haves will have to pay even more for the have nots. The haves usually work hard to have. The have nots... well many don't work or they work very little.
I honestly don't get this rhetoric as applied to the specific issue of public education. Every child in a public school is a "have not" by this definition, because they aren't working, and their education is always being paid for by the "haves"--whoever is paying the necessary taxes.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the only way this seems to make any sense is if you think the children of parents who are "have nots" deserve less education funding than the children of parents who are "haves". But why should children be punished for the sins of their parents?
People live in suburbs and work in the city. Even if Cranberry Township, Braddock, and North Findley township employ more people than actually live in their municipalities, just like Pittsburgh.
I wouldn't be opposed to those communities having a commuter tax, either. I've worked in RIDC park and Carnegie and was surprised to find that in both cases I owed absolutely nothing to any municipality but Pittsburgh.
I wouldn't be opposed to those communities having a commuter tax, either. I've worked in RIDC park and Carnegie and was surprised to find that in both cases I owed absolutely nothing to any municipality but Pittsburgh.
I understood that to be the essence of your proposal--income would be taxed wherever earned, and let the chips fall as they may.
AGAIN... AGAIN... AGAIN? Last I checked this is the first time you responded to me on this thread, so ho can you start your silly post with "Again"
TAXES ARE TOO HIGH PERIOD. What you don't get is just because everyone else is doing something doesn't make it right. If everyone started running down to the nearest bridge would you follow them. Actually you probably would because that is your style. All about the masses and never thinking outside the box. A sheep for a lack of a better word. Less tax, less subsidies and more work from people to get things done. This cost shifting stuff on every single thing is crazy. Have you read about the dwindling middle class. That is who gets stuck with all these bills. Hence the word "dwindling"!
Lol, only a self-aggrandizing know-it-all would call a post that points out facts as being "silly".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
