Should Pittsburgh tax non-residents who work in the city? (Lebanon: home, job openings)

[HillsHollow]

Should Pittsburgh tax non-residents who work in the city?

Hell NO!

How about I tell Pittsburgh and Greensburg I'll pay ONE of them the % of my gross income I'm currently taxed for wage tax and they can fight it out on who gets it? Tax the renters.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Copanut

Only if we are allowed to vote those stupid Dems out of office.

Sounds like a bargain - merge, then vote.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by HillsHollow

Tax the renters.

Ooohh. I love it when they get all macho.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by squarian

Sounds like a bargain - merge, then vote.

Yeah, like I want all those legacy costs tacked on to my township taxes. The city workers would love that.

[caroline2]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Personally, I believe the reason people say we are over taxed is what we actually get from our tax dollars. Awful schools, roads and sidewalks that look post-war, corrupt police, fire departments who rely on volunteers, laughable transportation, and trash filled landscapes. The question for isn't why are taxes high (because comparatively they aren't horrid) but it's what do our taxes actually do?

Exactly.

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

If you're going to compare city residents and suburban residents, then you should compare those with the same income. I think people working in the city that are in the same income brackets spend the same amount in the city on average, but those in the city are taxed on top of it.

I don't think that the city should tax non-residents out of some misguided attempt at redistributing wealth. But I do think it could be justified when you consider infrastructure costs.

If you're not arguing it out of some misguided attempt at redistributing wealth, than the proper comparison actually isn't like incomes. If it's a question of "infrastructure costs", the question is whether the suburban resident is paying their share of infrastructure costs, which was Burghgirl17's argument. It doesn't matter that she would be paying more in the city, merely that she's paying enough to cover her usage of Pittsburgh roads, water, sewer, police and fire protection, etc., and it's actually the poor city residents who aren't paying their fair share. If you think that the suburbanite should be covering them and the poorer residents of Pittsburgh's share and the poorer residents of her own municipality... then you don't get to claim your motivation isn't redistribution.

I've long wondered why myself that I'm paying roughly 3.5% of my income in wage taxes because I live and work in the city while someone living in Cranberry Township who works in the city pays nothing. Why not reduce it to 1.75% and then make it a universal tax on ALL who work within the city boundaries, regardless of their residency?

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Note I do not support this:
But, wouldnt the easiest way to implement a so called commuter tax in a way to have significant intake to charge all commuters a 3% wage tax (which city residents pay), then allow a deduction of whatever the percentage they pay to their own locality.

Interesting idea. That would result in a ton of income to the city, and a ton of lost income to commuters, though. Probably going beyond how much most of them use the city services and roads, so it could only be justified if you think they owe Pittsburgh something extra just for having a job in the city.

Originally Posted by jimmyev

This is a tiring subject. Pittsburgh always wants more money because the people it employs (mayor, city council) simply don't know how to grow a tax base and can't balance a budget. Many many cities exist without taxing commuters. Some of the largest and fastest growing cities in the US don't tax commuters - yet they manage. Of course you'll get 1,000 excuses why Pittsburgh can't manage without a commuter tax...

Pittsburgh searching for money can be a tiring subject; but I've never heard of or read about anybody suggesting a commuter tax.

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.

Originally Posted by caroline2

Exactly.
and it's actually the poor city residents who aren't paying their fair share. If you think that the suburbanite should be covering them and the poorer residents of Pittsburgh's share and the poorer residents of her own municipality... then you don't get to claim your motivation isn't redistribution

How are the poorer residents not paying their fair share? Pittsburgh has a flat 3% tax rate, everyone with an income has to pay it, on top of the $52 tax.

[caroline2]

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

How are the poorer residents not paying their fair share? Pittsburgh has a flat 3% tax rate, everyone with an income has to pay it, on top of the $52 tax.

They're not covering their infrastructure costs.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by caroline2

They're not covering their infrastructure costs.

All poor people should be rounded up and euthanized, that should fix it....

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by caroline2

.

I've long wondered why myself that I'm paying roughly 3.5% of my income in wage taxes because I live and work in the city while someone living in Cranberry Township who works in the city pays nothing. Why not reduce it to 1.75% and then make it a universal tax on ALL who work within the city boundaries, regardless of their residency?

Because even LESS people will work in the city.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by caroline2

They're not covering their infrastructure costs.

I don't see how that is related to taxing commuters' income. Poor suburbanites and poor commuters would both not be paying their infrastructure costs. If we're talking about a 3% tax on residents, and a flat dollar amount tax on non-residents then that argument might make sense.