10% Drink Tax or Property Tax Increase: Which Would You Choose? (Philadelphia: income, live in)

[Chuckles1821]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

While not everybody who drinks is a drunk, it's the drunks who are complaining. I'm sure of it. Quit crying about ten cents on the dollar, and maybe there will be a bus for you to take home from Carson St. so you don't have to kill anybody. I hope Dan Onorato gives them the finger and makes it 20%. The bridge and tunnelers will still flock to the South Side, because they have nothing else to do.

I am not a drunk and I am complaining. I don't think there should be a raise in property tax in lieu of the drink tax, I just think, you know, why alcohol? Why is there no other choice?
And it's not the businesses that are getting screwed...they pass the cost on to the consumer, who then passes their 10% loss onto THEIR TIP. It's screwing workers more than anyone.
And I never plan on taking a bus since they don't go to my neighborhood, even though I'm not a B & T-er and live in the city. My friends and I drink responsibly and get a cab or a sober friend to drive us.
The tax is just too arbitrary for my liking.

[BrianTH]

For what it is worth, I think PAT probably should raise fares on popular commute-time routes.

By the way, people who drive private automobiles get public subsidies as well. For example, any non-toll road you drive is a form of subsidy for drivers. For that matter, national expenditures related to securing our supplies of foreign oil are a form of subsidy for drivers.

And speaking of the last, I personally wouldn't favor a subsidy for buying more gas for private automobiles, precisely because in the long run, I think we would be better off consuming less gasoline (for national security reasons, economic reasons, and environmental reasons). In that sense, to the extent we can help people switch from driving cars to using public transportation, and save on total gasoline usage as a result, we will all be better off in the long run.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Chuckles1821

And it's not the businesses that are getting screwed...they pass the cost on to the consumer, who then passes their 10% loss onto THEIR TIP. It's screwing workers more than anyone.

Really? The idea of taking the drink tax out of the tip never even occurred to me, and I certainly wouldn't actually do that even if it had. Is there actual evidence of this happening on a widespread basis?

[Chuckles1821]

I don't have evidence of this, and I'm not saying everyone would do this, but yes some people have this mindset. I would never do this either, because in my view if you can't afford to tip, then you can't afford to go out and drink.
If someone has a set amount of money that they take w/them when they go out drinking, and then 10% is added to that usually bill, then they have to either start bringing more money with them or stiff the bartender. Some choose to do that latter.
My brother bartends at a big bar in Pgh and says he hasn't noticed much of a difference, but I would say that places in SS that don't have tons of customers and cater to a college crowd might feel this effect.

[scrapp]

Originally Posted by Chuckles1821

And it's not the businesses that are getting screwed...they pass the cost on to the consumer, who then passes their 10% loss onto THEIR TIP.

That's an unsubstantiated claim. How do you know it is generally true?

Also, many people mistakenly calculate the tip AFTER tax is applied, so maybe the 10% tax actually increases the tip in some cases?


At any rate, if you don't like the drink tax and you don't want a property tax increase, how about advocating the County layoff more workers. That's a third solution that no one wants to talk about.

[Chuckles1821]

Okay well forget I said that, then.
I have no way of proving it's true other than what I hear from people in the food and beverage industry.

[right-here-i-say]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

For what it is worth, I think PAT probably should raise fares on popular commute-time routes.

By the way, people who drive private automobiles get public subsidies as well. For example, any non-toll road you drive is a form of subsidy for drivers. For that matter, national expenditures related to securing our supplies of foreign oil are a form of subsidy for drivers.

And speaking of the last, I personally wouldn't favor a subsidy for buying more gas for private automobiles, precisely because in the long run, I think we would be better off consuming less gasoline (for national security reasons, economic reasons, and environmental reasons). In that sense, to the extent we can help people switch from driving cars to using public transportation, and save on total gasoline usage as a result, we will all be better off in the long run.

Very interesting thoughts. PAT has the highest salaries/benefits in the nation according to some statistics (based on standard of living). These salaries and benefits are much higher than Philadelphia's transit union. And your ideas are charging more to the consumers 1st? Can we at least bring them down to Philadelphia's pay / benefits before we do this, or are you the PAT Transit union rep?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by right-here-i-say

Very interesting thoughts. PAT has the highest salaries/benefits in the nation according to some statistics (based on standard of living). These salaries and benefits are much higher than Philadelphia's transit union. And your ideas are charging more to the consumers 1st? Can we at least bring them down to Philadelphia's pay / benefits before we do this, or are you the PAT Transit union rep?

I have no particular stand on PAT compensation. Generally, I view operating efficiency issues as separate from fare and public funding issues--obviously to the extent operating efficiency could be increased that would be a good thing, but I wouldn't necessarily favor using any gains from improved operating efficiency to reduce fares or public funding. Indeed, improvements in PAT operating efficiency might well be a reason to further increase public funding for PAT (because the more efficient PAT operations become, likely the more benefit we would get for any given public subsidy). Similarly, to the extent targeted fare increases for commuters who would otherwise be driving could be used to increase overall capacity, improved operating efficiency could again make such a plan all the more attractive.

[By~Tor]

I would tend to think that neither a drink tax OR a property tax would be the equitable answer... more to my liking, would be a "consumption tax" which hits everyone whenever they shop anywhere, or else a "Usury Tax", (sp?) where ONLY those using the PAT system would pay the tax, since they will be the ones benefitting from any PAT growth in the future...

The system here isn't like NYC or Philly, where people use the trains alot to go out for entertainment... here, it's mainly a way to get to and from downtown for work, work, work... and the vast majority of people don't use either trains OR buses, so IMHO, taxing others for the usage of a few is not very practical, unles you tax each and every person, regardless of their lifestyle. Picking on drinkers or home owners is NOT the right way to go about it....

[SCJ236]

Originally Posted by mr.davon24

How about a cigarette tax?

Oh, sigh. With that mindset Pittsburgh will quickly become like the city I grew up in, Chicago.

At least the sales tax, on everything else, here isn't as high!