10% Drink Tax or Property Tax Increase: Which Would You Choose? (Pittsburgh: health insurance, neighborhoods)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by 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...

As an aside, I again think it is incorrect that only riders benefit from PAT (again, other beneficiaries include employers, retailers, property developers, and even drivers who benefit from less congestion, less demand for parking, less demand for gasoline, and so on).

Anyway, the problem with a general consumption tax is that it tends to hit hardest the people who can least afford to pay any additional taxes. As I noted above, that is the advantage of some form of "luxury tax" as opposed to a general consumption tax--if you can't afford to pay the tax, you don't have to.

Again, though, the simpler solution to this problem is just a progressive income tax, but that apparently isn't on the table.

[Geeo]

Public transports benefits everyone, even if you don't use it. More than half the people who work in downtown Pittsburgh use the bus or T to get there. Imagine the mess if more peope had to drive. A substantial number of people who work in the medical/education complex in Oakland use transit. Allegheny County is in the top ten of counties per capita where the population uses public transport. It would be nice if we gave it the attention and funding that we lavish on highways, which receive huge subsidies.

[right-here-i-say]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

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.

I do not seperate operating efficiency with increased taxes. PAT Transit shouldn't have a blank check. If they operated efficiently, more people would support any form of tax. When you are so inefficient and ask for more, people should link the 2, and not seperate the 2, as you do.

Can we not pay them and give them the benefits of their counterparts in Philadelphia? Are they that much better?

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by Chuckles1821

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.

It's not the tax that's screwing the workers, it's the cheapskate customers.

Most taxes are arbitrary. Alcohol is just about the most non-essential product there is. It makes a lot more sense than an across-the-board tax on everything.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by right-here-i-say

I do not seperate operating efficiency with increased taxes. PAT Transit shouldn't have a blank check. If they operated efficiently, more people would support any form of tax. When you are so inefficient and ask for more, people should link the 2, and not seperate the 2, as you do.

I actually think we basically agree--you also seem to be saying more efficient public agencies should get more funding, and vice-versa.

But if you are suggesting cutting PAT's budget will necessarily lead to increased efficiency at PAT, unfortunately that is not my sense of how agencies tend to react to budget cuts. In general, I am not aware of any effective way to indirectly force an agency to become more efficient. Rather, you have to do it the direct way, meaning through better management of the agency.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, though, the simpler solution to this problem is just a progressive income tax, but that apparently isn't on the table.

which is thankfully unconstitutional in the state of PA. I think it's the only reason our tax load is more reasonable than tax happy NJ and NYS. I think flat taxes are actually excellent taxes and they leed to better decisions because they don't allow politicians to set people against each other. One of PA's biggest problems is that its economy doesn't generate enough coommericial revenue. And let's face it, it's not really a problem of taxation, it's a problem of legislative priorities. I'd be surprised if there aren't things less worthy of funding that are in the state budget than mass transit.

[right-here-i-say]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I actually think we basically agree--you also seem to be saying more efficient public agencies should get more funding, and vice-versa.

But if you are suggesting cutting PAT's budget will necessarily lead to increased efficiency at PAT, unfortunately that is not my sense of how agencies tend to react to budget cuts. In general, I am not aware of any effective way to indirectly force an agency to become more efficient. Rather, you have to do it the direct way, meaning through better management of the agency.

I disagree. They should drop any defined pension and increase the amount employees and retirees have to pay for benefits to what other (non-union) people pay in the area. This would immediately allow for more routes and service. If service quality goes down, fire the people and hire somebody who would be happy to make good money for an unskilled position. There are plenty of them in the area.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

which is thankfully unconstitutional in the state of PA. I think it's the only reason our tax load is more reasonable than tax happy NJ and NYS. I think flat taxes are actually excellent taxes and they leed to better decisions because they don't allow politicians to set people against each other.

But flat taxes aren't really neutral taxes--they cause more hardship to poorer people than richer people. So you are still favoring one group's welfare (richer people) over another (poorer people), and to actually approximate a truly neutral tax it needs to be progressive.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by right-here-i-say

I disagree. They should drop any defined pension and increase the amount employees and retirees have to pay for benefits to what other (non-union) people pay in the area. This would immediately allow for more routes and service. If service quality goes down, fire the people and hire somebody who would be happy to make good money for an unskilled position. There are plenty of them in the area.

I don't see how you are disagreeing with what I wrote. You obviously think PAT efficiency can be improved through changing how PAT compensates employees, and I have no particular stand on that issue (to that extent I am not agreeing with you, but I am also not disagreeing--I just don't have a view on the subject).

Rather, my point was just that I don't think whatever you think can be done to improve PAT efficiency, including changing compensation, should be viewed as an alternative to increasing funding and revenues--rather, I think we could do both. And you don't seem to be arguing we shouldn't do both.

So I really don't see the disagreement--rather, you are talking about one thing, and I am talking about another, and we seem to agree they aren't mutually exclusive.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But flat taxes aren't really neutral taxes--they cause more hardship to poorer people than richer people. So you are still favoring one group's welfare (richer people) over another (poorer people), and to actually approximate a truly neutral tax it needs to be progressive.

I don't think you're favoring anyone. Rich people frequently benefit from things more than others, I think too many people get caught up in worrying about that...especially so-called progressives. You might also say that people on the lower end of the scale benefit more from taxpayer funded programs. I don't agree with your assertion that to be neutral, it needs to be progressive. I think a flat tax that doesn't single out groups is the best way to go. All taxes have negatives. If I were to set up a national income tax, it would be flat, a standard deduction set to the poverty line, and no other deductions, not even for housing. It's simple, fair, and cost effective. Imagine a three line tax form...bet that would **** off tax accountants.