Interesting G-20 Interview with Mayor Ravenstahl (Pittsburgh, California: pharmacy, subsidized, wage)
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 think when he is changing topics he is attempting to reinforce a fact or opinion that he's made with a situation that may be analogous to the topic.
If people in the suburbs and rural areas should pay to utilize the culture and entertainment (among other things) in the city would it not be fair to have the residents of the city to pay for services that they utilize in suburban and rural areas?
They do. Most townships have a services wage tax for employees who work within their townships.
Agreed that they are census estimates, however, the estimates are all we have except for "gut feeling" which is questionable evidence. . . . [A]t present, the only reliable evidence that we have about city population trends, as a whole, is the census data.
Actually, among other things I have been tracking the American Community Surveys, also conducted by the Census. Since they are sampling surveys and not counts they aren't as reliable as an actual Census, but they avoid some of the problems of the Census estimates, particularly on subcounty levels.
Quote:
We know that people are moving into housing downtown (as you professed that you would have done if not for children), but that doesn't tell us from where they came. They could have been moving from the East End to downtown in which case it would be a zero sum game.
Actually that was covered in the survey data we discussed back then (you can go back and look if you are interested).
"Enough" is not defined by what the city needs by whether I am paying, fairly, for that which I utilize.[/quote]
Sure. But you haven't established if you are paying enough in that sense.
If people in the suburbs and rural areas should pay to utilize the culture and entertainment (among other things) in the city would it not be fair to have the residents of the city to pay for services that they utilize in suburban and rural areas?
Exactly. There is very little in the way of retail in the city, proper. City shoppers go to the suburban malls where they use free parking (subsidized by the property taxes of County residents as well as the consumers). Some of these may have even been funded by Tax Increment Financing which means that they are using services that are funded through reduced taxation by the local school district.
They benefit from the police protection that they receive in areas that have a far lower crime rate than Pittsburgh, the city.
The argument that it is a one way street is absurd. In fact, I know people who have lived in the suburbs for decades without going into the city and work in jobs that have nothing to do with their proximity to the city.
Furthermore, the request, itself, is absurd. The city is not asking for money to develop or sustain services going forward. They are asking for the taxation in order to cover the deficits of bad decisions made in the past.
There are two options.
One is to increase user fees on city-based services so that they cover the costs and let the market decide whether these are of sufficient value to justify continued patronage.
The other is to create a plan in which any taxes paid by non-residents of the city which go solely toward the city are approved by the non-city municipal legislatures or, combine the city and county and be done with it.
Going to the state legislature (which includes members who don't represent the taxpayers being asked to fund city programs), is wrong and violates one of the core principles of US and British society which is that there should be no taxation without representation.
In fact, people would do well to review the history of the Stamp Act which made the very same arguments. An England, nearly bankrupted by its imperialism, looked to the colonies to fund the maintenance of a standing army (in part because many in that army were connected to members of parliament, including most of the officers). The Brits argued that the colonies derived benefit from their association with (and protection by) Britain.
Whether that was true or not (the colonists replied that they had LEFT Britain because of the lack of opportunites, there; hint, hint), the core issue was whether the colonists were either entitled to representation in Parliament or soley entitled by virtue of the existence of their own legislative bodies, to legislate new taxes.
The end result we already know. The economic engine (the colonies, suburbia), became much larger than the mother (Britain, the city).
"Enough" is not defined by what the city needs by whether I am paying, fairly, for that which I utilize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Sure. But you haven't established if you are paying enough in that sense.
Umm. I don't have to establish anything of the kind. You are a lawyer. Does the defendant have to establish that he/she is not guilty?
Those who argue that I should pay more need to establish why and what I get in return. And, as I said, that should be with the consent of those who are to be taxed.
Umm. I don't have to establish anything of the kind. You are a lawyer. Does the defendant have to establish that he/she is not guilty?
Taxes are not criminal punishment. And City of Pittsburgh taxes of non-residents are voluntarily incurred: if you don't want to pay them, you don't have to set foot in the City, and you will be free of this burden.
Quote:
Those who argue that I should pay more need to establish why and what I get in return.
Lots of people get taxed. The City can't sit down and figure out for you on an individual basis how all this works out.
Quote:
And, as I said, that should be with the consent of those who are to be taxed.
Ideally, yes, as I have agreed many many times now. But again, if it really bothers you that much, you can avoid going into Pittsburgh and then they can't tax you.
Taxes are not criminal punishment. And City of Pittsburgh taxes of non-residents are voluntarily incurred: if you don't want to pay them, you don't have to set foot in the City, and you will be free of this burden.
You are missing the point. The Mayor has been pushing the legislature to allow it to create new taxes. Some of these make perfect sense, such as payroll taxes on non-profits (since the largest employers in the city are non-profits).
But other proposed taxes would include a payroll or work privilege tax on people who work in the city even if they don't live there. To these I am opposed. People who work in the city also bring benefit to the city in terms of revenue while paying taxes to their own municipality. And, unlike that to which you refer, would not be voluntary.
I am opposed to imposing mandatory taxes such as these on people who have no representation in the taxing body.
The rest of the taxes that you mention, except for the RAD, which is also involuntary and which has been used to thwart the will of the people, I am happy to pay.
But other proposed taxes would include a payroll or work privilege tax on people who work in the city even if they don't live there. . . . And, unlike that to which you refer, would not be voluntary.
Sure it would be voluntary. If you don't want to be taxed in such a way, you don't have to take a job in the City.
Sure it would be voluntary. If you don't want to be taxed in such a way, you don't have to take a job in the City.
Huh? You want businesses to move out of the city limits in order to avoid taxes?
I don't have a job in the city. In fact, I moved my business out of the city for the very reasons that you cited. And one of the reasons that Cranberry/Butler Cty and Southpointe/Washington Cty are growing in population is exactly what you are saying.
Follow the money. If you love the city so much, then understand that the economics of doing business, there, is critical to its success. Taxing non-residents for work that they do in the city is going to drive business out of the city because business will want to locate where qualified workers want to work.
And I suppose that you are also in favor of the proposal to tax legal services (which are, currently, not taxed)? I hope so, since to be opposed to that would be to contradict yourself.
Huh? You want businesses to move out of the city limits in order to avoid taxes?
No, but I also don't want the City to drive away residents with higher taxes, nor do I want the City to fail to provide an acceptable level of services, or so on. As always with taxes, it is a question of balance.
Quote:
And I suppose that you are also in favor of the proposal to tax legal services (which are, currently, not taxed)? I hope so, since to be opposed to that would be to contradict yourself.
As an aside, it might be worth noting that my wife and I are non-residents of Pittsburgh that work in the City, so I am already arguing against my personal financial interests.
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of sales taxes since they tend to be regressive, and a sales tax on professional services would also be costly to administer. So, I would prefer to see the state raise the income tax, and in fact I'd really prefer to see the state adopt a progressive income tax--but that would take a constitutional amendment.
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.
