Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
We seem to get all excited when 600 people move into the city. What are the city's shortcomings and can they be addressed?
1. Much of the city other than downtown is in disrepair. Roads are in poor condition and sidewalks are a mess.
2. There is a 3% wage tax on top of hefty property taxes. Are you getting much in return? A good school district without stress of trying to get your child into a magnet?
When comparing living to the suburbs, it is really difficult to do that because I feel you get more for your tax dollar outside the city limits. If you take Aspinwall for example. It is about as close to downtown as Highland Park and actually faster to drive from Aspinwall to downtown. Does Aspinwall provide more per tax dollar? Property taxes are higher, but the wage tax is 1%. Average salary of $50K would be an extra $1k a year? Is that correct? Tax wise it is probably close to a wash, but maybe some disagree. Where do you get more value? What about crime? Is it safe to walk around Aspinwall? Is there more crime in Highland Park? Probably depends what part of Highland Park, but it doesn't depend on what part of Aspinwall.
Guess I am wondering if people are being realistic in the city's population return. People of course are hoping the population increases and Pittsburgh returns to a more powerful player within its boundaries, but is the atmosphere conducive for growth the way people make it out to be on this forum?
I am posing this as a question to others. Is it worth living in the city proper coming from a suburb? What if you have kids, does that play a roll? What if your income is $250K a year? That wage tax looks a bit different. Is there a reason so many wealthy people congregate outside the city in Sewickley Heights and FC? I don't really have an answer, but wanted to hear other's opinions.
You present some very poignant observations. As you may or may not know, I've recently returned from a visit to the city. One of my primary purposes was to determine if I would want to relocate back to Pittsburgh. I left with many of the same questions you have. I'm not unhappy where I now live, as a matter of fact I enjoy where I live very much. I've come to the conclusion that living in Pittsburgh is about compromise. For me, my decision based on what you are asking, is to visit a couple times a year. I can fly back quite a few times for the $12,000 I'd have to pay in property taxes. I currently own 2 homes in California and my taxes are well below that. Traffic and weather are also major issues that haven't been mentioned. I'm not willing to make these compromises to live in Pittsburgh as much as I enjoyed my visit and still consider myself a Pittsburgher "Yinzer."
Property taxes are *not* high in the city. Pittsburgh's mill rate is much lower than the surrounding municipalities.
When I looked a few years back, the city portion of property taxes was 10.8 mills. This is rather high, with only 10 municipalities (North Braddock, Stowe, Braddock, Homestead, Duquense, Mount Oliver, Rankin, Dormont, Wilkinsburg, and East Pittsburgh) having higher rates.
However, the school tax portion was 13.92. This was the second-lowest rate in the county, with only Clairton ranking lower (Clairton still has a land tax, which it uses for most revenue).
Taken together at that time, Pittsburgh's mill of 24.72 was the 27th lowest out of the 128 municipalities entirely in the county.
Of course, the reason it's so low is the wage tax brings in revenue. I think this is terrible, because by having a wage tax but low property taxes we offer a huge subsidy to businesses (particularly downtown employers), and make everyone regardless of income pay a pretty hefty share.
I don't know if it would be politically possible to entirely eliminate the wage tax and go over to a property tax, as it might cause an outflux of jobs from the city. But I think some rebalancing would be a good thing.
Edit: Oh, and at that time, I calculated the average change to tax burden if each municipality was in Pittsburgh. for Aspinwall, it eas $1,500 more annually. Only Clairton, Wilkinsburg, Duquense, East Pittsburgh, Mount Oliver, and Bellvue residents would see lower taxes in the City.
Property taxes are *not* high in the city. Pittsburgh's mill rate is much lower than the surrounding municipalities.
When I looked a few years back, the city portion of property taxes was 10.8 mills. This is rather high, with only 10 municipalities (North Braddock, Stowe, Braddock, Homestead, Duquense, Mount Oliver, Rankin, Dormont, Wilkinsburg, and East Pittsburgh) having higher rates.
However, the school tax portion was 13.92. This was the second-lowest rate in the county, with only Clairton ranking lower (Clairton still has a land tax, which it uses for most revenue).
Taken together at that time, Pittsburgh's mill of 24.72 was the 27th lowest out of the 128 municipalities entirely in the county.
Of course, the reason it's so low is the wage tax brings in revenue. I think this is terrible, because by having a wage tax but low property taxes we offer a huge subsidy to businesses (particularly downtown employers), and make everyone regardless of income pay a pretty hefty share.
I don't know if it would be politically possible to entirely eliminate the wage tax and go over to a property tax, as it might cause an outflux of jobs from the city. But I think some rebalancing would be a good thing.
Edit: Oh, and at that time, I calculated the average change to tax burden if each municipality was in Pittsburgh. for Aspinwall, it eas $1,500 more annually. Only Clairton, Wilkinsburg, Duquense, East Pittsburgh, Mount Oliver, and Bellvue residents would see lower taxes in the City.
Personally, I think you've drawn the incorrect conclusion with regard to the City's wage tax. You should look at the myriad of previous assessment threads where the consensus of the posters (at least to me) and the trend nationally was that we need to decouple property taxes from being the sole source of local school funding. What the wage tax allows is for a more balanced tax burden to support schools that impacts different people in different ways. A high wage earner that rents now both directly and indirectly supports the schools.
I'm a little confused why you think that shifting to a property tax only is a good thing and more importantly, why you think a wage tax is a subsidy to employers? downtown employers certainly do own buildings with the highest value but do you really want to discourage high value buildings? and why are they being subsidized? do they use more in public services? I think you have a lot of loaded statements. curtis doesn't seem to be saying taxes HAVE to be lower, just that they should get you more. better schools is a huge one. the fact is, demographics have made maintaining city services difficult, and past decisions have really hamstrung the city. curtis mentions the condition of the street, they're pretty bad even downtown...but that is a function of the brush with bankruptcy is it not? I'd also point out that Pittsburgh is pretty good at leveraging its corporate citizens. I think things like the market sq renovation, the new buhl park, restoration work in the allegheny commons are all steps in the right direction. small things like making it easier to have food trucks could do a lot to help energize the streets and cost the city virtually nothing.
Pittsburgh also needs to work on transportation. the high fees at the airport, the poor rail connections need to be addressed...and stop dickering around with megabus, can't afford to screw them. the city should probably consider contracting transit services since it seems the state might let the port authority slide. I'd also point out, certain neighborhoods are a short walk from downtown not a short drive. downtown and the immediate area need to cater to people who live there or nearby, not just making it cheap and easy to drive in from a nearby suburb.
Taken together at that time, Pittsburgh's mill of 24.72 was the 27th lowest out of the 128 municipalities entirely in the county.
Of course, the reason it's so low is the wage tax brings in revenue.
For myself, I actually don't mind paying taxes if I feel I am getting something in return. I feel they city's taxes aren't horrible, but I don't feel you get much in return for them. That is my issue. I pay a pile of taxes where I live, due to the school district and it might be cheaper for me to live in the city if I downsized, but not as cheap as it would be if I lived in Millvale or Etna. Millvale is closer to downtown than a lot of the city proper, so I feel it is a good comparison.
Interesting takes on it so far. It isn't cheap living here with the tax situation and the writing is on the wall that taxes are going to increase and services are going to decrease. Transportation and schools come to mind. Then there is the crime issues. How much crime is too much? Bike theft is considered a nonissue to most that live int he city. I posted about that and people just said, that is normal and the cyclists fault, so it is accepted in city living.
Personally, I think you've drawn the incorrect conclusion with regard to the City's wage tax. You should look at the myriad of previous assessment threads where the consensus of the posters (at least to me) and the trend nationally was that we need to decouple property taxes from being the sole source of local school funding. What the wage tax allows is for a more balanced tax burden to support schools that impacts different people in different ways. A high wage earner that rents now both directly and indirectly supports the schools.
The problem with wage taxes is that only individuals pay them, corporations do not. So by having a wage-tax heavy system the preponderance of the tax burden falls upon the residents of the city, not the businesses. Frankly, I could care less if corporations don't use local services like schools - it's not like the wealthy get as much out of city schools as the poor, and they don't get a proportionately smaller tax burden.
That said, instituting a local corporate tax is probably next-to-impossible. This is because it's easy enough for major corporations to avoid paying national corporate tax through offshore affiliates. It would thus be just as easy for a local business to shift money around to branches in other municipalities.
Another option, a "per head" employee tax, is equally bad. It would fall hardest on the local businesses which employed the most people, and lightest on those which employed the least. It would allow land-bankers holding vacant parking lots, for example, to get off scot-free.
Property tax, in contrast, is a completely fair system, in states which have sensible assessment practices. Every property owner pays, and there is no way of circumventing the taxes owed, as there is with income taxes. Renters pay indirectly through rent.
The main issue with property taxes comes from schools. Really, schools should never have been done on a local level in the U.S. - I think they ought to be state-run, which would allow for many more efficiencies and a lot more choices (and the state can more easily craft business taxes which won't be circumvented). But in terms of actually funding local government, property tax is undoubtedly better.
As I said, practically speaking, I understand why it might not be feasible to raise taxes to suburban mill rates right away. But there's no doubt the current system is highly unfair.
The problem with wage taxes is that only individuals pay them, corporations do not. So by having a wage-tax heavy system the preponderance of the tax burden falls upon the residents of the city, not the businesses. Frankly, I could care less if corporations don't use local services like schools - it's not like the wealthy get as much out of city schools as the poor, and they don't get a proportionately smaller tax burden.
why is that a problem? you only pay wage tax if you have wages whereas you have to pay property taxes regardless of what your income might be. corporations are not people and taxing them as if they were would lead to fewer jobs in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
This is because it's easy enough for major corporations to avoid paying national corporate tax through offshore affiliates. It would thus be just as easy for a local business to shift money around to branches in other municipalities.
or move their offices there entirely, which is what happened in Philadelphia which has plenty of business taxes (and a wage tax).
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Property tax, in contrast, is a completely fair system, in states which have sensible assessment practices. Every property owner pays, and there is no way of circumventing the taxes owed, as there is with income taxes. Renters pay indirectly through rent.
this is false. no system is completely fair and land bankers also get off in a property tax system unless it's based on land value. in fact, a mixed system is desirable.
If you do the arithmetic, the people who gain the most by living in the city are retirees. If they're not working, they aren't paying the wage tax, and pensions and interest income are exempt from taxation.
But who RETIRES to Pittsburgh from somewhere else? No one.
We are about to move to aspinwall from the city for the exact reasons mentioned. We wil avoid a 3 pct wage tax and send our children to good schools for free. It was a no brainer for us. I'd also note that the property taxes on the house we are buying are way lower than any house we looked at in the city in the sme price range.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
