the Pittsburgh Problem (Progress, Penn: how much, private school, closing)

[pman]

The drink tax was a decent idea and I often wonder whether it would have gone over better had their been a concrete plan to improve transit with it, esp in ways that benefit tavern owners...such as late night T/bus service at frequencies that make it worth using.

[fleetiebelle]

had their been a concrete plan to improve transit with it, esp in ways that benefit tavern owners...such as late night T/bus service at frequencies that make it worth using.

Or the ability to actually hail a cab (even if limited to certain areas) rather than having to call for one hours ahead of time with no guarantee that it will actually show up.

[pman]

Originally Posted by fleetiebelle

Or the ability to actually hail a cab (even if limited to certain areas) rather than having to call for one hours ahead of time with no guarantee that it will actually show up.

oh yes, can't forget about that. why is this is the case? It's even somewhat hard to get a cab on the southside

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

I would imagine the use of a small fraction of a resident's, particularly fire and police.

Sure, but again I wasn't proposing non-residents pay the same taxes per capita as residents.

public works are tougher. who uses them and for what? what's the net benefit?

Public works covers things like street maintenance, snow and ice removal, stormwater systems, rodent control, and so on.

moral objections have merit as well. user fee taxes are more acceptable because people can choose to pay them.

OK, but Joe apparently thinks even user fees are immoral (or rather that charging them is OK, but increasing them is not--frankly, I'm really not sure I get his point).

you are assuming those two areas are cost centers for the city.

Not exactly. If you include property taxes, Pittsburgh may well be getting net revenue out of its central business districts already (I don't know). But of course property taxes on places of business where there are lots of non-residential employees are also in effect going to be taxes on non-residents in part. Conversely, I am pretty confident the wage taxes of people actually living in the central business districts would not be enough to pay for a fair share of relevant services.

back to the tax proposal. the city could implement your parking proposal (selling off parking assets) and my tax proposal but use the money to lower business taxes rather than parking taxes. as such, it's penalizing businesses less for locating in pittsburgh. froma revenue standpoint, you're hoping that revenue wil increase as you tax commuters at a "low rate" but reduce the burden on the company who needs to decide to locate there.

I could go for something like this. What I would really like, though, is for the wage tax to be progressive--but that would take amending the PA Constitution.

Lastly, Pittsburgh needs to do a better job of luring people downtown. It has one of the most underutilized downtowns in the country (imbedded in that sentiment is the feeling that its downtown is worth using). all the buildings are there, if you can get people living in them, you will improve the performance of this "profit center." I think they've already taken some significant steps in doing that.

Absolutely. It has a long way to go, but the Greater Downtown population is definitely on an upward trend.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I could go for something like this. What I would really like, though, is for the wage tax to be progressive--but that would take amending the PA Constitution.

yeah, I'm 100% against this idea. The uniformity cluase is one of the best things PA has going for it. I guess you're argument is that the rich should pay for Pittsburgh's pension problem which is no more right than suburban residents paying for it.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Absolutely. It has a long way to go, but the Greater Downtown population is definitely on an upward trend.

utilizing upper floors of buildings in an area that will receive a relatively fixed amount of infrastructure investment should, theoretically, yield higher net contributions to the city.

BTW-when I think of public works I think of poitn st park. when I think of streets and parks, I think of streets and parks, or maybe infrastructure maintenance, FWIW.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

yeah, I'm 100% against this idea. The uniformity cluase is one of the best things PA has going for it. I guess you're argument is that the rich should pay for Pittsburgh's pension problem which is no more right than suburban residents paying for it.

My argument is that progressive taxes impose less total economic burden for a given unit of revenue, and more closely track user fees than flat taxes.

BTW-when I think of public works I think of poitn st park. when I think of streets and parks, I think of streets and parks, or maybe infrastructure maintenance, FWIW.

At least in Pittsburgh, street and park maintenance is performed by the Public Works Division:

Public Works

This is how they define their role:

Public Works is dedicated to providing creative, customer-friendly
service while maintaining the City's infrastructure by resurfacing streets, preserving park facilities and rehabilitating public structures.The department also meets the environmental needs of Pittsburgh residents
by collecting residential refuse and recyclables and controlling the animal population. It also ensures public safety by responding to weather-related emergencies such as flooding, land subsidence, snow and ice storms, and other disasters.

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by pman

The drink tax was a decent idea and I often wonder whether it would have gone over better had their been a concrete plan to improve transit with it, esp in ways that benefit tavern owners...such as late night T/bus service at frequencies that make it worth using.

I thought it was a bad idea for three reasons.

First, waitstaff/bar tenders make less than minimum wage; about $2.50/hr. They depend upon tips. Patrons don't want to pay more and they are angry about the tax so what loses is the staff (and, trust me, I know many people in the industry who complained that the increased tax was absorbed by their tips).

Second, you are taxing one group to pay for another. In some cases this is justifiable but not when there is no net benefit to the group being taxed. I agree that there should have been concessions to tavern/restaurant owners but there were none. This is simple class warfare; pitting non/home drinkers against the patrons of bars and restaurants. Poor leadership in my estimation.

Third, the Port Authority is mismanaged and Onorato, who was Comptroller before being Executive is, in part, responsible. A public transit agency should not be subject to politics but it is. Onorato closed the barn door after the cow that he let escape. He should stew in his own juices, not the juices of those who are spending their hard earned dollars to pay for below minimum wage workers.

[Renaldo5000]

Originally Posted by pman

oh yes, can't forget about that. why is this is the case? It's even somewhat hard to get a cab on the southside

The main cab service in Pittsburgh is Yellow Cab. All Yellow Cab drivers are independent contractors. They pay the company a lease so they can rent the cab. The driver is then allowed to do whatever they want. They can choose to pick up (or not pick up) whomever they want to. Drivers tend to only take calls that they can make money off of.

[pman]

Originally Posted by iwonderwhy2124

The main cab service in Pittsburgh is Yellow Cab. All Yellow Cab drivers are independent contractors. They pay the company a lease so they can rent the cab. The driver is then allowed to do whatever they want. They can choose to pick up (or not pick up) whomever they want to. Drivers tend to only take calls that they can make money off of.

It's that way in Philadelphia as well (they are both regulated by the PUC) except there isn't one cab company and there isn't a shortage of cab except in bad weather. Gettign a cab in a bad neighborhood or outlying area can be problematic if but the main areas such as northern liberties, center city, south philly, u city etc it isn't hard to get a cab. It would seem something else is at work. Perhaps there isn't enough medallions (btw, the whole lease thing really screws the drivers and funnels the money to financing companies).

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

My argument is that progressive taxes impose less total economic burden for a given unit of revenue, and more closely track user fees than flat taxes.



At least in Pittsburgh, street and park maintenance is performed by the Public Works Division:

Public Works

This is how they define their role:

I'm not disputing they call themselves that, I was just saying I thought of something different. At any rate, I don't follow your argument. progressive taxation, if anything, is opposite of a user fee arrangement. those who would pay the most taxes aren't necessarily using the most services.
I believe progressives are completely misguided in their stubborn push to eliminate this clause of the Penn constitution. this type of taxation hasn't prevented NY or NJ from sliding downhill and it hasn't kept Trenton, Buffalo, or Newark free of serious problems.