[Vision2020] city taxes

Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:59:47 -0700

Jon,

I follow your argument. However, I disagree with cutting jobs in a time of 
economic stress. Often times Government jobs produce a stable economy. When 
you cut city jobs, they lose their jobs and spend less, causing others to 
lose their jobs, and than causing others to lose their jobs, and on and on.

When we have a poor economy, it is time to raise taxes and have the 
government create jobs for those because the private sector is not producing 
them. Government jobs pay money to people that go out and spend that money 
generating more jobs.

The problem is how the government is raising that money. Property taxes 
don't hit the wealthy as hard as the middle class and those living on a 
fixed income. We need to get the money locked up in the bank accounts of the 
wealthiest 10% and put that into producing more government jobs that will in 
turn spend money and generate more jobs. Over taxing the middle and lower 
classes generates more poverty and causes them to spend less in the 
community destroying more jobs. No, the time to tax, build, and spend is 
when the economy is suffering.

When the economy is good people don't need the government as much and it 
should not build and grow nearly as quickly, or it should shrink.

In a poor economy jobs go down, crime goes up, education goes down, and 
interests rates go down. We should counter this by building when interest 
rates are less and jobs are scarce. We should fine criminal and criminal 
causing activity more to generate wealth for police enforcement and deter 
crime, and produce jobs. We should hire more teachers to train out of work 
residents and produce jobs. This doesn't work though when you use Property 
Taxes. People pay property taxes not according to their ability to pay. If 
you are employed or not employed you have to pay the property taxes. Since 
you home is the last thing you want to give up you spend less on other 
things. This hurts the economy. I would come up with another form of 
taxation to help deal with our economy. Not property taxes that hurt more 
than they help people.

Thanks!

Donovan J Arnold

>From: "Jerry L. Schutz" <jschutz@moscow.com>
>To: "Jon Kimberling" <jon@n-k-ins.com>, "Vision2020" 
><vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] city taxes
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:47:13 -0700
>
>Jon,
>
>Reduced State Revenue, which also comes from my pocket means increased City
>taxes?   The State shortfall was only about $60,000  The Council cut $78,
>000 from the proposed budget by trimming spending on travel, a GPS system
>for the sewer & water Dept, new Emergency Dispatch equipment for the 
>Police,
>and development of parkland.
>
>Since the council was originally asked to increase taxes by 6.8% should we
>thank you for only increasing by 3%?  According to the DN (accurate or
>not(7/22))
>
>                " ...The $35 million budget approved by the council is less
>than was spent last year.  Spending in most departments is at current
>levels. ...  City administrators had argued for the tax increase saying
>Moscow was owed the money."
>
>IF the shortfall was $60K, and the $35 Million budget is less than last
>year, why did the City need to raise property taxes 3%?
>
>  WHY is the City OWED the money?  Your quote from your V2020 post is:
>     "I would note that prior to this year the City had taken a total of 
>10%
>of the 24% available over the last 8 years."
>
>Just because the City is allowed to raise taxes by 3% a year does not mean
>that they should.  During Mayor Agidius' terms I remember far fewer
>increases and pretty decent City services.  According to Steve Busch
>Moscow's tax levy is increasing faster than the School District over the
>past 5 years.
>
>If the City can keep Departments at the same level as last year and NOT
>increase spending in other areas, and trim more than the State shortfall,
>does that mean that we don't actually need 2 Asst. City Supervisors?  Since
>the Council cut the travel budget then they should have more staff time to
>spend in house doing their jobs, maybe we could get by with just one?  Then
>we could forego the 3% all together.
>
>When business and the University are laying people off, and taxpayers can't
>find living wage jobs I believe it is the government's job to keep pace 
>with
>the taxpayers.  Which means if WE have less money and have to live with it,
>so should government.
>
>Jerry L. Schutz
>
>
>From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On
>Behalf Of Jon Kimberling
>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:47 PM
>To: John Danahy; Vision2020
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] city tazes
>
>I would note that prior to this year the City had taken a total of 10% of
>the 24% available over the last 8 years.
>   One of the reasons for the increase is that the City is receiving 
>reduced
>revenues from the State. Specifically, our revenues from the State 
>including
>state-share revenues, sales tax and highway user fees are all lagging. I'm
>hopeful that last months positive revenue report from the State is the
>beginning of a positive trend about the business climate within the state.
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 7/18/2003

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail