Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Larry: Good article with good points. I oppose the sales tax, too, but for different reasons. Actually, in an ideal world with a level playing field for all, I think that the sales tax is a much better tax than the property tax because, eventually, everyone pays. You did a good job of explaining how the less economically fortuned pay, but the wealthy pay, too. Here's how: Except for the money that they save and thereby get no immediate benefit, the wealthy pay as much percentage as anyone else. The difference is that savings are not taxed, which is a good thing, because it becomes capital that can be used to improve our economy. In addition, the sales tax is a flat tax, meaning that everyone pays the same percentage and thereby has an investment in how our taxes are spent. In fact, I would propose that we scrape all taxes (property, income, etc., etc.) in favor of a sales tax (some call it a "value added tax"). If we did so, costs of collection and enforcement would go down drastically. We would not need an IRS, for example. I submit that it is the fairer way of taxation, plus would make everyone aware of just how much tax we pay. If this were to happen, with taxes at all levels figured in, it would probably be in the 60% range. Once taxpayers realized what it was costing them, they would exert pressure on all levels of government to get taxes down.

I concur that this tax should not be imposed because it will dampen our chances of economic recovery and is contrary to our strategy of bringing in retail sales. We don't live in a vacuum and on a level playing field. We compete with other markets. That, alone, is reason to vote "No."

Posted by dsjohnson (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm afraid there is no way that future Commissioners would not use this extra income for another clock tower or other such non-essentials. Too bad a contract cannot be in place to prevent that. I just don't trust that the $$ will be spent as they are trying to "guarantee" at this moment in time.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just remember, dsjohnson, they are politicians. It seems that politicians, even with the best of intentions at the time that they make the promises, have a way of forgetting about them later. Usually what we hear is that circumstances have changed, which is probably true. Some of us old timers remember that the Kansas Turnpike promised everyone, in order to get the project approved, that when they paid off the revenue bonds that it would become a freeway. That was in 1956 and the original bonds were paid off by the late 1970's. Guess what, it's still a toll road. The reason given for not keeping the promise: Things had changed and the state could not afford to take it on.

Posted by stevo (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good point Larry,, I had been thinking that it was one of the most fair way for sales tax when everybody pays... but I totally understand your math... One other thing that I am affaid of is that some businesses that collect this extra 1% would just keep it in their pockets and not be honest about sending it in... The other day I was in the State of Kansas Web site and looking for a form and happen to see in the Business site that there was a site on sales tax and in the site there is a listing of all the businesses in Kansas that owe the State Sales Tax (state withholding also) and was totally surprised to see millions of dollars that are not paid...And more surprised when I found several Emporia and Lyon county businesses that owe thousands and over 2/3 of them are still in business taking our money and using it for themselves... I have to wonder why our city,county and state government are not after these businesses...they need to get after these people and not only that, some that are out of business, it is not hard to figure out who owned them. I will not mention names, for go into the web site and find them and shock yourself. I've already been fried!!!! I vote NO, I turn in my Sales Tax Honestly they should too...

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another thing to think about with this tax. How many of these have ever really sunsetted, even though that it always a selling point to get them approved? For example, I'm willing to be that when the original reason for the courthouse tax is satisfied, that there will be a new reason to extend the tax. The arguments will range from a need for new technology, that the original designers didn't take into account the need for more room, etc., and since we are already paying the tax, it won't hurt us. Once a tax is assessed, it is difficult to get rid of, even though you will hear to the contrary from those proposing it.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

again i have to ask....where is the money going to come from then? you can't just close the city services unless nobody wants police or fire services on sunday....or if you want water and sewer services on odd days of the month.
i agree that this is a hard pill to swallow, but the city has very few choices. a sales tax is at least a way to spread the burden a little thinner, having those who only rent their houses and those who visit here helping as well. realize that if you pay 100 dollars for something, it would only increase the total by 1 dollar. the other unmentionable option is to raise property taxes.
if somebody else has a better idea, and yes i know you are all yelling "CUT SPENDING"....then speak up. the problem with cutting the city spending is that the city has already cut fire and police jobs (both are currently understaffed by at least a few positions), and the city street and public works departments are understaffed by a bunch in each. think about it, we can't even afford to buy a new firetruck when the old one is beyond repair.....so i think cutting spending is out, or at least in some of those categories.
I again stress to those of you who can take the time to do it....study what the city spends it's money on. if you see silly things like clock towers, roundabouts, and other un-needed items..go protest at the meetings they hold on wednesdays.
oh, and you could always vote them out of office too...last time i checked that was a viable option

Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sales tax is the most fair tax out their because everyone does pay it. Everyone uses the services so everyone should pay for them.

In theory if someone makes less money then they will spend less and if someone makes more money they will spend more so the argument that it hits the poor harder than the wealthy is flawed.

I strongly agree with jayhawker and the idea of a flat tax, unfortunately I think that it is one of those things that will never happen no matter how much it makes sense due to the massive change it would require.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as alternatives go, I've got a couple of ideas for taxes that I would not be opposed to. First, a tax on wire transfers or money orders (with a business exemption). We have a lot of money that leaves not just Emporia, but the state or even nation through the aforementioned methods. Taxing a purchase of an item or transfer of funds that have no chance of benefiting or local economy makes sense to me.

Secondly, reconfiguring an internet sales tax that makes sense. At one time, the state was planning on instituting an internet sales tax, then there was a moritorium... Now? I've talked to some local retailers that don't know what they are supposed to do in regards to collecting sales tax because the state doesn't know what to tell them. Some common sense standardization would go a long way in making this form of collection a reality.

Those are my two ideas off the top of my head, anyone else have a few? We've got some smart posters here, surely we could come up with some alternative funding plans from somewhere.

Posted by hickory (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

when it sunsets jayhawker, we'll have to vote on it again to keep it or get rid of it. At the moment, I think it's a good idea. It's not this commissions fault that we're in the mess we're in. The last commission should have realized that everything they bonded, had to be paid back sooner or later. This new commission is just trying to get us back on our feet and I think in 5 years, we won't need it anymore. I live in Americus and I know the city doesn't have any money to keep gravel and rock on the roads. What are these small communities suppose to do? This would be great for these smaller communities. I think we should give the county and city a chance on this one. I know if we don't, our property taxes will be going up. Vote "YES" Tuesday.

Posted by eiggohp (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that sales tax is the most fair tax....because not only do we, who live in Emporia pay this tax, people who come here to shop help pay it also....as well as renters....who do not pay property tax. I do think that there must be strict accountability on what they are doing with this added tax. But let's let the rest of the people who come here and use our facilities help pay.....if this isn't done, it will be added to our property taxes and they are high enough already.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eiggohp,

We can debate the "fair" nature of this tax, but I do have one point I would like to make about renters. Indirectly, renters pay property taxes. The property renters live in is assesed property tax, and that value is used to help determine the level of rent payed. The renter pays the property owner a monthly sum, and part of that money is used by the property owner to pay property taxes. I agree with you that property taxes are high, but I disagree with you on your other point concerning who contributes (directly or indirectly) to the property tax pool.

Posted by stryker1_25 (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I say we take a cue from our forefathers and upheave the courthouse, the clock tower, and all those brand-new visitors' information signs and throw them in the cottonwood. We wouldn't need higher taxes if our leadership could cut down on frivolous spending.

Raise sales tax, people won't buy here. Raise property tax, people won't live here. Then where's your revenue gonna come from?

Posted by create (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But, but, but....how are they going to pay for things like $6,000 office furniture?

Posted by stryker1_25 (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't worry they'll get their furniture. But there's enough room in the cottonwood for that too.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

slvrnblck

I suppose in some strange way a sales tax is fair. It's about as fair as the taxes that many communities in northern California applied back in the 70's and eighties to cope with a drought and subsequent water shortages. A tax was applied to "excess water use." The amount deemed to be in excess was so small that everyone paid.

People tried conserving to avoid paying the tax. But, government, realizing that the conservation measures people were employing to avoid the tax were driving down municipal revenues, did as government almost always does. They instituted "non water use" taxes. That is, if people used less than the approved amount of water, they were taxed for a higher amount of water than actually used.

It was that type of governance that led to Prop 13 and other "I've had it" measures in California. It worked for a while, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Government always wins out in the end. They've got creative lawyers, analysts, accountants, administrators. They got their money!

Of course, we all know that something like that wouldn't happen here, would it?

Posted by GoodMorning (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you would not buy in Lyon County if the sales tax rose to 7.8%, where would you shop? Would you drive to Wichita with its 6.4% sales tax? I hope not. Look at the math. If you drive 160 miles to Wichita, round trip, at 20 mpg, $3.80 a gallon, and pay the turnpike toll, you would be out about $36.90. While in Wichita, you would have to purchase $2,600 worth of items just to recoup the cost of your travel. ($2600 times 1.4% is $36.40.) The trip to Topeka is shorter but the sales tax differential is less, so the general results are the same. If you want to save sales tax money, I would not recommend driving. If you want to be a knucklehead/contrarian, that is your choice.
One writer stated the Kansas internet tax was on hold. I believe Kansas has taxed internet purchases for two years. Line 18 of the Kansas Individual Income tax is where you should have been entering the Consumers’ Compensating Use Tax for untaxed out-of-state purchases by mail or the internet.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am constantly amazed by people who don't know better that expect public employees to live a life of poverty and work in a slum. What ever happened to pride in the community and it's services? I figure since I keep hearing the same old supply side economics line here I can keep beating my drum about vision, civic responsibility to provide taxes and time to better the community for future generations. I don't want my legacy to my kids and grandkids to be a sun-faded sign that says, sorry, there is no infrastructure, no buildings, no transportation, no bridges because I won't pay any more taxes, because all of us before you were short sighted tight-wads who wanna keep all our money to borrow at obscene interest rates for a big screen TV to watch trashy reality shows that dumbed us down and made couch potatoes out of us and a computer to type anonymous semi-accurate information that will float around for centuries for future generations to mock.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

justthefacts

I like infrastructure. Bridges and roads are nice things, except when you start building them to nowhere, a la Ted Stevens in Alaska.

As for myself, I'm not in the market for a big screen TV, but I say more power to those living in Emporia and Lyon county who are. If they can just hold out long enough Lyon county can tack on another one percent to the purchase price.

Accuracy - semi accuracy? I think there's some truth there. Where we tend to differ is that I suspect that a hundred out of a hundred of us picks and chooses what we believe is accurate.

I'm actually more worried about whether or not future generations are able to enjoy the rewards of their labor than I am in whether or not they're mocking me. By that time I'll be pushing up daisies or dancing across the Milky Way with Barry McGuire's Cosmic Cowboy.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

stryker1_25: You have summed it up best with your concise observation that if we raise the sales tax, people won't shop here, but if we raise the property tax, people will not buy real estate, which is already depressed. The solution: Do Not Raise Taxes.

You asked the obvious question that we are conditioned to ask: If we don't raise taxes, where is our revenue to come from? Fair question. I submit that we do without it. Yes, services will be curtailed. That is what happens when 2,000 jobs leave a town of 26,000 people. We cannot continue to support a government that was probably too big before this loss, but certainly has to shrink now that it has fewer to pay for it, and fewer to serve. It is the natural thing to happen. If we artificially prop it up, we only contribute to the problem, not the solution. Its tough, but the sooner we accept the new realities, and, more importantly, start doing something about it, the sooner we will recover.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 31, 2008 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hickory: You mentioned that it wasn't this set of commissioners who created the problem, and you're right. However, did you see what they did at their last meeting? They approved District Court's request for $6,325.00 for new office furniture for one office. I did the math on this one. If the 1% sales tax is approved, it will take the first $632,500.00 in retail sales to pay for this furniture from the new tax. The current commission may not have created the problem, but it doesn't seem that they are helping solve it. You know that there is some furniture in storage that they could use until we economically recover. Further, this action came while they are trying to convince us to vote a tax increase. It seems that new furniture is higher on the priority list than gravel for the streets. I submit that the streets could be graveled if we bought less new furniture.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 2:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

justthefacts, you are missing the point. I haven't read a single post where its author objected to paying taxes. What we are saying is that raising taxes is the wrong thing to do in our present circumstance. I am a little miffed at your comments, because this community, above all others, has willingly accepted higher and higher taxes for generations. That is how it came to be that we are one of the highest taxed communities in the highest taxed state in the region. It is not fair at all to say that we are tightwads that refuse to pay our fair share. Those of us who oppose this tax increase do so out of a genuine concern for our future. Good grief.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker, we are still one of the lowest sales taxes of communities our size in kansas. you can check it out for yourself by going to http://www.kansastreasurers.org/kstax.ht....

from what i can see, emporia is also one of the most short sighted communities too...build retail so we can get money. ok, who is going to buy the retail when we let our merchants price things higher than anywhere else?

we've been shopping emporia first, so we're broke like the rest of you. even with our sales taxes being lower, i can go buy a new car in wichita, emporia, or even OSAGE CITY for a noticable amount less than i can here. same with clothing, electronics, and most of all gas, which is normally 10 to 20 cents higher than even the turnpike lately. sorry merchants, but it's true. those of us who travel a little notice things like this.

at least with a higher sales tax, we can get taxed at the rate of what our local shop owners sell things to us for...hence a lot higher rate of return!

Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know yet how I will vote for the sales tax. I do know if we want to keep the services we have operating we have to pay for them. I would vote for the tax if they will state just exactly what the money will used to pay for, example crushed rock for county roads, asphalt for city streets, with the amount of money to be spent on each item per year. The local government can't run on fumes, and only so many cuts can be made, and employee's need to be paid to support their families. We need to make sure that when we vote in a tax, we have definned limits on what it will be used for. We got a huge new courthouse because people didn't turn out to vote. We have a lot of problems because we have not turned out to vote. Be a voter and let your vote count on Tuesday.

Posted by acricket (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Emporia, stop the crying and just raise the sales tax it is the best way for everyone. Look at all the other towns around you they pay more taxes and they are still doing fine. Yates Center pays $8.05 so what are you crying about. I moved from Emporia because of the property taxes being so high, I saved over $200.00 on my car taxes the yr I moved. Yes I pay 0.85% more sales tax now but I have more choices as to where I spend my money. Gas and property taxes are less too. Years ago Emporia just didn't want to go with the flo of things growing and now they are paying for it. Emporia was siting on a Gold mine with the interstate and the turnpike running thu but the older ones didn't want the change and now look where Emporia is. I have heard from the grape vines that Emporia is a great place to start a new life if you are coming from a Foreign country. I have heard that so many times here when I say I'm from Emporia. I never thought my home town would be know for that.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There seem to be quite a few folks who endorse the added sales tax and the other taxes, rate hikes, etc.

Maybe what we should do is have those whose tax bills are really getting prohibitive to send their bills off to those who seem to think they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. While we're at it, we can have them forward their higher electric bills, gas bills, fuel bills, food bills, and so forth.

That's it! That's the best option yet. Those who are so enamored with these increases can take on the taxes of those who are really burdened. If they were happy at the beginning of the process, they'll be absolutely overjoyed with this.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and your solution net is what?? cut taxes and city services? hope your hand dug water well doesn't run dry because without enough water department workers, they won't be able to fix your water main the next time it ruptures...oops, couldn't afford the new backhoe either..just have to dig that asphalt by hand til we get to the broken main

Posted by stryker1_25 (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goodmorning-

I hate to be a knuckleheaded contrarian. I'll still shop mostly in Emporia just because I know that between gas and other expenses I'll probably still save money in E-town. I was already aware of that.

But not everyone thinks like that. Just like all the people that bought brand new 4 cylinder economy cars to replace their trucks and SUV's that they didn't owe money on. Well now they've got a car payment, big taxes for a brand-new vehicle, and they still have $4-a-gallon gas. They would've saved money by keeping that truck or SUV.

So with that in mind, I bet people will still drive to KC, Wichita, Topeka, etc to buy "cheaper" stuff.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dhcc66

Here are my solutions

1. Vote no to the additional sales tax.

2. Go to Family Video tonight and rent an old Errol Flynn movie - given our current circumstances "Robin Hood" seems appropriate.

3.If all else fails, move to Ireland where the taxes are low, the pubs are lively, and the economy is roaring.

Posted by orlando (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I checked that state website about delinquent taxes----interesting. Why aren't these taxes being collected? One local business owes $93,000.00 in sales tax!? what is going on here that these business owners aren't paying these taxes. This money does not belong to the business owner. How much of that unpaid money would be back in the Emporia coffers?

Posted by stevo (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

orlando, you have been the only one who has apparently looked at it...but I know you were surprised too... Just even the state of kansas would be better off.. not only all the lyon county and Emporia residence if the businesses would pay their taxes that all of us gave to them... Come on Emporia Leaders, get the money that is due to us all...that would help our tax situation a lot, especially the ones listed that are still in operation and sure to be continuing to use our money....

Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

stevo -
Good and interesting information on that website. I calculated $427,810.41 from Lyon County businesses. Wow.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

net, you should go to an open budget meeting. there is a more recent column that shows a 190,000 expenditure for a new pond on the golf course. i'm going next week to see what else they have planned for us. i see this as the only way to strike back besides running for office.
maybe if enough people pay attention to what is being voted on in the meetings, and enough people voice their concerns, MAYBE they might change their minds.
if not, vote their butts out of office

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dhcc66

I'll be there.

Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

https://www.kdor.org/warrants/listing.as...

KS Dept. Of Revenue Website-listing unpaid taxes.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dhcc66: I admire your enthusiasm and optimism about changing things at the polls. We need more young people who share your concerns. I have to tell you, though, that as a very long time observer, I suspect that you will not meet with much success. I am not trying to discourage you, because perhaps the entire town will participate, but I have yet to see it over many election cycles. I don't know what the answer is. It always surprises me that more people will turn out for the general election at which the presidential race is determined than any other. Of course, that is the election when your vote is least important than at any other election. The elections where your vote counts more than any other is the municipal elections, yet it has the lowest turnout. Maybe you can find a way to change that. I doubt it, but I hope so.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are serious, I would recommend to you that you start now in preparation for the filing deadline next January. Put together a group (no more than 5 to 10 people) who are concerned about the community and who know a lot of people. Meet and develop a list of 5 or 6 people who you think would be good candidates. Make appointments with those folks and encourage them to run, offering campaign and financial backing. Hopefully, you'll get one or two who will agree. To be honest, that's all that you want even though there will be three seats open on the commission. Because everyone gets to vote 3 times, if you can concentrate on one or two candidates, and vote only for them, you will improve their chances of winning. After you get your candidates identified and a commitment from them, you need to start raising money. You will probably need at least $4,000.00 to $6,000.00 per candidate. Go to the County Clerk's office and pull campaign finance reports from other similarly minded past candidates for all offices. Contact the names on those reports, asking for donations. Your candidate will need a good treasurer - one that is well respected in the community because his/her name will be on all the advertising, and must make sure that campaign finance reports are accurately and timely filed. You will need to get your candidate to every speaking opportunity, get him to go door to door in targeted neighborhoods (where the votes are), have a committee to handle yards signs and another to handle radio and newspaper advertising. Have another committee to handle preparing for community events to get literature out and your candidate there, etc. Those are just the basics. It's a lot of work.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker, please reference where you get the numbers where we are the highest state taxed in the area? or the community? I can't find those numbers? I didn't miss the point. You get what you pay for. Seems like everybody wants something but doesn't want to pay for it.

Just like the buffalo commons thing which was later debunked by a number of midwest scholars, that didn't have to do with taxes. It had to do with the inability to sustain ag business. we only seem to be getting one side of the story or one side of the who picture. I'd like to know of one decent legacy left for future generations in this town. Since there were taxes when I grew up please don't reference that. All I see are 60 year old buildings, aging infrastructure and some recreational facilities that won't last 30 years.Having lived in other states with much higher tax rates and much better infrastructure, I'll that that over a clay pot to P___ in.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A few more points on the candidate: He/she should be well versed on the issues and have his/her positions well rehearsed in order to be able to speak with confidence. His/her positions must be reasonable and he/she must be able to speak easily before groups. Identifying problems with the current government is not enough; he/she must be able to propose reasonable and workable alternatives. Be certain that there aren't any obvious skeletons in the closet. He/she must be willing to make as much of a commitment as you and your search committee. He/she must be willing to work on the campaign daily, to the point of setting aside his/her life until the campaign is complete. He/she must have a "thick skinned" personality because there will be detractors (just like on these boards) so he/she must be able to accept that and continue to work without letting negatives get him/her down. Most important of all, he/she must be of humble personality who is motivated by a genuine desire to provide service to others, be willing to make personal sacrifice, understands honor and view his/her role as part of a cause larger than himself/herself. People like that are hard to find, and the sad part, he/she will still have a very tough time winning.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't really favor an increase in sales tax, but I am certain that either sales taxes will be increased or property taxes will be increased.
What I dislike even more than increasing taxes is a City Manager, City Commission form of City Government, because you put the fate and future of everyone in the City in the hands of 5 or 6 individuals who for some reason do not have the welfare of all as an agenda. The proposed golf course expenditure proves this to me.
I may be wrong but I believe that a better form of City Government would be a governmental body made up of Councilmen or Councilwomen from different City Districts voted to the position by the men and women of their respective Districts and a Mayor that has been elected and approved by the city's citizens at large.
Just the thoughts and ramblings of an old-timer.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

justthefacts: I understand your sentiment, and I apologize for being too acidic in my comments to you. You seemed to be as much concerned about our community as I, though we see the solutions differently. I think that we both want to save this town for future generations. I am getting very old, and I must say a bit crotchety sometimes, though I try hard to avoid the cynicism that seems to naturally occur in old age. I have known most, if not all, of our locally elected officials over these many years, and as a group they, too, were just wanting to do what was best. While I was still active in the community, I kept my opinions to myself as a way of getting along. I'm afraid that the anonymity provided by these boards has allowed me to say things that I normally would not. I believe strongly in all that I have said, but I wish that I had been more judicious in the way that I have said them. Your comment about being made to feel pushed made me realize that I had gone too far. Forgive me, please. My coffee circle would be surprised at some of my posts because they know me to be much more mild mannered than I have been here. Something happens to me when I close the door and it is just my computer and I, all alone. Is there a recognized clinical diagnosis for such behavior?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla: Excellent post. I agree with your assessment of the form of city government that we should have.

Posted by create (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just out of curiosity, I checked the State of Kansas delinquency roles as Orlando suggested. It's a shocker to see how much money we are owed. In fact, I'm rather upset about this considering what that money can buy for Emporia. I didn't total it up, but it's in the hundreds of thousands.

Here's the thing. If I shop at Joe's and he collects sales tax and keeps it without returning it to the state, isn't that theft? Isn't Joe stealing from the state and from the people of Emporia as well? I know I'm simplifying this, but by golly, I'm not a happy camper about this at all.

Why should I vote yes, and then only receive a portion of the returns back to my city treasury because not all retailers are sending what they collect to the state?

https://www.kdor.org/warrants/listing.as...

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Create

I looked through the same database. The delinquent sales tax in Lyon County amount to 1/2 million, if the database is current and accurate.

I also looked at the numbers who are delinquent in witholding taxes and liquor sales taxes. They amount to hundreds of thousands as well.

Yesterday you mentioned the $6K for office furniture. My wife and I talked about it last night and also began to wonder why on earth a position had been "split" to create this "need" for new office furniture. Did that mean a full time position became two part timers? If so, why would the furniture be needed? If the one full time position was split and became two full timers, how could that possibly be justified?

And now we've got that $180K hole in the ground out at the golf course. That gets plunked in the budget, but the taxi susbsidy for low income, elderly, and handicapped is being eliminated.

I really believe the commissioners are trying to fly in under the radar.

Posted by orlando (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know a number of people who ae not aware of this forum opportunity or do not have web access. maybe the gazette needs to weekly or so, put out a print edition of the comments on city/county situations, so that others can see some of the information that is offered here. More info about the unpaid taxes would be a good start. Why shop somewhere that isn't paying the owed sales tax?
Shop Emporia?

Posted by create (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's a fine idea, orlando. I know many people who would read the forum but don't have access. One gal I know changed her mind about voting yes when I told her about the delinquent taxes. She was aghast.

Netloafer,

I'm glad you added up those delinquent taxes. I knew it was a large amount, but I didn't realize it was as much as a half million dollars! I'm sitting here shaking my head.

Also, I'm glad you brought up the fact that they cut the taxi subsidy for low income, elderly and handicapped -- those who can least afford it and need those services the most.

I wondered about that split position at the court house too. Like you, I believe two full time positions can't possibly be justified. I will need to ask, but I'll bet both positions are full time.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

create- I too looked at the deliquent tax roles and added up all of the deliquent, unpaid taxes owed by businesses and individuals in Emporia and Lyon County and it amounts to $719,339.77, quite a tidy sum, which by the way is almost exactly the amount of the last City administrations alleged budget shortage, ("coincedence"), I don't know, you tell me.
I know that after doing some investigating I know I will not vote for a sales tax increase, afterall why should I vote to put more money in these tax evaders pockets. I don't think anyone should be made to put even more money in these tax evaders pockets, even if they are not from Emporia.
As I see it, these people and businesses who fail to pay sales taxes or any other taxes owed are nothing more than thieves who are stealing from their fellow Emporia citizens, neighbors and yes even total strangers.
The only time I will vote for a tax increase is when I see some fiscal management, responsibility, an end to needless spending, enforcement of tax laws and common sense from our City and County administrators.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S.- I don't know, but just maybe these tax evaders name, business names and amounts they owe should be published in the Gazette !

Posted by stevo (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It makes you wonder when you look at the deliquent tax list that not even the State of Kansas enforces the law better too... I bet it is in the Billions...owed and taken from us all in good faith..and some of the businesses are still proudly operating and even get Honors from our City, Chamber and even State!!! No more of my money goes to help support those businesses anymore... Sad to say, I will have to go out of town, and hopefully those businesses are being honest and not keeping our money for their own pockets so they can continue to keep on... even at $500,000 that is is $25,000.00 we are owed at 1/2 cent tax.. and figure that one business owes $93,000.00 that is $4650.00 owed by one business (that could paid for most of the furniture)... UNBELIEVEABLE!!!! CITY AND COUNTY LEADERS "WAKE UP"

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

stevo & others who say that they will not spend anymore of their money in Emporia, I know how you feel, however the price of gas, etc. to me is a prohibiting factor in shopping elsewhere, but I feel that if the names of these individuals, their businesses names, etc. who are reluctant to pay their sales taxes, and other taxes was published in the Gazette, then we as concerned citizens could and should boycott these businesses and possibly force them to realize that their way of doing business and stealing, cheating from customers who shop there, as well as all Emporia citizens and every other business, businessperson who pays their taxes, just so the tax offender can fill their pockets and bank accounts, will not and should not be tollerated by the citizens of Emporia and the businesses who may be struggling to survive and yet still manage to pay their taxes responsibly. A business that has no or few people shopping there and no or little inward cash flow is a very persuasive argument to any business or business person.
I for one printed a copy of the deliquent tax list for Emporia and Lyon county and will not under any circumstances do business with those offenders on the list, even if I may have to do without an item, unless I absolutey cannot, then I may travel elsewhere to purchase the item, if need be.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S.- How about the City Manager, City Commissioners, County Commissioners, etc. printing a copy of their own list of businesses who have failed to pay their taxes and make it known to these offenders that if they do not pay their delinquent taxes in a timely manner that their licenses to do business in Emporia and Lyon County will be revoked or not renewed plus a large notice put in the window or door of the business stating that the business is deliquent in paying its taxes .

Posted by Peyton (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Couple questions...
How do we know that the Tax List is up to date or accurate??
Maybe we should make sure the list online is actually correct before going to such measures.

The issue still comes down to the City and how the tax increase money will be spent. I have heard that most of it will be used for infrastructure on the West side of Emporia.
Tell me how that makes sense?? Does the City and County have a plan for how this money will be spent???

Posted by orlando (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At the very bottom of the KDOR page, there is a note that says "last modified 8/3/08", so I would assume (not necessarily a good idea) that it is up to date.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on August 3, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Time to move to a forum. I've set it up as a general Lyon County sales tax question so both the yeas and nays can comment.

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...