No thanks
Wayne F. Stoll, Reading
Friday, August 1, 2008
A question for the county commission:
My understanding is you want a 1 percent sales tax increase, for relief to property owners. So you want to shift some of the tax load from people who own lots of property — say half million to milions in property — and I suppose this would include the fat cats that have built million dollar homes, and shift this tax load through a 1 percent sales tax to the people who are working at the fast food places and many other businesses for, at, or near minimum wage.
This would also include the people who have worked at a low wage all their lives and are now trying to survive on Social Security.
If I understand this right, no thanks.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mr stoll, would you rather have your property taxes go up? i don't think it's an "i don't want any more taxes" kind of issue, it's more of a "where do we increase the taxes so that they impact the average guy least" kind of thing
Posted by blulitespecial (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Same here- No Thanks!
If the county would value my home at within 25 to 30% of what it would sell for in a decent market,I'd think about it.In the current market,I'd be competing with 20 empty houses for sale that are close by.I'd be lucky to get an offer if I asked one half of the appraised value.But it's paid for and not for sale.I do know snowbirds that want to sell their larger homes here in Emporia and the county,and really don't want to take the loss.They may have to.
Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a tough call. We're between a rock and a hard place now. I think they're trying to spread the pain out over the most people to make it a little less for everyone. Even renters pay property taxes through their rent. And lots of people come into Emporia for sporting events etc and eat out and buy gas. College students and visitors would share more of the tax burden in sales tax, I think. Property tax is already really high in Lyon County. I was shocked at the difference between Lyon and Cowley county tax when I switched my car tag up here. We can cut back a little on buying extras but have to have a roof over our head.
Posted by blulitespecial (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dhcc66- good point! It's gonna come down to which tax do you want,I'm afraid.
Posted by hottopics (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its a no win for any of us. Its a way out for the city's bad investments and frugal spending on needless items.
Posted by sadinemporia (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ultimately, this will pass whether or not we approve or disapprove it. I guess, if it comes down to it, we should pass it so that like a few others have said, it won't raise our property taxes...for now.
Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
theres no guarantee that property taxes wont go up after the sales tax passes. i vote 'no'
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the way they "say" it will work is that, at the county level, the mil levy will go up about 2 mils. That's according to what the Gazette reported the other day. If the sales tax passes the commissioners are saying either:
1. That annual proceeds (future) will go to about a four mil reduction in the levy.
2. That without the sales tax the county mil levy might have to be increased by about 6 mils. Thus, the approved sales tax would mean that the commissioners would only have to raise the levy by 2 mils, vs the 6 without it. Hence, the net "savings" of four mils.
I'm not sure which it is. If it is number one, the reduction number cannot possibly be firm, but is only based on projections. I think the commissioners have also said that the sales tax money may be earmarked for capital projects. If it is number two, it is based on creative accounting techniques, making an actual increase appear to be a decrease.
Time will tell.
Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this is the last resort. I personally believe that the city has no other options right now. After years and years of mismanagement, if this doesn't pass, I feel the city will be very very screwed, like it or not.
This will also be HUGE for smaller towns in Lyon County. Olpe will be able to get a new water tower needed so new homes (anyone in Emporia remember what those are) can be built. Neosho Rapids will be able to install a new sewer system, Americus will be able to redo the roads there, and Hartford can get a new, umm, whatever Hartford needs a new one of, haha. (Not exactly sure about Hartford)
Emporia will be able to pay back more principal on the forty million dollars that it owes, and that is a good thing, because the quicker that is paid off, the sooner we will be eating rainbow stew.
Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on August 1, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Forget the 1% sales tax increase and start taxing businesses that allow smoking.
Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 2:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Because that would generate approximately 1/10,000ths of the money that the sales tax will generate. Taxing businesses that allow smoking sounds like a noble idea, but in reality, it would generate very little income, and possibly cause more businesses in Emporia to close.
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I vote yes, what guarantee do I have that retailers who collect sales tax will be sending it to the state like they are expected to? According to data on the state of Kansas web site, over $700 thousand dollars in delinquent sales taxes have yet to be paid in Lyon county. We should be able to trust that retailers will honor their commitment and send what they collect to the state. Most have, but if the data is correct, it appears that many have not.
Posted by gazette_reader (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I keep seeing the words "property tax relief," but I'm not seeing a plan for how that will be the case. Or promises that property tax will not go up. I just have a bad feeling that if we pass this, we're still going to see property taxes go up within a couple of years. Then we'll be paying from both ends.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
gazette-reader
I think you're right. The commissioners and proponents of this sales tax are being deliberately vague. I think they're hedging their bets. I also think they believe they need the revenue (our money) more than we need tax relief.
Posted by JessicaNelson (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow...Madelyn's owes a huge amount of back taxes... that store isn't all that great anyway.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on August 5, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wouldn't taxing business who allow smoking be somewhat of an "oxymoron", since there are several business that don't pay the taxes they owe now !
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)