LYON COUNTY voters will have their say Tuesday on the proposed 1-cent sales tax.
The argument for the tax is plain. Lyon County and its cities need revenue. Since the state reneged on its promise to share tax money with local governments, those governments have had to increase taxes to do their jobs. The easiest tax to raise is the property tax, because it requires only a commission or board vote to increase the mill levy.
This has caused a return to over-dependence on property tax and placed a burden on property owners — especially those on fixed incomes. In bad economic times, such as those Americans are enduring now, most people are effectively on fixed incomes. Prices go up and taxes go up, but wages seldom budge.
The Lyon County Commission has pledged to use its share of a sales-tax increase to lower property taxes. That would be welcome.
The sales tax has been criticized as a “regressive” tax. That means that everybody — rich or poor — pays the same percentage of tax. Obviously, a 1 percent tax is a greater burden on a poor person than on a rich one.
Although that is true, the sales tax is also as close as a tax can be to being painless. People pay the tax in dribs and drabs, never have to do any paperwork and never get a bill from the government. Sales taxes are an unremarked part of daily life, while income and property taxes — supposedly “progressive” taxes — cause anguish for taxpayers every year.
A sales tax also broadens the tax base. It is paid by everyone — property owners, people who own no taxable property, visitors stopping by for a meal or teenage boys renting tuxes for the prom. They may be regressive, but it is also the ultimately democratic tax — everybody pays a fair share.
Much of the opposition to the sales-tax plan is based on the assumption that government — any government — cannot be trusted to spend public money wisely. So, the argument runs, the best thing to do is to put the politicians on a fiscal diet.
The flaw in the argument is that when taxes are denied, it is not the politicians who are put on a diet, but the community.
Lyon County and its people need this tax. The people and city of Emporia really need this tax.
At the polls next week, vote Yes on the county sales tax and peel back some of the weight of these intolerable property taxes.
Patrick S. Kelley
for the Editorial Board
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 siamesefred (anonymous) on August 2, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope that county residents who believe in the sales tax get out and vote in the primary.
I understand the frustration of Emporia residents who are unhappy with the way the city spends money and have no belief that the sales tax revenue will be used to offset other taxes.
On the county side, however, our elected officials have said they will use the sales tax money to keep property taxes down rather than seeing it as a new source of revenue for frivolous spending.
Will commissioners keep their promise? I don't know, but they can be held accountable.
And those of us who live in outlying towns know what benefits extra sales tax revenue can bring. Some towns may get necessary road improvements or it could offset higher and higher utility franchise fees.
If a county-wide sales tax dies, expect to see Emporia city commissioners put forth an Emporia sales tax increase. By state law, city-levied sales taxes don't have to be shared with county governments. But county-levied sales taxes have to be shared with incorporated cities within the county.
Please... if you live in the county, make your voice heard. Don't let the disgruntled citizens of Emporia kill this measure.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Patrick S. Kelley-Do you in your infinate wisdom really think that if a sales tax increase is approved, the city and county commissioners will stop at that, I really don't think so, because I believe that if the commissioners, city manager, etc., see how easy it was to convince the people to raise the sales tax it certainly will not stop there, because when you make it easy for politicians to raise taxes for revenue to spend frivously the increase in taxes etc. just keeps going on and on, afterall the politicians don't seem too concerned about collecting delinquent taxes owed and they don't seem to concerned about their wage, afterall all they have to do is vote and approve an increase in their own wages.
Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can't get blood from a stone. I really dislike the way this proposal was handled. I cannot support it.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
averageguy2009- I agree with you whole heartadly.
I wonder if anyone can explain to me exactly what a City Planners job really is ?
What does a Consultant do, do they advise the City Manager and City Planner what to do? I mean isn't a City Manager supposed to be able to plan what to do about City business or problems or is he just too busy planning where and how to purchase his next new car (Jaguar) ! If so why not have just a Consultant and do away with the City Manager and City Planner, that would save the City of Emporia and its citizens
$100,000 per year (City Manager) and $65,000 (Consultant)respectively and I am sure there is a lot more administrative fat that could be trimmed.
Also why aren't the City and County Officials managing and planning a course of action on collecting all the deliquent taxes owed the City and County by individuals and businesses who owe deliquent taxes ?
Posted by Summer_Breeze (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Obviously this is an emotionally-charged issue, judging from the somewhat inflamed rhetoric of a few posters. I think Pat Kelley wrote a well-reasoned editorial, but I disagree with his premise that sales tax is painless, or that it is less difficult to pay for people on fixed incomes than property tax increases.
Pat argues that the sales tax "broadens the tax base" because it's imposed on everyone. In fact, we'd be better served if we broadened our PROPERTY tax base by repealing many of the property tax exemptions (churches, not-for-profits that own property, ESU, certain types of agricultural and manufacturing equipment, etc., etc.), so that ALL property owners paid their fair share, instead of the lion's share coming from only those people who own residential and agricultural real estate.
I suggest people take a look at their weekly grocery bills, and calculate what an additional 1% sales tax will cost them over the course of a year. I'll wager it's more than what they'd pay in an increased property tax.
Posted by justaflushaway (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was just wondering it a list of dead beats and businesses who have delinquent taxes available for viewing? I appreciate someone telling me and thanks for your time
Posted by Summer_Breeze (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A list of deliquent taxes (and who owes them) is published by the Lyon County Treasurer every year. If you can't find the publication, you can ask the Treasurer's office for a list.
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
justaflushaway,
Here's a link for delinquent taxes which was updated as of Friday. When you get to this page, type Lyon into the search box and it will give you just Lyon County stuff.
https://www.kdor.org/warrants/listing.as...
Summer_Breeze,
You have a good point when you say we should add 1% to our current grocery bills to see that the amount would be higher in one year than any rise in property taxes. Good point indeed.
Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OMG! I gotta move - I can't afford to keep paying the taxes here, much less add on a new one. I don't see why some of the businesses around here should be exempt from property tax (or at least a percentage of it). Churches or non-profits, maybe. ESU? Well, couldn't they pony up 10% or something? 'dese taxes be breakin' my back!
Posted by anonomom (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OH MY!! Yeah, check out that link. Madelynn's owes something close to $100,000 in SALES TAX alone! What is going on down there? Also $50,000 in withholding taxes.
Posted by methusla (anonymous) on August 5, 2008 at 12:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
averageguy2009- You were kidding when you said that the City Managers salary should be $125,000 weren't you !
The $100,000 I quoted before was before the $5,000 raise he definately didn't deserve. I believe that, based on the City Managers' performance his salary should be more like $65,000.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on August 5, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Voted this morning, my voice said no!
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.)