Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Tax Warning

Pacific City Council
Tax Warning #1
Council admits Pacifica spends
more than it takes in.

But Council wants another $6 million
in new taxes in the next 20 months

The largest tax increase
in City history.

That's $300 for each voter
That's a real bad idea.

An ad placed by "Pacifica Business For Responsible Government" in the Sept. 15 Pacifica Tribune. 
Posted by Steve Sinai


wagner said...

ad was place by
"Pacifica Business for Reponsible Government"
frank is co-chair

how and why did we get to this point, and what suggestions do the candidates put forth to deal with a 15 million structural deficit other than tax and slash?

Anonymous said...

How? Because people were not paying attention.
Why? Because the people that have been elected in office strongly believe in tax increases.
Suggestions? You may not hear any real honest suggestions because it will scare the crap out of you. Candidates will try and suggest the same old same old "Tax Cuts" or Tax Credits".
Me? I will take the Candidate who suggests "Tax Cuts"
Finally? it will get ugly.

Anonymous said...

It's DOA.

When we see progress in dealing with the payroll and pension problem, maybe then people will think about voting for more local taxes.

Or maybe not.

Heather Tanner said...

I was thinking about this today. Its radical and I'm not sure if the idea will work. I'm going to float it by an accountant friend of mine tomorrow to see, logistically, if this will work. What if we lowered the sales tax (or eliminated it on some goods) in our county to make us lower than the counties around us and figured out a way to increase taxes in another area? I say this because if we could increase profitability for our businesses, we could increase employment and income - which, in turn, increases our tax base.

Steve Sinai said...

Ahnold was kinda' thinking about reducing the state sales tax and raising fees/taxes on other things:

Schwarzenegger: Lower the state's sales tax rate and apply it to services now untaxed

Anonymous said...

No to the tax on hotel guests too.

Markus said...

Agree with Heather. The key is to increase our tax base by showcasing and marketing the 2 properties, quarry & old WWTP for potential commercial development, while working with property owners of depressed existing commercial areas to increase occupancy and business. Perhaps fee waivers or decreases and/or monetary incentives for remodeling, rebuilding and marketing. Provide or improve better signage, lighting, streamline permit process, etc.. Win win for all.

Heather Tanner said...

Markus, you are right on my line of thinking.

Anonymous - I am against the hotel tax. I think taxes need to be fairly balanced. If we were providing incentive for people to come use our hotels, then it would be fair to increase the tax. If we are providing incentive for businesses to thrive, we can raise fees.... I get the reality is we need money to run the town. But we have to look at both sides. Our citizens deserve something for their money.

Anonymous said...

Another one sided discussion as usual, full of half truths. The ad of course forgot the $8 million the city's financial plan asks from employees. Why don't you go to one of the events that Mr Rhodes and Nihart are doing all over town so you can actually know what you are talking about. The plan does not work without cuts to employees. Plus for each step that does not happen there are back up plans and cuts in service. As soon as people get the actual facts they want to vote YES! Why is the whole story not posted here?

Anonymous said...

The largest tax increase? what a lie!!! The taxes each have to be approved one at a time. If there are not concessions from employees in the contracts under negotiations NOW then there will be more department cuts. Departments that have already been cut. It is that simple.

The hotel tax is paid by out of town guests. The fire assessment paid by property owners would replace the one that expired and the UUT would actually decrease the tax on telephone land lines and add one to cell phones (which most cities already have and we do not), helping our older citizens who often do not use cell phones but including younger adults who don't have property in some part of the tax. These do not happen all at once and are based on matching cuts in city departments.

Anonymous said...

"The ad of course forgot the $8 million the city's financial plan asks from employees. Why don't you go to one of the events that Mr Rhodes and Nihart are doing all over town so you can actually know what you are talking about."

There isn't any evidence of progress in these magical concessions supposedly coming from employees. City officials would be violating the law if they told us about the negotiations which are not revealed 'til it's a done deal and no one from the public has any say in it. This is part of why we've ended up with a payroll/pension problem that's humongous.

"The fire assessment paid by property owners would replace the one that expired..."

Talk about not knowing what one's talking about!
The fire assessment can't be rerun because we have a joint authority with D.C. and it would probably be illegal. No, it's a parcel tax, straight up, right into the maw of the general fund where it will promptly disappear.

Anonymous said...

so you want to support new taxes?
Council will use the new taxes to pay:
1. two tree trimmers who are each paid $91K total compensation.

2. a $32 million bond council sold six months ago to cover the pension red ink that piled up over the years of fat employee contracts.

Anonymous said...!

Anon said...

The Federal debt stands at $13.4 trillion with another $110 trillion in unfunded Medicare and Social Security liabilities.

The People’s Republic of China now holds about $850 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds, most of it quietly moved over the past few months into notes maturing in less than a year.

Anonymous said...

"So while the private sector employee is struggling to invest money from his own $76 thousand dollar salary in an effort to retire in his late sixties, his taxes are being raised so that he can fund his neighbor’s government pension. I am not at all undermining the job that our teachers and public servants do – they are well appreciated. But is it equitable that the cop in Carlsbad, Calif., that Karlgaard writes about should be able to retire at age 50 with an annual pension of more than $76,000 dollars for the remainder of his life?

Sound fair? It’s not."

The Ghost of Jarvis said...

If you think that these tax increases are a panacea for all our woes, what exactly is going to change in five years when these taxes start to sunset? All these taxes do is give a free pass to 4 inept incumbents (two, Vree and Digre, who think they have done such a great job they are running again)who did nothing for the 5 years of the previous parcel tax except spend on pet projects and fire department heads. 5 years from now they will come back begging for some other new way to tap our pocketbooks. You think the employees are going to go without a raise and a pension freeze for the next 5 years? Let's get real.