Why does StL uniquely require an earnings tax? That is to say, compared to other local municipalities that are able to survive from property and sales taxes. Oughtn't St. Louis, a dense urban area, be even better equipped to live off of property taxes than its neighbors?ward24 wrote: But takeaway should be this: There's no "plan" to replace E tax because there's no legal means to do it. State would have to give us a new tax, which is unlikely. E tax loss would truly be catastrophic for St. Louis residents and people who work here.
- 1,868
^ That, and
I hate this line of reasoning - as much as I hate the "I'm on a fixed income so my property tax shouldn't go up when everyone else's does" line of reasoning.
It's really easy for folks to vote for things that can't be afforded when they know they won't have to bear a portion of the cost that everyone else would. Why would we want our most vocal voting bloc to have no "skin in the game" when tax increases or spending decisions come up? I know why politicians who like to spend money would like that, but why would the rest of us?
Why is it more "fair" that retired people don't have to pay the tax?The irony is that the Earnings tax is the best, most stable, fairest revenue source we have. Doesn't hit retired people or folks not working, unlike other taxes.
I hate this line of reasoning - as much as I hate the "I'm on a fixed income so my property tax shouldn't go up when everyone else's does" line of reasoning.
It's really easy for folks to vote for things that can't be afforded when they know they won't have to bear a portion of the cost that everyone else would. Why would we want our most vocal voting bloc to have no "skin in the game" when tax increases or spending decisions come up? I know why politicians who like to spend money would like that, but why would the rest of us?
Why does STL need the earnings tax vs. other municipalities?
First off, many municipalities aren't living on sales and property taxes. Many munis in STL & Jefferson County aren't providing even rudimentary services. Policing is non-professional and unaccredited, they don't have parks, there's no building inspector, municipal court is open two hours a week, they can't pave streets or build sidewalks, they can't even borrow money. So the property & sales tax route is already failing miserably in many places - and the results is places whose revenue is based on the speed trap model.
Second, St. Louis provides services to the rest of the region in ways other municipalities generally do not. Forest Park is the 4th most visited park in the country, St. Louis City residents pay for it. City hosts a variety large events, Fair St. Louis for instance, that no one else in the region can host. You need a robust police and fire dept. to do that. We provide policing, fire, and EMS for a lot of people who don't live in St. Louis everyday. St. Louis spends more in Forest Park every year than many municipalities entire budgets. Its great for residents, but people around the region get that for free.
Third, sprawl. Federal and state policies have created more sprawl in the St. Louis region than most places, and we've obviously lost tons of population. As population leaves, sales tax and property tax also decline. You can't really pin the problem just on the City when the state is spending billions building bridges to St. Charles.
Fourth, a lot of property in St. Louis is tax exempt, including some of the most valuable property. SLU & BJC, etc. High value, important service to the region, employment hubs for the region, but no property tax.
Fifth: We're old, and we're largely poor. We're older than any suburb. Places like Creve Couer have much newer infrastructure and higher median incomes, lower poverty. Its just less expensive to maintain new places. Check back with Creve Couer in 100 years, they may want an earnings tax too.
Sixth: State caps the property tax rate. That works fine in Ladue with high assessed values and a very affluent population, but property values in St. Louis are low - in many cases property is functionally a liability rather than an asset, and its owned by people with very low incomes.
Seventh: St. Louis and Kansas City aren't unique. Many successful cities, and many unsuccessful places, have City or County income or earnings taxes. Its just one means of revenue, its not predictive of success or failure. NYC has an income tax, so does Detroit, so does Portland. So does Cleveland, so does Birmingham AL. Its not unique, its just part of the mix of how some places fund local government. Some places have higher state income taxes but do more things for Cities - Minnesota for example.
Eighth: Missouri is not a high tax state - its in the bottom half overall no matter how you slice it. But personally I want to live in a City and state with decent services. I want the fire truck or ambulance to show up. I want a top quality park. I want streets paved. I want to know someone inspected the kitchen in the restaurant. Etc, etc. I'm more than willing to pay 1% of my income for those things, just like I've been doing for the last 15 years.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
First off, many municipalities aren't living on sales and property taxes. Many munis in STL & Jefferson County aren't providing even rudimentary services. Policing is non-professional and unaccredited, they don't have parks, there's no building inspector, municipal court is open two hours a week, they can't pave streets or build sidewalks, they can't even borrow money. So the property & sales tax route is already failing miserably in many places - and the results is places whose revenue is based on the speed trap model.
Second, St. Louis provides services to the rest of the region in ways other municipalities generally do not. Forest Park is the 4th most visited park in the country, St. Louis City residents pay for it. City hosts a variety large events, Fair St. Louis for instance, that no one else in the region can host. You need a robust police and fire dept. to do that. We provide policing, fire, and EMS for a lot of people who don't live in St. Louis everyday. St. Louis spends more in Forest Park every year than many municipalities entire budgets. Its great for residents, but people around the region get that for free.
Third, sprawl. Federal and state policies have created more sprawl in the St. Louis region than most places, and we've obviously lost tons of population. As population leaves, sales tax and property tax also decline. You can't really pin the problem just on the City when the state is spending billions building bridges to St. Charles.
Fourth, a lot of property in St. Louis is tax exempt, including some of the most valuable property. SLU & BJC, etc. High value, important service to the region, employment hubs for the region, but no property tax.
Fifth: We're old, and we're largely poor. We're older than any suburb. Places like Creve Couer have much newer infrastructure and higher median incomes, lower poverty. Its just less expensive to maintain new places. Check back with Creve Couer in 100 years, they may want an earnings tax too.
Sixth: State caps the property tax rate. That works fine in Ladue with high assessed values and a very affluent population, but property values in St. Louis are low - in many cases property is functionally a liability rather than an asset, and its owned by people with very low incomes.
Seventh: St. Louis and Kansas City aren't unique. Many successful cities, and many unsuccessful places, have City or County income or earnings taxes. Its just one means of revenue, its not predictive of success or failure. NYC has an income tax, so does Detroit, so does Portland. So does Cleveland, so does Birmingham AL. Its not unique, its just part of the mix of how some places fund local government. Some places have higher state income taxes but do more things for Cities - Minnesota for example.
Eighth: Missouri is not a high tax state - its in the bottom half overall no matter how you slice it. But personally I want to live in a City and state with decent services. I want the fire truck or ambulance to show up. I want a top quality park. I want streets paved. I want to know someone inspected the kitchen in the restaurant. Etc, etc. I'm more than willing to pay 1% of my income for those things, just like I've been doing for the last 15 years.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
Don't forget taking care of the homeless. And other cities' major roads are taken care of by the state or county. They also didn't have a couple square miles of productive land turned into highways.
Other cities are reliant on visitors too. Chesterfield gets tons of revenue from shoppers. Richmond Heights says that's its goal in its budget. Can't all win that game as we see with St Ann and Crestwood.
Other cities are reliant on visitors too. Chesterfield gets tons of revenue from shoppers. Richmond Heights says that's its goal in its budget. Can't all win that game as we see with St Ann and Crestwood.
- 307
^^Scott - Thanks for that explanation. It's the most concise, complete and convincing argument for the earnings tax I've ever seen.
- 1,868
Is there a figure available for how much money St. Louis spends on various regional assets, as a part of its budget? Parks, homeless care, etc?
So, the city has a budget of a billion dollars for 315,000 people? I certainly understand having the largest police force and fire department, but what all of these other services? I'd like to see a breakdown of the budget. And forest park is now largely funded by the non-profit, forest park forever. Also, why does the city need a building the size of the Abrams courthouse as a second city hall. The main was built when the city had far more people. We couldn't we eliminate more city government jobs? We can't cut the budget at all? Is it mostly pensions?
Don't forget the airport and water dept, things no other muni does.
Here's a bunch of budget docs on the city's website
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... /index.cfm
Here's a bunch of budget docs on the city's website
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... /index.cfm
- 472
That may be true for Tower Grove Park, but I doubt Forest Park Forever fully covers all the park's needs. If that land deal with BJC paying rent to the park worked out in the past, it might be a different story. I hope that can happen one day.jcity wrote:So, the city has a budget of a billion dollars for 315,000 people? I certainly understand having the largest police force and fire department, but what all of these other services? I'd like to see a breakdown of the budget. And forest park is now largely funded by the non-profit, forest park forever. Also, why does the city need a building the size of the Abrams courthouse as a second city hall. The main was built when the city had far more people. We couldn't we eliminate more city government jobs? We can't cut the budget at all? Is it mostly pensions?
You surely see that most city services are not equal to the task before them. Forestry cleans up what falls but does no watering or pruning, and they rarely plant anything. Parks and rec employees mow grass infrequently and are largely subsidized by local park conservancies. Those parks without conservancy groups are vacant patches of nothing with some left over playground stuff from the 60s. Plenty of broken disintegrated railroad ties too. The streets department is, as everyone on this forum is aware, a very disappointing group. The water division does an excellent job, but their deferred maintenance on the intake towers and other things around town will catch up with them. Garbage, yard waste, and recycling has gotten better, but their equipment is old and my alley is very often skipped.
There's surely plenty of waste, and a lot has been wasted on Paul McKee and all of Francis Slay's friends, but overall the city is quite obviously poor. Obviously the county offices should disappear.
I lived abroad for years and traveled through many "third world" countries in far better condition than large parts of St. Louis city. Reverse culture shock in St. Louis is mostly about the extremely barren and broken nature of the place. I'm still horrified when I see broken cassette tapes fluttering along the sidewalks for whole blocks. Who the hell is listening to cassette tapes in the 2010s?
I'm sure there is wasteful spending and plenty is probably bound up in pensions, but it is a very odd position to argue that St. Louis doesn't desperately need money. Is your street plowed? Mine sure isn't (not that I care since I ride the bus).
On the topic of park conservancies by the way, I think there's something interesting to always be exploring there. Slay once said, in relation to the later abandoned Gateway Mall Conservancy, that it would be great to establish a conservancy for every park in the city. The implication was that it would take a big load off the government. If all the parks could take care of themselves and all the neighborhoods could fund their own infastructure, then maybe we wouldn't need the earnings tax.
That clearly doesn't work. How many park conservancies exist in the city? Friends of Tower Grove Park is pretty solid. Forest Park Forever is big. The Water Tower Preservation Society is in the black. There are friends groups for Carondelet Park, Clifton Park, and perhaps a few others. Is there anything for Fairgrounds, O'Fallon, or Hyde Parks?
Friends groups, kickball leagues, and festivals supply programming but I don't think any of these groups really get the grass cut.
That clearly doesn't work. How many park conservancies exist in the city? Friends of Tower Grove Park is pretty solid. Forest Park Forever is big. The Water Tower Preservation Society is in the black. There are friends groups for Carondelet Park, Clifton Park, and perhaps a few others. Is there anything for Fairgrounds, O'Fallon, or Hyde Parks?
Friends groups, kickball leagues, and festivals supply programming but I don't think any of these groups really get the grass cut.
Right now anyone that works or lives in the city pays the earnings tax. Would it be possible to just charge non-residents as a way to recoup some of the costs from regional services such as policing, homeless, parks, illegal dumping, etc?
Attempt at answers to a few of the questions above:
Is the City's budget really $1 billion? Answer - No. While "$1 billion budget" is a nice sound bite, that includes things that aren't listed on most municipal budgets, as well as things that are regional in nature. For instance, it includes the airport, water division, grant funded homeless services, the port authority, all the county functions like prosecutor, sheriff, etc, but also things where the City just serves as a pass thru funding source. Included in that $1 billion is also the City's share of Metro funding, which the City just collects and remits to Metro. It also includes CVC and RSA pass thru payments. An apples to apples comparison with other municipal budgets would give you something closer to $600 million, plus or minus.
What percentage of the City's budget is actually services that are regional in nature? There's no way to really figure that out exactly, but I think a reasonable estimate from the $1 billion figure is about $400 million. About 40% of the City's overall budget is regional services. Airport, Metro, partial water, CVC, RSA, partial police and fire, partial homeless services, partial parks dept, partial prosecutor, partial treasurer/parking, etc. There are very strong arguments that City provides far more services of a regional nature than any other municipality, so you really can't compare City's budget per capita, to say Ballwin or something.
Out of the roughly $600 million you can say are "City Services" another $100 million of that is funding legally restricted to a certain thing - like parks dept capital expenditures, or federal grants to the Health Dept, etc. There's about $500 million that there is flexibility with, and the earnings tax is the largest share of that pot. Of that $500 million, 75% is salaries, benefits, and pensions. Of the roughly $125 million that isn't personnel, about $67 million this year will be payments on existing debt. That's everything from firetrucks to the City jail to the Convention Center.
Employees - In 1999 the City had a total workforce of 7,933 employees, in 2016 that figure is 6,681 employees. That's a 16% reduction. You have to keep in mind however that regardless of the City's population, there are many fixed activities: Just as much grass to mow in the parks, just as many streets to pave, just as many streetlights to maintain, just as many street trees, the same number of dumpsters to empty. Etc.
Hope this info helps!
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
Is the City's budget really $1 billion? Answer - No. While "$1 billion budget" is a nice sound bite, that includes things that aren't listed on most municipal budgets, as well as things that are regional in nature. For instance, it includes the airport, water division, grant funded homeless services, the port authority, all the county functions like prosecutor, sheriff, etc, but also things where the City just serves as a pass thru funding source. Included in that $1 billion is also the City's share of Metro funding, which the City just collects and remits to Metro. It also includes CVC and RSA pass thru payments. An apples to apples comparison with other municipal budgets would give you something closer to $600 million, plus or minus.
What percentage of the City's budget is actually services that are regional in nature? There's no way to really figure that out exactly, but I think a reasonable estimate from the $1 billion figure is about $400 million. About 40% of the City's overall budget is regional services. Airport, Metro, partial water, CVC, RSA, partial police and fire, partial homeless services, partial parks dept, partial prosecutor, partial treasurer/parking, etc. There are very strong arguments that City provides far more services of a regional nature than any other municipality, so you really can't compare City's budget per capita, to say Ballwin or something.
Out of the roughly $600 million you can say are "City Services" another $100 million of that is funding legally restricted to a certain thing - like parks dept capital expenditures, or federal grants to the Health Dept, etc. There's about $500 million that there is flexibility with, and the earnings tax is the largest share of that pot. Of that $500 million, 75% is salaries, benefits, and pensions. Of the roughly $125 million that isn't personnel, about $67 million this year will be payments on existing debt. That's everything from firetrucks to the City jail to the Convention Center.
Employees - In 1999 the City had a total workforce of 7,933 employees, in 2016 that figure is 6,681 employees. That's a 16% reduction. You have to keep in mind however that regardless of the City's population, there are many fixed activities: Just as much grass to mow in the parks, just as many streets to pave, just as many streetlights to maintain, just as many street trees, the same number of dumpsters to empty. Etc.
Hope this info helps!
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
- 9,554
Trim city staff by another 20%. We have less people and better tech... Use savings to give each job left a 5% raise. Have every job posted and everyone reapply. Probably a 2 year process. Using savings for capital projects and maintenance needs
Cutting 20% would equal about $75,000,000 a year.
Cutting 20% would equal about $75,000,000 a year.
- 472
Heavy handed dick moves are generally bad moves. After a statement like that, I would be surprised if dblnSouthCity is over the age of 30 and paying his own rent.
20% is an arbitrary number with no relationship to the actual necessities and waste in the system under discussion. It is like chopping your arm off to lose some weight. Chopping off your head is a great way to lose ten pounds of ugly fat, but there are drawbacks to that decision. Goals and targets affecting people's lives should derive from context not abstract opinions generated in armchairs.
It is not hard to identify where red tape exists due to duplicated effort and find ways to merge specific offices. In doing so, we could justify removing surplus administration positions that cost more and contribute less. We've even got an audit on hand to use as justification. Even then it would still require a competent investigation to determine exactly what those offices do day-to-day and what value would be lost in their removal. It is not a casual activity.
20% is an arbitrary number with no relationship to the actual necessities and waste in the system under discussion. It is like chopping your arm off to lose some weight. Chopping off your head is a great way to lose ten pounds of ugly fat, but there are drawbacks to that decision. Goals and targets affecting people's lives should derive from context not abstract opinions generated in armchairs.
It is not hard to identify where red tape exists due to duplicated effort and find ways to merge specific offices. In doing so, we could justify removing surplus administration positions that cost more and contribute less. We've even got an audit on hand to use as justification. Even then it would still require a competent investigation to determine exactly what those offices do day-to-day and what value would be lost in their removal. It is not a casual activity.
- 9,554
^ 30...city home owner since 26. Former city hall worker who's seen the extra fat first hand for 2 years. And worked at MoDOT in Jeff city in 2009-2011 when it went through a 20% staff reduction with everyone else reapplying for their job
- 472
^Drawing a comparison to MoDOT in the earlier post would have helped.
The other side of reducing spending is diversifying income. I'm not sure I understand the legality of the city's options or why there appears to be nothing invested in anything. There are plenty of low-risk investments possible, but the city only seems to borrow money or give it away for free.
Is St. Louis legally allowed to save money? Can they invest? If the city of St. Louis bought all the municipal bonds in the region, it could collect income. If they bought into the start-up funding game, they could pull in income. If they maintained a stock portfolio of all the public companies headquartered in the St. Louis area, they could pull in income and wield a bit of weight in negotiations. The LRA could flip houses. The city could put solar panels up over its public parking areas and pick up checks from Ameren. and so on. If nothing else, I don't see why the city can't be its own real estate investor and profit from it.
Alternatively, couldn't the city allocate money to the St. Louis Community Foundation and let that group hold an endowment for the city's basic operations? Having an endowment, however small, is a very reasonable thing to start for an institution that should exist perpetually into the future.
The other side of reducing spending is diversifying income. I'm not sure I understand the legality of the city's options or why there appears to be nothing invested in anything. There are plenty of low-risk investments possible, but the city only seems to borrow money or give it away for free.
Is St. Louis legally allowed to save money? Can they invest? If the city of St. Louis bought all the municipal bonds in the region, it could collect income. If they bought into the start-up funding game, they could pull in income. If they maintained a stock portfolio of all the public companies headquartered in the St. Louis area, they could pull in income and wield a bit of weight in negotiations. The LRA could flip houses. The city could put solar panels up over its public parking areas and pick up checks from Ameren. and so on. If nothing else, I don't see why the city can't be its own real estate investor and profit from it.
Alternatively, couldn't the city allocate money to the St. Louis Community Foundation and let that group hold an endowment for the city's basic operations? Having an endowment, however small, is a very reasonable thing to start for an institution that should exist perpetually into the future.
- 9,554
Earnings tax isn't going anywhere. But every 5 years we will go through the this dog and pony show
Weren't you the one saying the City Planning department should be doing the work of all the CDCs in St. Louis? Wouldn't having a functional City Planning department that could carry on those functions require...I don't know...employees? Cutting another 20% of City employees across the board would put all departments at the non-functional level of our Planning & Urban Design Agency. I'd rather have a City government that could get things done than a stripped down version that had no capacity.dbInSouthCity wrote:Trim city staff by another 20%. We have less people and better tech... Use savings to give each job left a 5% raise. Have every job posted and everyone reapply. Probably a 2 year process. Using savings for capital projects and maintenance needs
Cutting 20% would equal about $75,000,000 a year.
- 9,554
in a fat trimming some agencies get skinner and some can get a bit fatter. Depending on the goal and direction of the fat trimming. In the MoDOT 2009-2011 case, 0 of the 20% reduction was from the maintenance crews (they actually grew) because the focus for the next 10 years was going to focus on maintaining the current system
Love the regressive argument when the alternatives are sales taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, and traffic tickets.
- 182
Just as long as the MoLeg can suck sales taxes out of the Urban areas for Rural subsidies they don't care.quincunx wrote:Love the regressive argument when the alternatives are sales taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, and traffic tickets.
I wish St. Louis Representatives would get wiser to this, and if the state kills the Earnings Tax go after the 4.225% State Sales tax on the argument we need to raise it locally.
Bonus, it'd put more pressure on MODOT to shrink or direct tax users of their bloated system without state sales tax on car purchases.
HCR 107
Urges the United States Congress to pass a bill that consents to the division of the City of St. Louis and the rest of Missouri into two separate states and urges the President to sign such bill into law.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.asp ... 016&code=R
Urges the United States Congress to pass a bill that consents to the division of the City of St. Louis and the rest of Missouri into two separate states and urges the President to sign such bill into law.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.asp ... 016&code=R
- 8,155
^ That's my state rep in action! I guess he's going out in a blaze of glory, lol
KMOX - St. Louis Earnings Tax Opponents Organize Campaign
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/03/01/ ... -campaign/“We do have a lot of confidence in our local elected officials, and believe they should look at best practices in other cities and determine how to best fund the city services,” she said.
