urbanSTL

That's probably true.
State of MO has been too for a long time
MoDOT can't keep good engineers after 3-4 years because of it

addxb2 wrote:In a much different but similar way, Tennessee is screwing its cities.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/go ... ign=buffer

Ive been following whats been going on in Tennessee and i feel bad for Memphis. If that bill is passed how soon do you think those suburban communities would want to be de-annexed from memphis?

St.Louis1764 wrote:

addxb2 wrote:In a much different but similar way, Tennessee is screwing its cities.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/go ... ign=buffer

Ive been following whats been going on in Tennessee and i feel bad for Memphis. If that bill is passed how soon do you think those suburban communities would want to be de-annexed from memphis?

Within a few years. Crime is bad in Memphis. The faster it sheds population, the faster it floats to our position on the list

How is it that Northwoods has a property tax rate of 1.7135? Several others in the county are above 1. Debt and other dedicated taxes?

They say it goes away in 10 years. Is it supposed to be a ten percent per year weaning off of the tax? .9% next year, .8% the next, .7%, .6%, .5%, .4%, .3%, .2%, to .1% till it's gone?

If that's how it works, I can see some people being convinced. That's a lot different than going from 1.0 to 0.0 all in one fell swoop.

Yes. That was also the case in the 2011 vote when it passed with 88%

^ you mean if it doesn't pass?

I guess stuff like consolidating wards?

Rex Sinquefield Show-Me Institute's Joseph Miller was just on KMOX arguing to eliminate the earnings tax. He said the city has foolishly been spending money on entertainment -- football stadiums and convention centers -- that have not paid for themselves. This is the first time I heard him attack the convention center. So once Rex shuts down the convention center, I'm guessing Rex's next target will be the Blues -- no public money to help improve Scottrade. After the Blues move to the County or KC or somewhere, I'm sure other entertainment institutions supported by taxpayer dollars will be in Rex's sights.

Also, Bob Onder (MOLEG legislator from Lake St. Louis) was on earlier this week talking about the defense of religion bill passed by the Missouri legislature. When asked if he was concerned about the loss of conventions and sporting event, he said those losses would have no economic effect. This is because of the magic of "substitution effect", the same phenomena that Show-Me said would make the Rams loss meaningless economically. Onder argued that conventions and sports events are attended by Missourians, and those people will now simply spend that same money in the city on bowling and restaurants instead, so it's a wash. Apparently there is no loss that can't be mitigated with the "substitution effect." One UMSL economist testified to the City Aldermen that her research showed that the city might be better off with no sports teams at all. I'm guessing that her research would extend to conventions too.

Apparently Rex is on a crusade to eliminate the use of any tax money for entertainment institutions. I'm not sure why that would not eventually include the Zoo, Art Museum, History Museum, Science Center, and Forest Park. The city would save money, and there would be no loss of economic development or tax dollars, since, through the substitution effect, we would all find other forms of entertainment owned by private companies keep us entertained. Such as Six Flags.

Rex is a Libertarian. To him, if any of these things were worth anything, they'd be created by private enterprise. If they require tax funding to exist, they are worthless. The idea of value outside of the context of a corporate balance sheet is completely foreign to him.

stlhistory wrote:So this sounds bad... but if Prop E *fails*, I'm giving serious consideration to selling my house in the city and moving to the county. I don't see a path forward for the city except massive property tax hikes.

It will pass overwhelmingly.

The city cant raise the property tax to make up for it. The state doesn't allow it.

You would also need to change the state law that says you can't use more than $1 of property tax for municipal services. City is current at .992

Yea I'm voting for the earnings tax. Until I can see some kind of plan instead of just "cutting the bloat" that doesn't work. Earnings tax being about a 1/3 of our budget isn't something you can just eliminate without some sort of detailed plan. This vote to revoke then we'll deal with it later idea sounds terrible

I don’t think Mr. Sinquefield believes he can get the votes to do away with the earnings tax, at least not right now. I believe it’s more of an effort to prevent the City from raising the earnings tax to 1.25%, then 2%, etc. Don’t think for a second they haven’t considered it. In fact, you could probably get half the alderpersons and most of City Hall to vote yes on it today.

I remember when naïve idealistic dolts used to beam with pride explaining that there was no separate charge for trash pickup was because we’re all chipping in on the earnings tax! See how we can really get the job done if we all work together!

Well, trash pickup is not free anymore. The sewer bill is up 52% - by the way, my sources at MSD tell me that non-payments, partial payments, payment plans and general customer complaints is the new normal. I’m sure they will drop the bill back down once the system is completely updated and efficient. Riiiiight.

We are very fortunate to have some push back against all of this.

The earnings tax phase out is the perfect diet plan. It’s an opportunity for the city to get lean and mean and be healthy in a responsible way. It’s highly unlikely there would be any noticeable loss of services. That’s just fearmongering. The City would have no choice but to be responsible and cut out the fat and bullsh*t. Problem is, the City is so unhealthy that it would probably rather die fat and alone than get up off its fat ass and do something.

Part of the legislation that triggered the every 5 year renewal vote also capped the current earnings tax rates, as well as disallowed any new municipalities from instituting an earnings tax.

andrewarkills wrote:Part of the legislation that triggered the every 5 year renewal vote also capped the current earnings tax rates, as well as disallowed any new municipalities from instituting an earnings tax.

Good news. Nice to know something got capped in St. Louis besides someone's ass.

The earnings tax phase out is the perfect diet plan. It’s an opportunity for the city to get lean and mean and be healthy in a responsible way.

I guess they could do more, but they've been on pay freezes for the last few years and have done away with about 1000 jobs. All while maintaining the budget. They are already on a diet. Anything more is an eating disorder.

1) Demand revenue be reduced
2) Insist that lost revenue can be offset without loss of services
3) Claim that the lowered level of city services is justification for another tax cut, since City Hall is obviously doing such a bad job

pat wrote: I guess they could do more, but they've been on pay freezes for the last few years and have done away with about 1000 jobs. All while maintaining the budget. They are already on a diet. Anything more is an eating disorder.

Pay freezes and job cuts, just the shot in the arm our local economy needs!

MarkHaversham wrote:1) Demand revenue be reduced
2) Insist that lost revenue can be offset without loss of services
3) Claim that the lowered level of city services is justification for another tax cut, since City Hall is obviously doing such a bad job

pat wrote: I guess they could do more, but they've been on pay freezes for the last few years and have done away with about 1000 jobs. All while maintaining the budget. They are already on a diet. Anything more is an eating disorder.

Pay freezes and job cuts, just the shot in the arm our local economy needs!

And if the city would just hire everyone who was unemployed we would have a 0.0% unemployment rate. Problem solved.

For folks who might think there is $160M in excess or "fat" in our budget - there isn't. I think focusing on the impact to the Police Dept is reasonable. Today, already, we are struggling to recruit, hire, and retain enough police officers. We're below the number we would like to have and budgeted for. Why? The main issue is we don't pay new hires enough, and being a police officer, especially a new officer in St. Louis, is not easy. Some other jurisdictions already pay more, and quite frankly often have an easier work environment. Revoking E-Tax would utterly cripple our ability to hire police and equip them. We'd have to lay off several hundred officers, even if we prioritized police over other City Depts, which we would. Being short handed would mean slower response time, worse policing, fewer prosecutions, and a far more dangerous environment for officers. We all know what the violent crime stats are here - why on earth would we want to cripple our ability to have a properly staffed police dept?

A lot of the City's costs are fixed, and independent of population or efficiency. We have the same number of roads to maintain as in 1950, more actually. The same number of streetlights. The same amount of grass to cut in the parks. And we have pension obligations that don't shrink just because revenue does. As someone who pays the tax, and who's whole life is in St. Louis, I really am terrified but what would happen without that revenue. Its not an experiment we should try.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman