urbanSTL

pmbender wrote: ↑

Sep 01, 2023

As an addendum to / reframing of the above, property taxes are generally regressive because house value doesn't generally rise at the same rate as income. For example:

A person with an annual income of $50k owning a house assessed at $100k in the City would pay:

Earnings Tax: $500 (1% of income)
Property Tax: $8,261.10 (16.5% of income)

A person with an annual income of $500k owning a house assessed at $1million in the City would pay:

Earnings Tax: $5000 (1% of income)
Property Tax: $82,611 (8.3% of income)

Dawg, this is not how the City’s property taxes are calculated for an individual homeowner.

@bprop
Oh, the earnings tax could absolutely be *more* progressive, and I'd definitely prefer that it were! However, my point is that it is currently significantly more progressive than property taxes.

@JaneJacobsGhost
Oh? How are they calculated? I referenced the City government website (https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... -rates.cfm), but I definitely want to learn if I was wrong on the specifics! Nevertheless, regardless of the specifics, I suspect that my general point about property taxes being more regressive than the earnings tax stands.

There's the appraised (~market) value which is multiplied by 0.19 to get the assessed value, then that is multiplied by the tax rate 0.08261. So in your example the you're over valuing the houses, doubtful the $50k earner has a $526k home. But even taking into account the 0.19, you point still stands.

Ah, thanks! That makes sense - I appreciate the clarification.

StlToday - Senate candidate proposes big exemptions to St. Louis earnings tax

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 59690.html

"In October, Christofanelli received a $25,000 check from retired St. Louis financier Rex Sinquefield, who has led the charge in past years to kill the earnings tax."

This is OK?

The state commission formed to recommend getting rid of the earnings tax came back with the startling conclusion that we should get rid of the earnings tax. It however did not come up with any proposed alternate revenue sources to fill the 1/3 of the City of St. Louis budget and nearly half of the City of Kansas City budget that would be lost. What a f*cking joke.

They could create a state tax credit to rebate the earnings tax to people, if they think it's such a huge problem that needs addressed.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Mar 12, 2024

StlToday - House Republicans trying to force exemptions to St. Louis’ earnings tax

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... c7cd8.html

In the same session that they are also looking at reducing the vehicle personal property tax burden, adjusting the senior property tax freeze legislation to require that it apply to all taxing subdivisions, and mulling a phasing out of the corporate income tax.

At what point do we reach Kansas under Brownback? 

This is getting dangerously close of being approved.  How will the city replace these dollars? 

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... -top-story

^ by growth. At most it would lose about $15m a year by any way I run the numbers. Last year e tax brought it $12m than budgeted.

Progressive alders blowing a hole in the budget. Conservative politicians making it difficult to generate revenue.

Kudos to Mayor Jones for doing the responsible thing and calling bs on both.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2024

^ by growth. At most it would lose about $15m a year by any way I run the numbers. Last year e tax brought it $12m than budgeted.

oh, just growth? well no problem then. that's been going so well. can't imagine how a reduced budget won't accelerate it further.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Mar 29, 2024

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2024

^ by growth. At most it would lose about $15m a year by any way I run the numbers. Last year e tax brought it $12m than budgeted.

oh, just growth? well no problem then. that's been going so well. can't imagine how a reduced budget won't accelerate it further.

Yeah it’s kinda like how the US debt isn’t really an issue, growth and inflation just takes care of it.

huh? how does zero growth + reduced budget + inflation = taken care of? and St. Louis City isn't the federal government in any case. is the fed gonna cut the city a check for the lost revenue? just keep raising property taxes on a shrinking population, or continue cutting services?

What zero growth. US was +3.2% in Q4 and Q1 2024 is looking like it’s going to come in between 2-3%.


And STL city has 10-20% (depending how you look at it, just general revenue or enterprise wide) of the budget never being spent each of the last 3 years and foreseeable future, with those 1000 open positions. Rest of this decade, I rather be the City than STL county when it comes to the budget

we're not talking about US growth. US growth =/= STL City growth. and what type of growth are you talking about, exactly? GDP? the metro GDP has grown by about 35% since 2001, and about 8% since 2020. how has that translated to the City's budget? if the City hasn't had a surplus until 3 years ago—largely due to pandemic relief and Rams litigation money—despite all that growth, i fail to see how "growth" is gonna pay for trash pickup, bus routes, sidewalks, roads, forestry, all sorts of other infrastructure, etc. etc. etc. i just don't think a 3-year blip in the black and a current lack of workforce amounts to justification for eliminating a significant long-term source of the City's budget with no viable plan to replace it. if you wanna do a tax return at the end of the year and give pack surplus earnings then great. but totally cutting it off before there's any indication of long-term financially stability is a huge gamble.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Mar 31, 2024

we're not talking about US growth. US growth =/= STL City growth. and what type of growth are you talking about, exactly? GDP? the metro GDP has grown by about 35% since 2001, and about 8% since 2020. how has that translated to the City's budget? if the City hasn't had a surplus until 3 years ago—largely due to pandemic relief and Rams litigation money—despite all that growth, i fail to see how "growth" is gonna pay for trash pickup, bus routes, sidewalks, roads, forestry, all sorts of other infrastructure, etc. etc. etc. i just don't think a 3-year blip in the red and a current lack of workforce amounts to justification for eliminating a significant long-term source of the City's budget with no viable plan to replace it. if you wanna do a tax return at the end of the year and give pack surplus earnings then great. but totally cutting it off before there's any indication of long-term financially stability is a huge gamble.

City’s surpluses have nothing to do with the pandemic money or rams settlement. Rams settlement hasn’t hit the city books yet and when it does it’s 1 in and 1 out. The ARPA money is also 1 in and 1 out. The surplus is better than expected revenue ($35m last year) and savings from open positions ($35m last year)

ah, ok. regardless, it's a blip at this point. and the staffing shortage is not sustainable. the city is barely being maintained. there are huge problems on the horizon if the city can't fill those positions. and doing so will take care of that surplus.

St. Louis settles earnings tax case, will allow refunds for pandemic years

"Appeals already filed and supported will be honored, Daly said; taxpayers do not need to refile them."

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... f0641.html

Now, do I consider the past 3 years a donation to the city, or do I try to get my money back?

"The six plaintiffs had routinely submitted applications for refunds for days they had traveled for business."

What a bunch of losers.