Suburbs seek to drain what life is left from Tulsa

[Wrinkle]

No, those guys were only asking (pleading, really) for a 1/2-cent 'rebate' from the State dedicated to road work. And, I think it was considered temporary.

I'm saying the State should legislate a permenent reduction of 1% of their 4.5% take to 3.5%.

[Wrinkle]

BTW, there's something odd about the World's math on this. 1% of Tulsa's Annual Sales Tax would amount to only around $2 million.

$16.1 million, as stated, would represent an entire month's take. That's 8.33%.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Oh that's right, raising taxes is the solution. There's a long, successful track record of that spurring economic growth.

You don't have to raise them, but roads are unrepaired, teachers underpaid, small towns clamoring for money, and the state keeps LOWERING income tax? Come on.
[/quote]
Avoided my point I see. Well, raise taxes then. Where should we start? Who gets to pay the most? Oh, I know, the rich. Those lazy blue-blooded  bastards get away with everything. After all, they aren't the business owners who hire people, or who already pay the lion share of income and corporate tax, or who live in higher valued property and thus pay higher property tax, or provide the majority of charitable donations.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

No, those guys were only asking (pleading, really) for a 1/2-cent 'rebate' from the State dedicated to road work. And, I think it was considered temporary.

I'm saying the State should legislate a permenent reduction of 1% of their 4.5% take to 3.5%.

Thats what they DIDN'T do when they lowered the income tax.  Now, I'm not a pro-tax guy, but the more local, the better.  I'd rather see the state keep getting its revenue by sustaining the income tax at current levels, and cutting back the sales tax (1% is a good start, but that still leaves 3.5% that would be nice to see gone) so that cities can have more to fight for.

Tulsa is definitely in the situation where it needs it.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

1% of Tulsa's Annual Sales Tax would amount to only around $2 million.

That's way too low.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

1% of Tulsa's Annual Sales Tax would amount to only around $2 million.

That's way too low.

You'll need to explain how.

Even the article above states "The sales tax brought in $202.6 million during the 2007 fiscal year."

1% of $202.6 million is $2.026 million.

And, I've been following the monthly Oklahoma Tax Commission Sales Tax Reports which confirms, Tulsa's Sales Tax Revenue runs $16-$18 million per month. By 12 months, $17 million is $204 million.

The $16.1 million comes from I don't know where, but represents 7.95% of $202.6 million.

While you're at it, explain to me how OKC's Sales Tax Revenue ($331.9M) is over 50% larger than Tulsa's ($202.6M), yet OKC's load on this is stated to be on $13.4 million. IAC, 1% of $331.9M is only $3.319 million anyway.

Something's really off here.

But, the headline, "City, Tulsa Could Lose $30 Million" is deceptive.

Of course, I guess we _could_ lose $100 million, or $617 million, too. Losing money is easy.

At 1%, I'm getting a total of $5.345 million for both OKC and Tulsa.

[sgrizzle]

I believe the 1 percent it is talking about is what we call 1 cent. The fact that it states it only applies to cities that "collect at least 1 percent sales tax" seems to back that theory up. They are talking about taking a whole penny. So basically the state would get like 5.5cents and Tulsa would get 2.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I believe the 1 percent it is talking about is what we call 1 cent. The fact that it states it only applies to cities that "collect at least 1 percent sales tax" seems to back that theory up. They are talking about taking a whole penny. So basically the state would get like 5.5cents and Tulsa would get 2.

Now you're talking 33% of our Sales Tax Revenue, which would be around $70 million.

[cannon_fodder]

Ha!

Bear, you think the government speaks the same language we do or that their math or accounting is the same?  You realize when a government entity floats a bond (borrows money) they put it on the books as an asset!  We'll only know what they really mean when they start taking our money.

Which is yet another good reason to deny it from them.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I believe the 1 percent it is talking about is what we call 1 cent. The fact that it states it only applies to cities that "collect at least 1 percent sales tax" seems to back that theory up. They are talking about taking a whole penny. So basically the state would get like 5.5cents and Tulsa would get 2.

Now you're talking 33% of our Sales Tax Revenue, which would be around $70 million.

As Grizzle said, the 1% = 1 penny.  It's 1% of gross sales, not 1% of tax collections.

[Chicken Little]

Oh, I see what you are saying now, I presumed you were still talking about your proposal to take a penny back from the State...I don't know where the $16 million comes from.  

By the way, I'm not principally opposed to revenue sharing, which is the commie pinko idea that this Bartlesville Republican is promoting.  If can be used to reduce inefficient competition between cities and suburbs, and create a sensible future retail growth pattern.  Minneapolis does it...everybody gets a tiny piece of the Mall of America, for instance.

The problem with this proposal, however, is that it's not based on mutual agreements between cities to share future growth.  It's more like outright theft of meager existing resources by an outside group that doesn't seem to have a fiscal clue.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I believe the 1 percent it is talking about is what we call 1 cent. The fact that it states it only applies to cities that "collect at least 1 percent sales tax" seems to back that theory up. They are talking about taking a whole penny. So basically the state would get like 5.5cents and Tulsa would get 2.

Now you're talking 33% of our Sales Tax Revenue, which would be around $70 million.

As Grizzle said, the 1% = 1 penny.  It's 1% of gross sales, not 1% of tax collections.

That's not what it says.

quote: Martin, R-Bartlesville, said his measure would "level the playing field" in sales tax collections by automatically taking 1 percent of each city's municipal sales tax collections and redistributing it. Generally, smaller cities would gain money while larger cities would lose money.

If I hear him right, he's saying ALL cities which have at least a 1% Sales Tax donate 1% of their Sales Tax Revenue to a pool, which is then redistributed on a per diem basis.

I suppose it could be read as 1-cent.
But, that would mean Tulsa would donate $70 million to the pool, then, according to the World, would get about $54 million back due to population formula, leaving $16.1 million to others.

That would represent a full 8% donor situation.

Still, why is OKC's $13.9 million less than Tulsa's $16.1 with OKC's Sales Tax revenues of over 50% more? Population wouldn't seem to have that big an effect. Is OKC's population 162.5% of Tulsa's?




It just isn't making sense.

[Chicken Little]

On this I agree with you.  TW needs to show it's work.