Surprise, Surprise, The City Is Running Out Of $$$

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Could anyone explain to me about the County portion of the ad valorem tax that many claim the city should be entitled to?  I don't quite understand that--did we turn over part of our ad valorem tax to the county?  When did we ever get a portion of that tax?  If municipalities are not entitled to use ad valorem tax, why are some asking the county to give us some?

And for all of the conservatives out there, while the republicans in the state house & senate continue to beat the drum for income tax reduction, why have we not heard a peep about state sales tax reduction?  Instead of forcing cities to exempt items from sales tax, why not just remove the 4 cents across the board?  Keep the income tax at 6.35, eliminate the state's portion of sales tax.  The amount of money the average tax payer would save would be about the same.

The story I've heard, two times now, is that the City and County both used to get a small allotment of property tax for retiring debt, i.e., a sinking fund.  Back in the 80s, when the County was hurting, the City gave the County its half.  Now they won't give it back.
Evidence?

Not trying to take a side here, but still trying to understand--if what the city wants is a portion of the property tax allotment back to retire debt (ie, sinking fund), how is that going to help out with its operating budget?  Is it really more of an issue that the city wants to issue more bonds for capital improvements?  I would support that, but won't the city still be in the whole for operating expenses?  How can we solve that issue?

[Chicken Little]

I dunno.  I would think it would be for projects, but in that article, Kier seemed to hint that it would help with operations.  Perhaps he was making a general point about how bad things are and that's what the reporter picked up.  But as I said, I dunno.

[Kiah]

The county doesn't have the same restrictions regarding how property tax can be used.  The county can and does use property tax for operations.  It can also allocate a portion of its levy to one or more municipalities within the county to use for operations.

Glenpool, for example, used to and maybe still does get a portion of the county's property tax levy for EMSA operations there.

[cannon_fodder]

The problem with sales tax exemptions, is they just keep growing!

Some make sense.  The widespread exemption of food, for example.  However, as soon as you open that door they want prescriptions.  Then diapers.  Then all toiletries.  Then beauty products.  Then special interests kick in and we get products made in Oklahoma exempted.  Then restaurants get mad because they are both made in Oklahoma and a food source - so shouldnt be taxed. And think of the children - school supplies and books should be exempted too.  And farmers, we cant tax the American farmer for the tools he needs to survive.  Then again, being a housewife is a fulltime job too, we shouldnt tax their tools either... that isnt fair.

Suddenly all we tax is oil, tobacco and beer.

- Jesse

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

If you recall, the city was short on cash when LaFortuna was mayor, as well. It's a problem we've had  for a while

And is that justification for these ill-timed pay increases at the top?

As I recall the short-fall was due to lower gross sales tax revenues due to the slump in the economy in '01 and '02.

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of new retailers collecting sales tax for the city these days, nor people spending money.

I don't think anybody is trying to justify raises one way or another.

Martinson's report, the KRMG story, the World story, etc. is about Tulsa getting ganged every year by these guys.  Do you have an opinion about that?

Ganged by which guys?  I musta glossed over something else which was said.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Ganged by which guys?  I musta glossed over something else which was said.

 Martinson's report tells the story better than I could.  In a nutshell, Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971.  Since then, the 2/3rds of the Fed money has dried up.  Meanwhile, the State and County, which both have other sources of revenue, have pounced on sales tax.  The County is over a penny sales tax and the State is 4.5 cents sales tax.  The legislators have also exempted a ton of purchases because they don't depend on sales tax as heavily as cities.  Tulsa needs sales tax.  They don't get property tax, income tax, or oil and gas tax.  You'd think that the State and County would recognize this, but they don't.  They have been whittling away at sales tax for decades (county projects, exemptions, and poor collections).  It's exploitive.

They have been backing Tulsa into a corner for a long, long, time.  And constitutionally, the only solution is a freakin' income tax...which nobody wants.

Something's gotta give, or Tulsa will end up in the freakin' dustbin of history.  Where do you think the State and County will be without the City?  It's all a bunch of shortsighted bullsh*t, if you ask me.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Ganged by which guys?  I musta glossed over something else which was said.

 Martinson's report tells the story better than I could.  In a nutshell, Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971.  Since then, the 2/3rds of the Fed money has dried up.  Meanwhile, the State and County, which both have other sources of revenue, have pounced on sales tax.  The County is over a penny sales tax and the State is 4.5 cents sales tax.  The legislators have also exempted a ton of purchases because they don't depend on sales tax as heavily as cities.  Tulsa needs sales tax.  They don't get property tax, income tax, or oil and gas tax.  You'd think that the State and County would recognize this, but they don't.  They have been whittling away at sales tax for decades (county projects, exemptions, and poor collections).  It's exploitive.

They have been backing Tulsa into a corner for a long, long, time.  And constitutionally, the only solution is a freakin' income tax...which nobody wants.

Something's gotta give, or Tulsa will end up in the freakin' dustbin of history.  Where do you think the State and County will be without the City?  It's all a bunch of shortsighted bullsh*t, if you ask me.

That's a tough deal.  Tulsa is #2 on the list of sales tax remitters to the state, yes?  The state is seeing record oil/gas tax revenues.

The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services.  Problem is, both political parties like to be benevolent to their own pet projects with public funds.  Cutting government spending is a pipe-dream.

I have been looking at it though not from the percent we get, but that consumption has grown exponentially since 1971.  I do understand that with that consumption has come quite a bit of infrastructure improvements (i.e. the ever-expanding 71st St. retail corridor).  My understanding is that the third penny sales tax has covered those infrastructure improvements.

Sounds like our Tulsa legislators in OKC need to take notice and try to make something happen on getting the state to drop a penny on the sales tax or remit it back to the city.  However, to counter-balance, I'd guess they'd raise personal income tax.

The way I figure it, it's still going to be a tax increase for me, either they will get it based on my income or my consumption.  I view consumption taxes as voluntary.  If I save it, I don't get taxed on it, though I do get taxed on the interest.

Still doesn't change the point that the raise for at-will employees is very, very bad timing.  Also pretty odd timing for a pay increase request from the couselors at a time when they are proposing a very controversial annexation of the fairgrounds.

[Rico]

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Still doesn't change the point that the raise for at-will employees is very, very bad timing. Also pretty odd timing for a pay increase request from the couselors at a time when they are proposing a very controversial annexation of the fairgrounds.

Probably an outside longshot.... but just possibly someone that works for the City knows more than we are aware of... Or is that in the realm of being possible Senor...?



[}:)]

[Wilbur]

The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services.

Amen!  Did you hear the Mayor talk about the EMSA subsidy and say she may have to cut 'optional' programs?  Optional programs like what?  Why is government funding optional programs?  Outside core services government is responsible for funding, optional programs simply opens the door for more optional programs.

Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971.

Not really true.  Tulsa used to fund everything out of that 2 cents.  When the third penny was established, many of the capital projects were moved away from the 2 cents into the third cent, thus freeing up tons of money.  Don't let someone tell you Tulsa doesn't have money for roads, when many road projects are put into the third penny packages.  Additionally, those 2 cents grow every year.  We certainly collect more with those 2 cents this year then in 1971.  Plus, add on a third penny, then add on Vision money.........

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services.

Amen!  Did you hear the Mayor talk about the EMSA subsidy and say she may have to cut 'optional' programs?  Optional programs like what?  Why is government funding optional programs?  Outside core services government is responsible for funding, optional programs simply opens the door for more optional programs.

Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971.

Not really true.  Tulsa used to fund everything out of that 2 cents.  When the third penny was established, many of the capital projects were moved away from the 2 cents into the third cent, thus freeing up tons of money.  Don't let someone tell you Tulsa doesn't have money for roads, when many road projects are put into the third penny packages.  Additionally, those 2 cents grow every year.  We certainly collect more with those 2 cents this year then in 1971.  Plus, add on a third penny, then add on Vision money.........

I always enjoy your stuff Wilbur...

I would be glad to see a report done by Martinson as to what he feels are the options, if any, to gathering additional revenue.

The State of Politics in Tulsa reminds me of Shakespeare's plays........

LaFortune did the same dance but kept most everyone guessing...

Taylor... Tells so many different versions of the same story.. I guess in her own way she keeps one guessing as well.

[}:)]

I think we ought to push RecycleMike into the Mayoral Arena next time round...

His Motto:

"Take the guesswork out of Tulsa Politics...!

If the money$ doesn't add up we will all go to lunch."


[8D]

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services.

Amen!  Did you hear the Mayor talk about the EMSA subsidy and say she may have to cut 'optional' programs?  Optional programs like what?  Why is government funding optional programs?  Outside core services government is responsible for funding, optional programs simply opens the door for more optional programs.

Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971.

Not really true.  Tulsa used to fund everything out of that 2 cents.  When the third penny was established, many of the capital projects were moved away from the 2 cents into the third cent, thus freeing up tons of money.  Don't let someone tell you Tulsa doesn't have money for roads, when many road projects are put into the third penny packages.  Additionally, those 2 cents grow every year.  We certainly collect more with those 2 cents this year then in 1971.  Plus, add on a third penny, then add on Vision money.........

You are absolutely right, Wilbur.  The city added the third penny in the 80s when sh*t started absolutely falling apart.  It was an act of desperation.  That third penny only goes for capital projects, i.e. fixing problems.  The problem today is that the city could probably use a FOURTH penny to keep this town from caving in, and the County and State have already sucked up all the breathing room.  Who the h*ll wants to pay 11 cents sales tax?  People will shop in BA or Owasso.

Tulsa can't even keep up in this environment.  How can we expect to get ahead?  I don't want high taxes, either.  But in the end, our "low-tax" option is to live in a sh*thole.  That's just wrong.  As the barbarian points out, Tulsa pays 1/3 of the bills in this frikkin' State.  We pay the rent, just like OKC and the rest of the State.  Why do we have to sleep on the porch?

[pmcalk]

quote:That's a tough deal.  Tulsa is #2 on the list of sales tax remitters to the state, yes?  The state is seeing record oil/gas tax revenues.

The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services.  Problem is, both political parties like to be benevolent to their own pet projects with public funds.  Cutting government spending is a pipe-dream.

I have been looking at it though not from the percent we get, but that consumption has grown exponentially since 1971.  I do understand that with that consumption has come quite a bit of infrastructure improvements (i.e. the ever-expanding 71st St. retail corridor).  My understanding is that the third penny sales tax has covered those infrastructure improvements.

Sounds like our Tulsa legislators in OKC need to take notice and try to make something happen on getting the state to drop a penny on the sales tax or remit it back to the city.  However, to counter-balance, I'd guess they'd raise personal income tax.

The way I figure it, it's still going to be a tax increase for me, either they will get it based on my income or my consumption.  I view consumption taxes as voluntary.  If I save it, I don't get taxed on it, though I do get taxed on the interest.

Again, what I find frustrating is that every year, the conservatives yell for areduction in income taxes.  This year some propose reducing income tax to 4.65% by 2009.  http://www.normantranscript.com/statenews/cnhinsall_story_029091823.html.
 If the state can afford to lose that much revenue, why not look to the sales tax?  I am not advocating the reduction, I just am frustrated that the republican senators, who pride themselves on being anti-tax, are in reality only anti-income tax.

As for sales tax being voluntary, it's not voluntary when you have to buy food and clothing.  On the other hand, when you have to buy an airplane, I understand the state doesn't ask for sales tax.

[Wilbur]

Again, what I find frustrating is that every year, the conservatives yell for a reduction in income taxes.

This great city was built many years ago on taxes that were far lower then they are today.  We currently have sales taxes at an all time high, yet see all these people screaming for more money because of the poor position we're in.

As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' out for ya?"

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

This great city was built many years ago on taxes that were far lower then they are today.

Do you mean a city that was 1 and a half square miles instead of the current 200 square miles, or the city that served 20,000 people instead of the current 400,000?

Do you mean when a handful of cops made a few thousand dollars a year, instead of 800 cops making 60-80 thousand per year -- and constantly demanding more?

Do you mean when health insurance was affordable instead of rising through the roof every year?

Do you mean when energy cost practically nothing instead of current record price spikes?

Which "optional" services would you cut?  Parks?  Fair enough -- put it on the table.  Planning?  Finance?  Legal?  Auditing?

[cannon_fodder]

Relatively speaking, something have gotten more expensive but not everything.

The city of 20K only had 20K people paying taxes.  One could imagine an economy of scale kicking in and being able to SAVE money per capita.

Police back then made good money as police to today.  Just because it was only a few thousand doesnt mean it wasnt a damn good wage at the time.

You get what you pay for in health care.   It is still possible to get treatment without the latest and greatest for a fraction of the cost.  But most American's insist on the newest machines and latest pills for whatever marginal or perceived benefit they will get.  I dont think we can really cover health care costs as a side topic.

Energy costs are not at record levels.   The Dollar amount paid for energy is at a record level, but the COST is not.  Cost is a relative term and is the only true way to measure expenses (inflation has a way of making things more expensive over time, by definition). While energy in Tulsa was essentially free in the boom times, it was more expensive when the 'new' sky scrappers were going up in the 1970's.


Basically, no matter how much money you give a governmental body they are going to find a way to spend it now and budget it to be spent again in the future.  Leaving them, yet again, short on cash and needing to raise taxes.  Its so bad people actual view a tax 'refund' as a good thing - NO, they should not have taken the money to start with!