vision2020@moscow.com: (Fwd) Reply to 1% and City Budgets

(Fwd) Reply to 1% and City Budgets

Steve Cooke (scooke@marvin.csrv.uidaho.edu)
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 14:46:10 PST8PDT

Dear Onepercenters, Librarians, and Visionaries,
An interesting discussion of the 1% Initiative by a city councilor
from Idaho Falls. Circulated w/ permission of the author.
My response to Brad's question is to include impact fees, state
revenue sharing from expanding the sales tax base to services, and a
property tax w/ a low income circuit breaker as reforms of the local
public finance system that might
help. Also make real estate transactions public to help assessor.
Steve Cooke

Dear Steve:

I happen to agree that the 1% promoters are not dealing honestly
with the issues and that they are out to destroy state and local government.
But I have to ask: if the property tax is unfair, what can be done about it?
One can liken the Idaho tax structure to a three-legged stool, but local
government is only allowed to sit on one of the three legs - an
uncomfortable situation in the best of circumstances!

To my mind, there are only three taxes that can be used to fund
public purposes: sales, income and property. The State Legislature has
consistently refused to allow cities and counties local option sales taxes
and also refuses to consider allowing for local income taxes. Also, the
state has refused to allow the use of impact fees to fund construction of
infrastructure for new growth, leading to some of the inequities you
mentioned. So what is the answer?

It seems that the public would be much better served if we could
have a wide-ranging and full discussion of how public services should be
funded instead of fighting about property taxes all the time.

- Brad Eldredge, Ast. Professor
Chemical Engineering
University of Idaho at Idaho Falls
brade@decit.if.uidaho.edu


>Dear Brad,
> Thanks for the letter. My take on the 1% Initiative is that it
>uses peoples' dissatisfaction w/ property taxes in an attempt to cut state and
>local government. Let me tell you why I think this is the case.
>
>The property tax as currently constituted in ID is
>unfair in my view. It is unfair because it does not take into account
>ability to pay nor are equals treated equally. Regarding the latter,
>current residents are expected to pay the carrying costs of
>infrastructure for new residents w/o being repaid. Regarding the
>former, the curcuit breaker applies to low income elderly only.
>
> Interestingly, the 1% Initiative would do nothing to change either
>of these sources of unfairness. Except for just using property taxes
>less, the 1% does not address either issue of fairness. For this
>reason, I have concluded that the 1% initiative is intended to use
>peoples' dissatisfaction w/ property taxes to cut state and local
>gov't expenditures.
>
>Steve Cooke
>

Associate Professor
Dept. of Ag. Economics & Rural Soc.
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
http://www.uidaho.edu/~scooke/onepercent
208-885-7170 (phone)
208-885-5759 (fax)


This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet