One has to ask what kind of BS is this...
>>>
Rep. Steve Martin, R-Bartlesville, outlined a plan to take away from several cities -- including Tulsa and suburban communities -- 1 percent of their sales-tax revenue and give it to smaller towns.
<<<
As much as it pain me to say, Mayor McCheese is right on this one...
>>>
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett characterized the idea as the "socialization of sales tax".
<<<
http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=82966
Sales tax sharing proposal pits big cities vs. small towns
by Jeff Packham
The Journal Record
October 24, 2007
OKLAHOMA CITY – A tumbleweed rolls down the street as the wind howls in and around empty buildings in a town once thriving with people and economic activity.
This was an example of what small-town representatives painted for elected officials at the state Capitol on Tuesday as a proposal to redistribute sales tax revenues to help the smaller cities was discussed at length by members of the House Appropriations and Budget Subcommittee on Revenue and Taxation.
Wayne Dunham, mayor of Jay, said what once was a bustling retail economy in his 3,000-population city in the northeast corner of Oklahoma had withered down to a small Wal-Mart store and one other grocery store. He said Saturday mornings used to be a time when the locals were active up and down Main Street spending money on their needs.
“On Saturday morning now in Jay, you could shoot a shotgun down Main Street and not hit a soul,” Dunham said.
Nancy Shipley, city manager for Nowata, said most of those living in her town were now doing their shopping in other cities such as Owasso, Bartlesville, Tulsa, or even Coffeyville, Kan. She said the sales tax base had eroded down to nearly nothing, with most of those dollars going to other communities.
“We don’t have any tax base,” Shipley said. “We need all the help we can get.”
Ed Crone, director of Grand Gateway Authority, said these were just two examples of what reliance on the sales tax for municipalities had turned to in the past several decades. Crone said he had been seeking a change in this area for years, and that there had been 10 cities in the past five years that had realistically discussed “just folding the tents and going home.”
State Rep. Steve Martin, R-Bartlesville, offered a recommendation as part of the interim study proposal to disperse some of the sales tax revenues in the bigger cities to those towns in need. Martin suggested putting the first penny for every dollar collected into a pool and redistributed based on population.
The proposal would help a town such as Achille improve the per-person sales tax from $73 a year to $183 per person. On the other end, Tulsa would lose 8 percent of its sales tax revenues and Oklahoma City would have to pay back 4 percent.
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said he didn’t deny that Oklahoma City gained sales tax revenues from other communities when they came to the metro area to make purchases. However, he said local taxpayers also footed the bill for the Oklahoma City Zoo and the Civic Center Music Hall, yet other communities weren’t billed for their citizens going to those locations.
Cornett said those living in rural areas made that choice based on issues such as cleaner air and more room. He said those living in the metro areas also chose to live there based on what their needs were.
“There are the pluses and minuses and you have to be willing to accept both,” Cornett said.
Suburban communities like Bethany were mentioned as having significant problems with the sales tax due to having big-city problems but small-town funding. Cornett, however, said combining services such as the fire departments with a bigger city would eliminate the funding needs for at least one major area for cities facing this issue.
“They don’t need their own fire department,” Cornett said. “They choose to have their own fire department.”
Patrick Connelly, budget manager for the city of Tulsa, said he agreed with Cornett on wanting to stay away from a redistribution of the sales tax revenues. Cornett suggested looking at a source of city funding other than sales taxes and Connelly pointed to property taxes as an obvious solution.
Martin said he had looked at a variety of solutions including ad valorem taxes and taxation on services, but said there were far more barriers with those proposals than the one he decided to present to the committee members.
State Rep. Guy Liebmann, R-Oklahoma City, summed up the opposition by the larger cities on the proposal in pointing out that the taxpayers ultimately made the decisions on how their services would be funded. He said the same situation occurred when his ice company had expanded to the point in which he found someone willing to pay a significantly good price to buy it from him.
“That’s how you build a city,” Liebmann said. “You give them the best of everything and they’ll pay for it.”
Chairman Randy Terrill, R-Moore, said it was important to note that funds were available for rural towns for infrastructure needs through grants provided by Oklahoma as a way to address discrepancies in funding.
1 comment:
Dear Jeff,
Are you one of the reporters, I noticed leaving the press area before the end of the interim meeting? I was sitting on the House floor awaiting my turn to speak, with a written report to share, as the lone citizen on behalf of all the taxpayers of Oklahoma.
Can you imagine my disappointment as I watched the listening participants dwindling as the hours of input progressed? I had no agenda, simply the lowly taxpayer, the People the government is organized and empowered to serve, with the clarity only the taxpayer could deliver. I began to wonder if anyone would be left to hear this Voice.
Representative Charles Key asked me to present my insights and concerns as the Voter's Voice since I had been researching this issue extensively for over 3 years, and had a comprehensive grasp of the extensiveness of the issues involved.
Of course, the citizen was given the last time slot. The legislature has an OBLIGATION to rectify law that has become outmoded and no longer serves its purpose properly. Such is the case with the RETAIL sales tax appropriations.
The sales tax, tied to locality was delivering proper taxation with representation to taxpayers up until about 30-40 years ago when the economics started shifting toward centralized buying & selling.
This is an economic factor that is NOT THE CHOICE OF CITIZENS nor city officials. It is a free-market function, and the LAW NEEDS TO BE CONGRUENT WITH THAT FACT, for the sales tax to be fair and serve its original intention of paying for taxpayer's local services.
How many people know that OK law makes the return (apportionment which is redistribution)of RETAIL sales taxes as the primary source of revenue for cash flow back to taxpayer for city and rural services?
The inequity that developed by not keeping the law current with economic shifts, is remedied by rectifying the law's method of retail tax distribution -from locality dependent to "one statewide point of sale pot" collection, MAKING LOCATION MOOT, with all cities' portion RETURNED per population and per capita as this closely approximates what is presently being done with gasoline taxes.
This failure to update this has created a gross irresponsible government mis- function with severe economic consequences causing many Oklahomans undue suffering; that is simply NOT RIGHT.
Mayor Cornet's cavalier indictments of blaming smaller & rural towns, as Bethany, as being shortsighted by not wanting to consolidate services by having OKC taking over everything, making OKC their benevolent "Big Daddy," was the epitome of socialistic arrogance!
How could you have missed that fact? Being changed from a name to a faceless number is NOT a desirable change, nor is it progress! Who thinks that is a better idea!? Get Real.
Consolidation as a solution is a nice label disguising hostile take-overs, and is in effect, the dissolution of diversity, the destruction of free enterprise and choice, as the absorption of a small town is homogenized and marginalized into a bigger city getting bigger and more distant from its people.
I surmise you concur that OKC mayor made valid points, and I hope I am right in this, is because you made the fatal flaw of not doing your own research into the facts surrounding this issue making your listening assessment vulnerable to being a victim of political spinning.
Mayor Cornett is an articulate politician with great skills of spinning non-factual information into a SEEMINGLY HONEST presentation which it was NOT. The viewpoint of OKC, as stated by their mayor, was extremely narcissistic, and was bereft of elements of genuine caring or considerations how all cities are related economically as Oklahomans of shared interests.
Yet, for those who had done their homework, without the intention of being biased, it was clear, he was twisting information with such eloquence that ONLY one with a firm grasp of all the political agendas, actual facts of law, and of economics could discern the manipulations he foisted upon his listeners with his golden tongue.
I had a written presentation to share with the reporters and was disappointed to find that had left premature to the citizen's viewpoint being presented, leaving a huge gap in their understanding of this issue and its true impact on taxpayers statewide.
Surely, citizen's are the intended benefactor of the laws we have in place, or at least that is what we are assuming and hoping is the bottom line interest of politics!
I'm not so stupid as to be blind to the fact that this reality is compromised to the detriment of our democracy. (That is the issue of another debate, eh?) That is the very reason, I was in attendance at the study.
The taxpayer is being abused as the law currently functions simply because the legislature has been cow-towing to political pressures. I get how this situation has decayed to its current state of dysfunction, that is not reason enough to continue the travesty and injustice.
The suffering of many taxpayers having to bear the burden of BEING TAXED TWICE because they are FORCED to shop for goods and services WHERE ECONOMIC FACTORS are most favorable to profits, IS NOT A CHOICE.
It is a forced situation, and attempting to legally force businesses to locate in localities that are unprofitable for doing business is to really get into a socialistic mess and interfere with the free enterprise system, and such IS NOT desirable.
However, the law of OK is very narrow in how it legally allows towns/cities to finance their operational budgets, the reliance on RETAIL sales tax is narrow enough and not stable; having it narrowed to the absurdity of generating the RETAIL taxes WITHIN A CITY'S LIMIT as the "point of sale" and not the State of Oklahoma as the "point of sale," is economically a noose so tight that it is impossible to make it function and serve the people it is intended to serve in this day and age because it is so out of kilter with reality.
The even grander ABSURDITY of this present state of affairs, is that unless you live in a location that is attractive to centralized retail profit generation, you DO NOT HAVE, at law, a VIABLE WAY TO GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE STREAMS TO SURVIVE, let alone thrive! That is insane economics, and irresponsible governing to leave it as is.
This is NOT about a socialistic redistribution of wealth, FAR FROM IT. It is about repairing antiquated law, retuning it to properly serving its original intention of citizen's retail sales tax being the revenue for their town services and survival.
As it is now, ALL CITIZEN'S WHO LIVE OUTSIDE city LIMITS with a strong market pull, eg. OKC, and are forced to shop, if they want just about anything, including a "shirt on their back and shoes on their feet," in OKC where all the stores and malls have gravitated so as to make a profit, are having THEIR RETAIL SALES TAX DOLLARS funding OKC services for OKC residents. This is “monstrously unjust and socially harmful” (Anna Garlin Spencer)economics.
Furthering the majority of taxpayers' losses is the fact that the towns they do live in, are being forced to charge them excessive fees for water, garbage, etc. because, the money which is RIGHTFULLY the TAXPAYERS, for their services, is being paid to cities like Mayor Cornett's. WOW, what a deal, Mayor. I can see why you are upset with having to return it to its rightful owner.
But, this "me, myself, and nobody else" mentality, while understandable, is childish and ignores that the state of OK is a community of cities, not just a few BIG BROTHERS using outdated law to their advantage to financially CLUB AND BLEED TO DEATH all the other siblings just because the legislature has been defaulting on their duty to keep economic issues such as this current with original functional intention & equity of law.
I say, shame on the arrogance and lack of compassion of the bullies refusing to be responsible and helping to rectify this TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION making it fair and just. Bethany people, or anyone, should hot have to shoulder paying for OKC resident's services. That is so unfair and unjust as to not even require and explanation.
AND, this is the TRUTH, plain and on-point lacking any spin. I am a citizen. I am not pleased I have to get so involved to guarantee that the RIGHT thing is done to preserve equity of rights for all the citizens of this state.
I suggest an honest and truly equitable answer to this is easily achieved, AND has the added benefit of being economical to implement as well as "CHANGING THE LAW" by NOT CHANGING THE LAW because the OK Sales Tax structure will be modified to distribute retail sales taxes by population + per capita defining the "point of taxable sale" from local(city) to centralized (state), thus reflecting current economic reality.
This achieves the original functioning intention of retail sales tax returning to each and every taxpayer as revenue streams funding local operational services for descent and prosperous living. (If they are good consumers, it will be prosperous in their hometown.)
To streamline the math and eradicate distribution complexity and to level the playing field of how the taxes are collected, it seems it would be wise to consider equalizing the tax to a percentage all can agree upon to be the same.
While, Rep. Martin's 1% proposal is a teeny tiny baby step in the RIGHT direction, it is far from fair and equitable as the return to the citizens of towns outside the centralized buying markets is ONLY 1 penny of their due tax returned to them. That leaves 99 cents still funding the wrong recipient of the tax!
I WANT MY MONEY BACK! IT is the RIGHT thing to do and, justly is is my due. My RIGHTS are being violated, why should I, or any of the rest of the population also being violated accept this???
It is being "accepted" only because the majority of the population has been hoodwinked and kept in the dark about the dynamics of this. This is going to change.
If the legislature and news media do not start doing their job of reporting facutal and complete enough information about such important issues, I guess it will be up to the citizens to educate each other.
Please, do your due diligence as an unbiased reporter and give this very important issue another look so you can give this issue a legitimate honest and full picture reporting for the greater good of the economy and the taxpayers.
OK is in a dire state of urgency as the deterioration of many localized economies have been bled to death already. How many more citizens must suffer displaced poverty simply because their location is being robbed of their retail sales TAX returning?
Remember, many of these suffering people are retirees and not in a position to simply, "get out of Dodge." Oklahoma's prosperity as a state depends on this being rectified ASAP.
The state of URGENCY IS HERE AND NOT AROUND THE CORNER. It is being masked by its being ignored, not by its not being real.
Now, with a few gaps of FACTS filling in the holes of Mayor Cornett's speech, giving a bigger picture that is more honest, how do you see this issue? Are you justly miffed you were spinned?
All To Love,
Sharon Quinn
Post a Comment