1% sales tax increase?
Governor Mark Parkinson in his State of the State address last night proposed a 1% sales tax increase, raising the state’s sales tax from 5.3% to 6.3%. The provision would sunset after three years, but with a .2% increase remaining to fund highway projects.
For Washington County, that would make the sales tax 7.3% for the next three years. For Washington City, which passed a 1% sales tax increase to fund the new swimming pool, sales tax would be 8.3% for the next three years.
What do you think of this proposal?
Of course I’ll tell you what I think (and thereby break a new year’s resolution to be less opinionated in 2010.)
An 8.3% sales tax in Washington and 7.3% countywide would accomplish one thing – it would send a lot of people to Beatrice and Fairbury to shop at Super Wal-Mart.
It would not stave off school funding issues because the majority of our funding problems come from declining enrollment.
The legislature should not pass a sales tax increase. Especially not during hard economic times like we’re experiencing. Raising taxes is not the way to turn the economy around. We’re all going to have to pull up our boot straps and play with the hand we’re dealt. Our forefathers did it during the Great Depression, surely we can do it for another year or two.
Contact your Senator and Representative to give them your opinion:
Representative Sharon Schwartz – 785-296-7637 or sharon.schwartz@house.ks.gov
Senator Mark Taddiken – 785-296-7371 or Mark.Taddiken@senate.ks.gov
I supported the local sales tax increase for the pool because that was a project that we could build locally. I don’t mind the concept of taxation when it is a locally-created effort. I don’t care for state and federal taxes because the bigger the government unit, the more wasteful it is and the less benefit we’ll see from it.
sales tax is the fairest tax we will gain money from the tourist that come thru kansas and any constructions workers,ect. this tax does not put the whole burden on kansasans but also anyone else who uses the roads and bridges. take the money they are giving to remodel capital and put that towards the deficent!!!!!
28 minutes ago ยท
I would like to believe that the programs being funded by the state (healthcare, schools, roads, etc) are a little better use of tax dollars than swimming pools, locally-created effort or not. I disagree with sales taxes as a revenue-creation devices because I disdain regressive taxes.
So, the number of unemployed, laid-off, and families receiving government assistance just keeps raising. So, sure, why not raise the taxes. NOT. I just really don’t like the idea of our government saying ‘well, we need more money, and you’re going to give it to us.’ We all have to tighten our purse strings, I think the government can too. You can’t eat steak every night, sometimes you have to eat Mac n cheese.
Did you know the people who pay the most taxes are:
Top 1% of the wealthy pay over 40% of the taxes
Top 10% pay OVER 70% of the taxes in the U.S
Top 50% pay 97% of the taxes!!!!
Remember, this number is not 50% of the population, its 50% of the TAX Payers. Corrent me if I am wrong, but about 40% of the US population don’t pay taxes anyway.
Im all for sales tax. Everyone has to pay it! Its the only FAIR tax out there.
Something to point out though: the last year a survey was done, the richest 1% of households possessed 38% of the wealth. As tax laws have changed over the last 12 years, the proportion has changed and I’d be willing to bet the 1% possess a greater percentage of the wealth now. Study wealth distribution trends in the US over the last 30-50 years for an accurate picture of how wealth and tax rates interract. It’s also something to note that if federal poverty rates were set to what I feel would be a more accurate standard, an enormous percentage of the population would be found to be living in poverty…including a majority of our elderly population.
So leadbelly, unless I don’t understand your last post, you believe that much more should be taken from the successful and redistributed? From your assertion that poverty rates should be reset so that more people should be classified as below the poverty line, I don’t know how else to interpret your statement. Do you understand that rewarding people for having less (via social programs) and punishing people (via taxes) for having more will eventually lead to us all having less? Its really kind of simple when you boil it down to basics. At some point, which we will be reaching soon, the achievers of this country will decide it isn’t worth the work to earn more money, only to have the government take it all away. At this point your plan falls apart. The poor get poorer because there are fewer taxes being paid in, and the people who would like to become rich don’t. Nobody gains….everybody loses.
Oh Archie, at least we will all be treated equal and we call help out those who won’t try for anything.
While I do believe we will have to raise taxes to help solve the education budget crisis, increasing the sales tax rate is not necessarily a wise choice. I agree with Leadbelly, regressive taxation is not the answer. The sales tax increase will hurt lower income families.
Increasing property taxes, though assuredly irritating to the more vocal (and affluent) segment of Washington County, will generate revenue without pushing families on the brink over the edge. For some families the question is not “steak or mac ‘n’ cheese?”, but rather “Shurfine or Valutime mac ‘n’ cheese?”. Tax those who can afford it.
Everyone can attempt make their case, but you’re making some pretty broad assumptions saying all farmers are “affluent” and can afford the tax while others who do not farm cannot.
I know some affluent farmers and I know some who barely get by. I know some affluent business owners and some who barely get by. I know some affluent people who work for other people and some who barely get by.
In my opinion, a retails sales tax is more fair than property tax increase. On the other hand, I don’t think we need an increase in either.
When a business is broke, they have to cut or downsize. If they decide to raise prices, customers can decide whether the product is still worth it or not.
When the state is broke, they should cut or downsize. When they raise their rates (taxes), we don’t have a choice on whether or not to pay it.
Funny you should surmise I was referring predominantly to farmers when I mentioned affluent Washington County residents. I was referencing business owners just as much so.
I am not railing against agriculture in general or farmers in general. But let us be reasonable and stop viewing all Kansas farmers as down-trodden John Steinbeck stereotypes who cannot afford to keep roofs over their heads let alone pay taxes.
I agree with you on one point. When the state is broke, it should cut or downsize. But rather than cutting spending to education, perhaps Kansas Republicans should consider cutting the tax breaks they have given to businesses over the past decade. And God forbid they cut their salaries. Taxes have already been cut, which in addition to exorbitant spending has put us in this situation. School funding is at 1999 levels. The Department of Education is not the root of our budget troubles.
On the matter of taxation and choice, you are dead wrong. Since we inhabit Kansas rather than 1770s Colonial America, we have taxation with representation. That is, my elected official votes to raise or cut taxes. I have a voice. When businesses fueled by rampant tax breaks corner the market and raise prices upon necessities beyond my means, I have no choice but to pay.
In rural Kansas, which is all I really care about, property tax increases affect farmers much more than anyone else. You can buy downtown business buildings in most of our area towns for less than $50,000, often less than $20,000. The majority of homes in our area don’t have the same value as one 80-acre plot of farm ground. So property tax increases are done on the backs of farmers. New gyms are built by farmers. Schools are kept open by farmers.
I never suggested the Steinbeck version of farming. I said “I know some affluent farmers and I know some who barely get by.” I think everyone knows that to be the case.
I think the legislature voted in a cut in pay for themselves and appointed officials last Wednesday.
You mentioned school funding is at 1999 levels. Here are a few stats I think are important to this argument.
Clifton-Clyde – 1999 enrollment was 380, 2009 enrollment was 281
Washington County – 1999 enrollment 522 (with both Washington and North Central included), 2009 enrollment 393
Linn – 1999 enrollment 202, 2009 enrollment 157
Hanover – 1999 enrollment 189, 2009 enrollment 139
The Washington and North Central consolidation numbers should probably not be used because that isn’t necessarily apples to apples since they didn’t consolidate until 4-5 years ago and not all former North Central kids are going to Washington County.
So anyway, if we’re back to 1999 funding levels, as you say, shouldn’t we still be better off than we were then since all the schools have way fewer students? 100 fewer students at Clifton-Clyde and 50 fewer at Hanover and Linn and we can’t do it with those funding levels? Sounds like our schools have plenty of room to make some tough decisions.
I’ll let someone else debate your taxation with representation idea. All I know is that the tea party movement going on right now is there for a reason.
But all that said, I think this conversation shows the range of political ideologies that exist and that is great. I’m especially pleased, even if we don’t agree on everything, that the younger generation cares enough to put some thought into this. My only advice to you (and I realize you’re not asking for advice) is to continue to keep your mind open to different ideas as far as politics goes. I’ve changed my political clothes over the years but only because I enjoy debating AND listening. So I do appreciate your candor.