By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, February 06, 2008 at 9:12 AM
The City of St. Louis will balance its budget with a tax increase. Sounds like everything Republicans say about our Democratic city is not all untrue. Labels: Election_Day
While many different elected officials and editorials spoke out against the sales tax increase, there were no mailings, robo-calls or poll workers to spread that message to voters.
The half-cent sale tax, supported by Mayor Francis Slay and Aldermanic President Lewis Reed, passed yesterday 55%-45%.
17 Comments:
There were pro-Prop S people passing out lit at my polling place. And I received emails from Slay.
2/06/2008 10:42 AM
So now that it passed will the Comptroller admit she proposed the full 1/2 cent and convinced the Mayor and Ald. President? I bet they are both tired of her doing one thing and then claiming the politically easy ground. I lost a lot of respect for her office on this one. It's too bad her office put us in a mess that we needed a tax increase to get out of.
2/06/2008 10:58 AM
Below is the Comptroller's statement on Prop. S from her web site.
Anonymous posters saying the tax was her idea does not make it true. She said she did not propose the tax.
Why are not Slay/Reed taking credit for their handy work raising our taxes and putting even more financial strain on our poorest residents? Thanks Slay/Reed.
Comptroller statement:
My office did not initiate this ballot measure, but on Feb. 5, city voters will decide on a half-cent sales tax increase. As comptroller of the city, I support any additional revenue for the city. However, in this case, city leaders should be requesting a lower increase balanced by increased funding from developments. My position on this has been consistent throughout the process.
The city needs the tax revenue without question. Police and firefighters deserve to be paid more money. I support the pay increases and the need to meet pension obligations and fight crime. However, I think the city needs to make an immediate change in its development incentive policies before it can ask the public to pay for city expenditures that should be paid for by a growing tax base.
As new developments crop up all over the city, new jobs are added to the city, and more and more people buy homes and condos in the city, the tax base should be growing at a rate to sustain the growth. It is up to city leaders to change old development incentive policies designed to begin the turnaround that we are now experiencing. The new policies should acknowledge the need to cover the costs of growth.
In doing so, we create funding to keep up with rising costs and show good faith to the public who should not be asked to shoulder these costs. The regressive nature of the sales tax threatens the retailers who have already moved in and taken a chance on the city as well as those retailers who contemplate the move here.
Changing outdated development incentive policies now will show average citizens that their hard-earned money matters as much as the wealthy developer.
2/06/2008 11:58 AM
Slay, Reed, and the Board of Aldermen are taking full credit for the passage.
Slay's website has a statement. It does not mention Green.
2/06/2008 1:07 PM
Sales tax rates have been so bloated throughout the region by incentivized retail development that, in reality, I don't think the City will face much of a disadvantage when it comes to competing for shoppers and retailers.
2/06/2008 1:07 PM
As comptroller of the city, I support any additional revenue for the city.
Translation: While some taxes are better than others, I support any and all ways to get money away from individuals and businesses and put that money into the government's hands.
2/06/2008 2:57 PM
Heraclitus said...I want St. Louis to be a city that gives hundreds of millions in tax breaks to the rich, including TIF, abatement, and earnings tax free stock options.
Heraclitus said...The government needs not money to operate. The citizens can take care of police, fire, EMS, trash, water, streets, social services by themselves.
Heraclitus said...Maybe I should stop showing my ignorance and rethink my previous comment.
2/06/2008 8:33 PM
We wouldn't need a tax increase if we weren't issuing TIF for the many developments that would have located here anyway. St. Louis needs to realize that we are a valuable market and we don't need to issue subsidy for projects that want to be here. Rather we should invest in human capital, like our schools, thus we become a job market which business wishes to exploit. Yet that process takes time and does not work well with th election cycle. It is more glamorous to say that a given alderman, or mayor, got the deal done. The business didn't want to come here, but through leadership it's here.
2/06/2008 11:20 PM
Of course the city needs money to operate, but some public officials, like Comptroller Greene, will say the city always needs more, even though St. Louis is one of the highest, if not the highest, taxed municipality in the area. She offers some guidance, less TIF money, less abatement, but, in the end, will not speak out against something that will give the city more money, regardless of the origin of the money. That does not inspire confidence in me.
Comptroller Greene could have taken a principled stand and said, 'While I believe that firefighters and police deserve more money, until the developers, and other property owners, pay more into the city coffers, I cannot endorse this sales tax increase that is Prop S. It unduly burdens the poorest among us, while the richest among continue to not pay their fair share. I will work with Slay/Reed to find the money for the increases.' That would have been leadership.
Instead, we get this--
However, in this case, city leaders should be requesting a lower increase balanced by increased funding from developments.
Where does/did she stand on Prop S? How does she recommend we vote? I can't tell. Please enlighten me. By saying what 'should' be done by 'city leaders', she avoided the question as to what should be done by the voters on election day. She says the sales tax increase should be less (and property tax be more), but doesn't give an unequivocal recommendation on how to vote on Prop S. Her behavior is not worthy of emulation.
2/07/2008 2:10 AM
Heraclitus,
Do you want the comptroller to tell you when to wipe your butt, too?
Give me a break.
The Comptroller's position is clear. Less tax giveaways means more money in budget for city expenses. Green has opposed draining the city's coffers with tax breaks for years. But until Slay and the aldermen stop approving them, they are here to stay.
Since, Heraclitus, you are not a free thinker and desperately need someone to tell you what and how to do it, here is some advice.
Quit complaining about the tax increase, it passed.
Don't blame the Comptroller, blame Slay, Reed, police, firemen, city workers and citizens who campaigned for it and voted for it. They all said this was the best idea ever. They developed the misleading ballot language that helped get it passed. Slay, Reed and the aldermen are the ones who keep approving all the millions in tax giveaways to the wealthy.
Why not direct all this anger and hatred towards doing something positive with your life. Perhaps you could become an advocate for all those of your ilk who need coddling and lack enough attention.
Oh, and get a life.
2/07/2008 9:24 AM
Heraclitus, if you are going to go on a babbling rant about someone, at least make the effort to spell the person’s name right. It may actually give people the impression you are not an idiot.
2/07/2008 9:27 AM
Comptroller Green: "As comptroller of the city, I support any additional revenue for the city. However, in this case, city leaders should be requesting a lower increase balanced by increased funding from developments."
With the real estate market heading south, I doubt we're going to see enough new development to add significantly to city revenues, even if no subsidies are handed out. The "blame the developers" argument is more political than logical. Think of all those new high-wage residents now paying earnings tax. Plus, some of those 10-year tax abatements are starting to approach their expiration date...
Comptroller Green: "The regressive nature of the sales tax threatens the retailers who have already moved in and taken a chance on the city as well as those retailers who contemplate the move here."
There's some muddling of concepts here. Why do city retailers (old or new) care if a sales tax is regressive?
The assumption underlying Comptroller Green's statement is that property owners should bear all of the cost of public safety. But renters, nonresident workers, visitors, and tourists all require protection, and they should also be partially responsible for paying for the protection.
2/07/2008 11:05 AM
Lets take these one at a time.
Think of all those new high-wage residents now paying earnings tax.
This would make sense if many of the new high-wage residents were paying earnings tax to the city. They are not. Their earnings tax is going to the developers/business owners who have TIF. Thousands of workers employed at Centene, Ballpark Village, St. Louis Centre (all future) and many others (current) give all their earnings and payroll tax to the project costs. Not the city. I’m sure the mayor will be happy to give you the long list of TIF businesses that take more than 50% of these taxes for themselves.
Why do city retailers (old or new) care if a sales tax is regressive?
They likely don’t care about the term “regressive.” What they do care about is now having the highest sales tax rate in the state. And, of course, long-time and existing businesses that have no TIF give their sales tax to the city. Most of the new businesses give their sales tax (and their payroll and earnings tax) to themselves. This puts existing businesses and future businesses (not getting TIF) at a disadvantage.
Property owners should bear all of the cost of public safety.
Not all, but their share. Property taxes in the city account for only about 15% of revenue. This is absurd. We are pretty much maxed out for sales tax (now over 10% at restaurants and even more in special taxing districts) so something else needs to bring in revenue. Do you suggest raising the earnings tax or raising the sales tax even more?
2/07/2008 1:09 PM
Above anonymous: "Lets take these one at a time." Please do, because you didn't in your above comment.
Above anonymous: "Thousands of workers employed at Centene, Ballpark Village, St. Louis Centre (all future) and many others (current) give all their earnings and payroll tax to the project costs."
Straw man argument. We'll deal with the lost earnings tax from Ballpark Village and St. Louis Centre when and if these projects ever occur. You say many other current projects give all their earnings and payroll tax to project costs. OK, please name a couple. Much of the resurgence in the city (and the arrival of new residents) is due to short term property tax abatements and historic (state) tax credits.
Above anonymous: "What they do care about is now having the highest sales tax rate in the state."
Show me the biggest city in any state in the United States and I will show you the highest sales tax rate in that state.
TIF definitely plays favorites between neighbors. But the city doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to compete with St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Chicago, Madison, Florida, and India.
"Do you suggest raising the earnings tax or raising the sales tax even more?" Are you referring to tax rates or tax revenues? I would suggest raising earnings tax revenue, sales tax revenue, and property tax revenue. But that’s going to take a lot more development in the short term. I’m OK with Comptroller Green if she wants to reel in TIF (I voted for her last time, and I’ll vote for her next time), but I worry that the anti-development rhetoric is poorly timed, given the faltering market.
2/07/2008 3:56 PM
Now we get to the crux of the issue.
You are confusing the city receiving more revenue from subsidized development with being anti development.
I don't think the comptroller has ever or will ever be anti development.
IMHO I think she is being anti the city going broke.
2/07/2008 4:36 PM
reform city government, stop the onslaught of the tax increases for a board of aldermen that does not measure up to any standard. These are democrats that have controlled St. Louis for 50 years have failed to govern properly, filling their pockets instead
2/08/2008 6:11 AM
If Slay and Company would stop giving tax dollars to wealthy sports team owners, maybe there would be enough money to fund police pensions and raises for the cops and firefighters.
I don't believe for a moment that any amount of the increase in sales' tax will go to increase the number of police in St Louis (although it is desperately needed, especially on the South Side which is increasingly becoming more and more crime ridden as a culture of crime takes hold.)
2/10/2008 2:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home