June 17, 2005

Seriously

The idea of a city payroll tax (mentioned in the Tennessean today) really doesn't deserve a discussion.

1) It's illegal
2) It would never pass
3) It would run lots of businesses into outlying areas

Anyone that even considers such a thing would be in need of a serious mental evaluation (no wonder it's an unsigned editorial). That said...this about all of the discussion I am going to dedicate to it.

However, if you want to read more discussion on it, Bill Hobbs wrote a lengthy piece focusing mainly on the first point I listed above.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

I voted for the payroll tax in Memphis and I'd vote for it here, too if given the chance. Though it'd be great if there was a rebate/return system for those who live in the city limits.

I don't know of a more fair way to tax people for the services they receive. However, if there is any increase in my tax liability, Bill Purcell better darn well make sure I get something in return. Like better garbage service.

Posted by: Lesley at June 17, 2005 05:36 PM

I agree, for quality of life issues, I would vote for a city payroll tax. Particularly because of the city employees who accept Davidson county tax money yet build their homes in another county.

I remember growing up there used to be 5 cops within a stones throw of my house. Now, I couldn't begin to guess what percentage of police officers and firefighters actually live in the community they are supposed to protect.

There should be some motivation to accept these positions other than money. A payroll tax, with a resident deduction like Lesley describes could help with that.

Posted by: Short and Fat at June 17, 2005 05:53 PM

Ah yes...tax first, deal with consequences later.

Businesses (who hire employees) will have a greater incentive to just plop down in (or move to) a surrounding county than have to deal with a city payroll tax...you know this, right?

Posted by: B at June 17, 2005 05:58 PM

Sure. Why not a .5% payroll tax or a .0015% payroll tax. I mean taxes don't ever go up do they?

Sales taxes started off low too and now they're still only 10% of every dollar I spend after they've taken 25% out for my federal taxes. Or that my $30 a month phone service goes up to about $50 a month after they add on federal charges, network charges?, FCC charges, 911 charges. Seriously, look at your phone bill and tell me what the government did to get $16 out of my phone bill every month when I don't even make long distance calls.

Go back to Memphis if you liked it so much. At least you still get to see your state reps on tv and in the newspapers doing a perp walk everyday to keep you from getting homesick.

Posted by: smantix at June 17, 2005 06:21 PM

Pittsburgh is a good example of this. They started a .5% payroll tax. Downtown is starting to look more and more like a ghost town. Businesses are moving to the surrounding suburbs. They were also considering a commuter tax, where people driving downtown to work from the surrounding areas would have to pay for the priviledge of working downtown. They raised parking taxes to 50%, the highest in the country, and didn't understand what happened when the number of people parking downtown dropped dramatically. They're driving people out of downtown in droves, and still don't get it.

Posted by: Mary at June 18, 2005 08:08 AM