What are your proposals Tim? What would you see as a "fair" tax increase? I've said repeatedly I would support a tax increase if I had assurances it wasn't permanent and was designed to get us over the hump until things (hopefully, one day...) start to turn around.

Glad you asked, Lucretia.

First I’d get rid of the payroll tax and replace it with a gross receipts tax (which small business wants), and I’d make it progressive: Companies with higher receipts would pay a higher percentage, and smaller companies would get a tax cut. Not perfect, of course -- some high-revenue companies (supermarkets, for example) have low margins. But since California cities can’t tax corporate income, it’s the best we can do (and Safeway can afford it anyway).

Then I’d look into a tax on income earned in San Francisco -- in essence, a city income tax that would include commuters. I’d exempt the first $50,000 in income, so that only relatively higher wage earners would pay anything, and I’d start very low (less than one percent) and skew it up to maybe 3 percent for people who earn more than $200,000. Most of those people itemize deductions, so they can write it off their federal and state returns, meaning that Sacramento and Washington would actually be underwriting that tax.

Then I’d have Mayor Newsom ask his good buddy Willie Brown to go up to Sacramento and push HIS good buddy the governor to sign Mark Leno’s bill that would allow San Francisco to pass its own Vehicle License Fee -- a tax on cars based on the value of the car.

I’d look at a parcel tax for certain services (for example, a public safety parcel tax) and use that money for police and fire, freeing up some general fund money for other services.

I’d also ask every department to put a line-item budget and all contracts and expenses on the web so we can all watch carefully where the money goes.

That’s a start.

FINALLY someone at the Guardian offers some solutions and takes the supervisors to task (albeit as an afterthought prompted by Shane the Trollop on a little-noticed blog) instead of just bitching about and reacting to Newsom's transgressions. Maybe if you kept up a sustained effort, such policies will finally sink in with the supervisors and the public at large.

The comment by Patrick tells a lot about what's wrong with American society, including California and even San Francisco.

First, he defends the selfish rich, who have far more than they need or deserve, at the expense of everyone else. Americans all fantasize about being rich, so even though the vast majority are not, they oppose attempts to get rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. This attitude makes Americans vote against their own interests, which is why the U.S. has a lower standard of living than many other developed industrial countries and why the average person in those countries is much better off, with things like universal health care and 6-8 weeks of annual vacation time. And BTW Patrick, Americans pay very low taxes compared to Europeans, which is why services for average people here suck.

Next, he uses the usual right wing propaganda about how bad government is and asks why you would want them spending our tax money. What people like this never say is that if the government doesn't make that decision, it will be left up to the rich and powerful. As Noam Chomsky once said, while there is plenty to complain about in government, at least we have a chance of voting them in or out of office. We have NO say in the decisions made by corporations or their rich owners.

The issue of taxes only concerns the rich, because they're the only ones who stand to pay a lot of them. Average Americans have been brainwashed into thinking this is a big issue for them, but it's not. There's only one choice here folks: we either raise taxes in order to provide services, or those services go away. It's time to grow up and quit pretending that we can get something for nothing.

BTW, I agree with Patrick to an extent about public employees being overpaid. Considering how much it costs to live in San Francisco, I don't think MUNI workers are overpaid, but police and firemen certainly are, especially firemen who have 48 hours off for every 24 on and who, with modern sprinkler systems and flame retardants, are needed far less than they used to be. The police and fire departments' budgets are really bloated and should be cut substantially, but most people are so scared of life that they panic at the suggestion that their security blankets of police and fire departments should be diminished.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

"An overwhelming 94% of California voters regard the state’s budget crisis as very serious, but most oppose raising taxes as a solution to the problem.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in California finds that just 28% of voters prefer raising taxes to cutting back on services or having the state file for bankruptcy.

Forty-three percent (43%) think cutting back on state services is the better way to go, and another 15% favor state bankruptcy. Fourteen percent (14%) aren’t sure"

----

Here was my search words

california taxes poll

I set it for 1/1/10 to 2/23/10

It was the first thing that came up.

Jeff: Your response to my post was a bit vitriolic and misguided. I wasn't trying to advance some right wing agenda with my post. Rather, I think that there are some faulty premises in Tim Redmond's article and I tried to point them out. He floated the idea that City income taxes could be a tax deduction on federal and state income tax returns; I was pointing out that I don't believe that's necessarily true because the way our tax code, including AMT, works. And AMT is not just a problem of the "selfish rich." It sweeps in a lot of middle class people.

Also, can you please point out where in my post I "defend the selfish rich"?

Also, can you please point out where in my post I advance "right wing propaganda"?

The thesis of my post is that people are fed up with reading articles about how much public union/municipal workers are making and that I don't think it's credible to believe people will vote to increase taxes in this climate. I also don't think many people believe that the current Board of Supervisors is a competent legislative body to whom they would want to hand over their income.

Finally, your post is internally inconsistent. In the second paragraph you use the buzzwords that rich people don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. In the fourth paragraph, you write that tax issues really only concern the wealthy, "because they're the only ones who stand to pay a lot of them." If they're the only ones paying significant taxes, how can they not be paying their fair share? If your point is that people in upper brackets should pay even more, that's fine, but your points aren't very clear.

Your points 1 and 4 are predicated on the premise that all current services should be maintained. I think that is what is at issue here. Ultimately it's the voters' call but the feeling I feel is that voters want the City to focus on a few core services e.g. public safety and schools, and don't want a socialist nanny that provides everything to everyone.

Your point 2 is about the BofS and, while I don't have a strong opinion of how it is elected, I am concerned that the current system allows fringe candidates to win with a few thousand votes. These are often people who, like Chris Daly, would struggle to gain public office almost anywhere else in the nation. But as long as the voters decide tax increases, I can live with district elections.

Your point 3 misses the point of the public outrage about public sector salaries. It's not just the 50K plus per annum for muni workers - it's the almost insanely unsustainable liability of generous pension and healthcare benefits that push the total payroll cost into the stratosphere. And overtime, of course.

And you know, of course, that SF hasn't set aside any money to fund their massive future pension liabilities. Figure a billion or so, ballpark.

But hey, Oakland is far ahead of us in this mess, so let's just watch what happens there and extrapolate.

Tom, it's a tricky question -- the state bars cities from imposing an income tax -- but it's perfectly legal to impose a tax on income earned in the city. The distinction: You tax people on the basis of where they work, not where they live. Thus commuters who work in the city would pay, but people who live here and work elsewhere would not.

Imperfect, but still better than a lot of taxes.

The relevant CA Supreme Court case is Weekes v. City of Oakland, 21 Cal 3d 386 (1978).

I actually wouldn't mind if more cities implemented the equivalent taxes; income taxes are, generally, more progressive than sales taxes, which cities rely on for revenue.

You need a business tax in a city, and SF has used the payroll tax in part because payroll is a rough -- imperfect, but rough -- approximation of the size of a company. Gross receipts is probably a little better, though neither is perfect. A corporate income tax -- a tax on profits -- would be much preferable, but the state won't allow it.

So no, the payroll tax and the tax on earned income aren't the same. In fact, one of my major complaints about the payroll tax is that it's a flat tax; little companies pay the same rate as big companies. A city income tax ought to be progressive, hit the rich harder than the poor.

And, frankly, over the past 30 years the rich in this country have done quite well with the federal tax cuts. Just as Washington was cutting taxes on the wealthy, it was cutting aid to cities -- it's perfectly fair for SF to try to take a little back.