- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
- Stop losing the war on health insurance reform
NEW POLL: Philadelphians want Mayor to wait on cuts and 84% would give up wage tax cut to prevent 'em
Submitted by Ray Murphy on Tue, 12/02/2008 - 9:25am.
UPDATE at 9:41 AM: I have added a link below to the polling summary and list of poll questions.
So a few weeks ago, still basking in the glow of an Obama victory, Mayor Nutter announced $100 million in budget cuts to the current city budget. Citing a fiscal crisis, he called for spending cuts in all departments which has resulted in hundreds of layoffs, a plan to close libraries, pools, remove engines from fire houses, and will half the city's payment to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, CCP and arts/culture fund.
When this first happened I wrote a post called "Raise My Taxes" and Dan wrote one called "Keep My Taxes the Same." The Daily News called for a tax restructuring as well and there have been various other ideas floated to figure out how to raise money to prevent crisis from Phil Goldsmith's suggestion that we shut down Common Pleas Court to Councilwoman Sanchez's idea to restructure property taxes.
Of those us who had made these suggestions, none knew for sure how much agreement there would be from the rest of the city about revenue-based solutions to budget problems. Turns out, a lot.
About two weeks ago, Dan and I, with the help of some regular YPP writers, supporters, and some of the money from blog ad revenue decided to hire Del Ali of Research 2000--a national polling firm--and we worked with him to put together a survey of Philadelphia voters.
The results are astounding:
QUESTION: Do you favor or oppose budget cuts and layoffs?
FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE 21% 66% 13%
QUESTION: Starting next year, the City is to receive 95 million dollars from the state, which the City will use to cut the city wage tax from 4.17% to 3.93%. There is a proposal to instead keep the wage tax at the same level, and put that revenue toward preventing cuts in those city services that we just mentioned. Which of the following would you favor the most? (ROTATED):
Using State money for wage tax cuts, OR
Using State money to prevent service cuts.
Combination of both (NOT READ)
WAGE CUTS
PREVENT CUTS COMBO NOT SURE 10% 61% 23% 6%
QUESTION: Some Mayors and Governors from around the country have been calling on Congress for a federal bail-out of struggling towns and cities like ours, which may involve a direct payment of cash to Philadelphia and other cities. If a direct payment from the Federal Government does occur in January or February, what do you think the Mayor should do in the meantime? (ROTATED):
Wait and see what happens in Washington before making service cuts, OR
Go ahead with service cuts anyway?
WAIT
GO AHEAD NOT SURE 66% 10% 24%
This is compelling stuff. And it's too bad the Mayor himself did not ask Philadelphians about taxes before he announced cuts. This poll demonstrates a real appetite among a wide cross-section of Philadelphians to pitch in together to solve some pretty serious problems.
Now we just need some follow-up. Specifically, Council members can and should introduce and debate as many revenue-raising bills as possible right away. There is no shortage of ideas--as the poll indicates--and there is plenty of public support and goodwill for elected leaders who could do something to bring in additional dollars.
Of course, our national economy is in the tank right now too. Philadelphia's problems are not unique. Which means we need some kind of leadership from Washington. The poll numbers confirm this: 66% of Philadelphians think that Mayor Nutter should delay any cuts until he gets more details about the plan in DC.
The Mayor should pay attention to this poll. He still can stop or delay the proposed cuts and layoffs--which start this week--until there has been a more extended public conversation about alternatives to cuts. If he doesn't, then it is time for members of Council to get in on the act.
While some Council members have been out front asking questions and trying to help, the vast majority have not. It's not just the Mayor's responsibility to deal with the budget. Council has a role and needs to be more aggressive in playing it.
However, in the midst of a gloomy few weeks in Philly, this poll brings a lot of sunshine with it.
Despite years of Grover Norquist-inspired fear of taxes, this poll shows something new and exciting. Philadelphians love their city and they care about its services, and they are willing to do a lot to keep them intact. That's not only exciting in the context of this year's budget and the potential to stave off cuts, but also for all of us are hopeful about building a sustainable local economy driven by strategic public investments in this city's future.
Click here to see a PDF version of the poll summary and full list of poll questions.
Want to read my nerdiest quote ever?
From the Inky article today on the poll:
Whoo
I'm glad that the poll hit the way it did -- as the primary information the mayor -should- be using rather than the here's-100-points-decide-what-you-want-to-cut exercise he executed at his public meetings.
We're are long-view thinkers in Philly, and we know that preserving our services means that many people can live and work in the city -- not just the big businesses that politicians want to attract by cutting taxes and giving away land for free.
I'm looking forward to next steps with this data -- meeting with community leaders who want to use it to pressure council and the mayor in the way you describe, Ray.
Whoo good start to my day.
--
-----
hannah sassaman
267 970 4007
Ray, that is a pretty nerdy
Ray, that is a pretty nerdy quote.
Based upon the questions and the circumstances of these budget cuts, the poll doesn't revel anything suprising to me. Of course folks do not want there services cut. I did, however, note the interest in freezing wage tax reductions for the time being.
I've been kind of quiet on this issue for a while, mostly because I'm still trying to make sense of it. Nutter has made two key mistakes. First, he has failed to work collabratively (or at least give the impression of collabrative work) to solve this budget crisis. Perhaps town hall meetings on the front end would be better than after decisions have already been made. At least it would give the impression of process.
Second, and even more importantly, he has presented no real plan for Philadelphians to consider--even though there is an allusion to a "plan."
After reading Sam's post of yesterday, it seems the adminstration wants us to take a "wait and see" approach to these cuts. Frankly, I'm not going to count on the Mayor placing libraries or literacy centers in Recreation Centers or Elementary Schools based upon an after-town-hall discussion between maybe 3 individuals. I'm glad Sam asked his questions, but the Mayor needs to hold himself accountable. There are too many questions that are unanswered and too many seemingly after the fact rationalizations. If the Mayor's plan was to consolidate the offering of community services by placing libraries in schools or Rec Centers, as Marc said, it sounds like a decent plan. But have we seen this plan?
I accept that Philadelphia and even Pennsylvania are in fiscal straits. I accept the projected deficit is as large as the administration is saying it is. What I cannot accept is the Administration's assumption that Philadelphians simply do not care about the details.
I'm suprised. As a result, until the Mayor's office presents a cogent and detailed plan for reorganization to the public, I personally cannot support the closing of any community branches.
I haven't even started on Fire Houses, yet.
If I were Mayor for a day
I'd commission and independent entity to conduct a comprehensive review of the city's budget expenses and then publish a report analyzing the impact of cutting back on each of those expenses. I'd then conduct a series of meetings, proactively, objectively, to provide information to the public on the results of the study - with time allowed for, and structures provided for, community feedback on the findings. I'd utilize the local media to publicize those meetings and the findings of the commission.
I'd conduct public opinion polls to get a general overview of public opinion and I'd then put together a panel of stakeholder representatives, including politicians, community group leaders, academics, police/fire department reps, union reps, environmentalist group leaders, etc., to collect the feedback and develop a budget master plan that accurately reflects the feedback provided by citizens. Transparently.
Well, OK, I guess it would take longer than a day. It might take a year. Say, when was Nutter elected?
And a Mesage to our Elected Officials
QUESTION: Given those two options that we just discussed, are you more likely to vote
for the elected official, like a Mayor or Councilperson, who supports using state revenue
for tax cuts, or for the one who uses it to maintain city services?
Strongly favor elected official who supports using state money for local tax cuts
Favor elected official who supports using state money for local tax cuts
Favor elected official who supports using state money to maintain city services
Strongly favor elected official who supports using state money to maintain city
services
Strong Cuts:7
Cuts: 6
Services: 33
Strong Services: 32
This poll does nothing to support tax freezes
I'm sorry, but this poll is bullshit.
So you polled people already living in Philadelphia, that are already paying our outrageous taxes, if they would continue to pay them. So what?
The point of the tax cuts is to attract population and, more importantly, business *growth*.
How do you think the poll would have turned out if the question was asked in terms of more jobs verses more services?
It's embarrassing when people move to the greater Philadelphia area and I tell them how great it is to live in the city, but then need to mention the absurd wage tax.
Question #3 is terrible and its results mean nothing
I'm sorry, but if you paid someone to run a poll with the following question, you were ripped off:
Here's the problem, which I would guess Dan, as an aspiring lawyer, might have caught. The question: "If a direct payment from the Federal Government does occur in January or February, what do you think the Mayor should do in the meantime?," sets up an obvious answer. The possible answers are all conditioned on the assumption that the "direct payment from the Federal Government" WILL OCCUR in January or February. There is no alternative scenario to consider.
If you know that a direct payment is going to occur in January or February, then the logical thing to do is hold off on cuts until that money is given to the city. The problem with this question, and the results, is that we don't know that any direct payment is forthcoming, nor does the Mayor. Therefore, what he should do in the meantime is not as clear as the question's premise encourages the respondent to believe.
The question and its responses are absolutely useless. You should attempt to get at least $1500 back from the pollster.
Instead of Question #1
A much more even-handed way to ask a question like Question #1 would have been something like:
"QUESTION: As a result of the current economic climate, the City of Philadelphia recently announced an expected budget shortfall of approximately $100 million for the current fiscal year. In your opinion, which of the following would be the best way for the city to close that budget gap (ROTATED):
Cuts in city services, like public pools and libraries, and/or layoffs to reduce expenditures?
Raising the wage tax or other taxes to increase revenue?
Combination of both (NOT READ)"
However, it's doubtful that question would have gotten you the results you were paying for.
A modest question proposal
In your next poll, can you ask the following question?
QUESTION: Would you support raising the wage tax on non-Philadelphia residents who work in the city to 35% and using the resulting revenue to buy pools, computers, books, spaceships, puppies and kittens for every private residence in the City of Philadelphia?
I think it's important that we all know where the citizens of Philadelphia stand on this vital question. Thanks.
YPP: Another step in world domination
Mention of this poll today on WHYY's Radio Times. City spokesperson Stephen Agostini was asked to respond to the findings of the poll. I felt he pretty much just didn't respond, but one thing's for sure: he didn't acknowledge that the poll provides information relevant to policy formation.
Uh, maybe that's because it doesn't
This poll has huge flaws in the way the questions were phrased and presented. There is no indication that it provides information that is in any way relevant to policy formation. See my posts about questions #1 and #3 above. Those questions were obviously set up to get exactly the responses the people paying for the poll wanted.
The same is true for the question about property taxes. If I tell you we can raise tax revenues and most likely lower your property taxes at the same time, are you likely to tell me you think that's a bad idea? The problem is, there are many who would dispute the main premise of that question. Plus, revaluation is supposed to be revenue neutral (not raise revenues).
Actually, I did read your stuff, Dr.
I just don't quite share your assessment. I don't assume that people are stupid. When an overwhelmingly majority say they'd rather forgo further, marginal wage tax cuts than see services cut, I dunno, somehow I think that information is relevant to policy formation.
I make no assumptions at all
I absolutely do not believe that people are stupid. Rather, I believe that intelligent people give rational, reasonable answers to the questions they are asked based upon the context, or lack thereof, that is presented to them.
The wage tax question that you refer to - to which 61% of respondents said they would prefer that the $95 million the city is to receive NEXT YEAR should go to preserving services rather than a marginal wage tax reduction - is also problematic. Why is it problematic? Because that $95 million would do nothing to help close this fiscal year's $100 million shortfall and, based upon projections, next fiscal year's shortfall will probably be larger.
In short, that question, like others in this survey, asks people to make simple decisions based upon flawed information and/or distorted situations.
I don't believe the respondents to this poll are stupid. I believe they were asked questions that were meant to elicit specific responses and they responded in reasonable, predictable ways. A result that good polls are designed to prevent.
Honestly, the most fascinating thing about this poll to me is that 34% of respondents said they were not opposed to "budget cuts or layoffs" in the absence of any context whatsoever.
I'll assume that you're familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out."
It seems you do raise a legit issue in terms of timing...but
Forgoing a tax cut next year will not offset cuts made to reconcile the budget this year. But I think you're being a tad disingenuous. The poll is instructive as to public sentiment about the relative value of tax cuts vs. cuts in services. You basically admit as much when you say that you find it fascinating that so many answered that they were not opposed to budget cuts or layoffs.
I'm sure that with adjusting syntax you could vary the percentages to some degree. But the fact remains, a whole lot of folks would rather pay marginal amounts more in taxes than see services cut. That should be relevant information for folks who make budget decisions, particularly since they have displayed a proclivity for making budget decisions without a systematic process of assessing perspectives from a variety of informed stakeholders. Understanding how Philadelphians feel about the relative value of service cuts vs. marginal tax cuts should only give government officials more flexibility and alternatives to resolve the budget shortfall.
Timing is everything
The purpose of the poll was not to set the course on public policy. Instead, it is a tool we hoped could be added to the kit (or BatUtility belt in the Mayor's case) for dealing with the budget "crisis." Despite a long interview with Agostini yesterday and multiple townhall meetings, there is no firm sense of when cuts need to be made in order to avoid a government shutdown. There all kinds of pots that money could be borrowed from to keep going. So even if casino revenue comes in later in the year, so long as we know it is there to back up loans from other funds we would be fine.
Not to mention that--unlike Dan--I don't think that we need to be revenue neutral. I think we should totally raise the wage tax aside from casino revenue. It's been cut for years and years and years. It's time we adjust for inflation and up the rate. If I were in charge, I'd throw in a universal exemption on income--say $10,000--which would likely keep the same or lower taxes for most wage earners under $50 k and still bring in extra $. (It might get challenged in court, but so what? Our Democratic state treasurer is not gonna challenge it or our auditor general--so let some crazy R challenge it and let courts rule on the stupid uniformity clause).
But yes Josh, you are totally right that if you look at every single question we asked--no matter what quibble you have with language--the overall trend is that Philadelphians would pay more for services.
And for the record folks, tax increases are not abstract articles of faith. They do get raised in context--often attached to cuts--when people realize they need them.
And the arguments I have heard about the long-term impact of a wage tax increase are just more and more ridiculous.
No one moves to a city with a 3.91 % wage tax rate, but refuses to come somewhere with a 4.10% rate. This kind of small-minded, insular perspective is what is really killing Philadelphia. Our strengths are a superior location, good highway and transit infrastructure, cheap land and buildings, fun stuff to do, and a built-in market. Our weaknesses are a lack of highly-skilled workforce and low rate of college grads, crime/violence and uneven public schools.
If it takes a slight wage tax increase to address those core weaknesses, that is an investment in our future worth making.
Speaking of the Agostini interview
I thought it was interesting that he said (paraphrasing) that the Nutter administration wasn't surprised by the level of public disagreement about the closing of library branches. He indicated that they anticipated that folks would be very upset.
Which begs a couple of questions:
If they expected such a reaction, why didn't they take a completely different approach to announcing and justifying the cuts? For example, why didn't they hold a series of meetings beforehand to announce the options they were considering, provide relevant information, and solicit feedback? Instead, they announced the decisions, and assumed a patronizing "Nutter knows best" attitude by implying/stating that those who disagreed are unrealistic populists (or grandstanders, or reckless).
If in reality, they really were caught off guard by the reaction, why wouldn't they just admit it, and show some openness to re-evaluating their position in light of the response?
Once again, I am more than a little bit underwhelmed by how this administration is administrating.
Where did my reply go?
I posted a reply about the concept of tying the wage tax to inflation and it has disappeared. Is this the result of some sort of grand conspiracy? Here's the gist of it:
You think it's time to increase the wage tax to adjust for inflation? I'm not sure I even understand what that statement means.
As a result of inflation, household income has increased something like 150% since 1980 (this is an approximation for rhetorical purposes, not a statistical fact) does that mean that the wage tax should be over 10% now?
Tying taxes to inflation. That's just the sort of bold, creative, out-of-the-box thinking that could make Philadelphia the 12th largest city in America.
As already established
I am an amateur. So when I said raise wage tax for inflation, i misspoke. What can you expect?
I think the point remains that 15 straight years of tax decreases when the wage tax base is not growing is becoming kind of silly. And 84% of Philadelphians agree.
ok, sorry
The "amateurish" thing was probably uncalled for. I apologize.
However, nothing in that poll backs up this statement in any way: "I think the point remains that 15 straight years of tax decreases when the wage tax base is not growing is becoming kind of silly. And 84% of Philadelphians agree."
That is a serious misrepresentation of the responses to the Wage Tax Cut question.
I'm done, you're right. Hundreds of thousands of Philadelphians will be out in the streets begging to have their taxes raised any minute now.
84%
61% of Philadelphians polled said that all of the wage tax decrease should go toward preventing cuts and 23% said that some should go toward preventing cuts and some should go toward tax cuts.
61 + 23 = 84 %
Listen, I have no doubt that this poll is not the last word. I wish the DN, Inky, the City, William Penn, Pew, The Chamber, Philadelphia Forward, whoever would do another one.
But guess what--the strength of the response to this question plus all of the questions (I can post crosstabs if you want, and feel free to read the summary linked already) indicates that there is some serious willingness on the part of the city to see a revenue-based solution. Even if it is only 50% that is still a honking big number who want to help out by chipping in more tax dollars and are not being heard by the Mayor. Or Council.
I thought the Mayor said now was a time for leadership?
It's pretty disempowering frankly to be told that your library is gonna close, your fire engine removed, your friend/family member/neighbor is going to be laid off and not offered any chance to help out.
As I said earlier, this poll should not become public policy. But townhalls that discuss taxes, hearings that discuss taxes, op-eds that discuss taxes are warranted. Maybe after a whole bunch more debate, we'll conclude taxes are not the way to go, but why is the topic untouchable?
Not the same thing
This:
Does not in any way equal this:
I completely agree with you about this:
And I don't believe that cutting libraries, pools and firehouses is at all desirable or necessarily the best way to address this shortfall. I also think that there should be more public input and debate in this process and many options should be on the table.
I'm just not sure that this poll is a fair representation of where Philadelphians are on all of this.
Now I'm really done.
Why have you wasted so much time?
My role in the poll was in trying to help move a stuck debate forward. So rather than worrying about the accuracy of a poll, if you agree services shouldn't be cut, why don't you do your own thing?
And if you are gonna debate the poll, maybe up your level of discourse? This poll def. indicates that a lot of Philadelphians may be totally willing to pay more in taxes to get good services.
We did not really need a poll to find that out, but it helped.
And it is not my job (and I presume not yours, but of course I have no idea who the hell you are) to actually make any policy. So the Mayor and Council can work out gathering more public opinion on increased revenue. Except that they are unwilling (scared?) to touch the issue.
The fundamental question here, as it always has been: If we have a declining revenue base, and we need money to make strategic investments to grow the city's future, how do we do that?
At one point, the plan by the Mayor was to cut business taxes so low that every new business in the country would want to come here. I never agreed with the logic of that, but that's not even an option anymore. I have always contended that economic development and increased funding of education to produce more high-wage jobs is the answer. But these budget cuts and take that off the table for now.
And so increased taxes ARE an option that you seem loathe to acknowledge, just like the Mayor.
Not that it matters, but,
Not that it matters, but, there was context before that question.
You could argue that, in fact, we puffed up how terrible of a situation we are in, in a way helpful to the Mayor and his plans, because it is not really 1 billion, it is a projected 1 billion over five years. We probably should have said 200 million per year, or 100 million in the next 6 months. So, while I agree that the first question itself was generally not particularly informational, this isn't some grand conspiracy.
The point was to ask people about any number of alternatives, and see what their attitudes were. And, while I know in your anonymous internet life that you are all knowing, the results are clear: people want other options, and they are willing to pay for them.
I never said it was a grand conspiracy
Actually, it is a very simple, obvious and amateurish one. I'm not sure it even qualifies as a conspiracy. You have an agenda, you create a poll that is likely to get responses that back up that agenda, you peddle that poll to anyone who will listen. It happens all the time, and anyone who has ever created, or analyzed the results of, a quality poll that is designed to ask impartial questions and get good information can spot leading questions a mile away.
You're right, to you the results are clear. Just as they were before you put this poll in the field. It was very effective at confirming your beliefs. Frankly, I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU, nor do I believe that service cuts are necessarily the best solution to this crisis. I just think that this is a bad poll and it results are not as useful as you would like to believe.
Thank you for noticing that I'm all knowing. Your dismissive tone is oh so very attractive and makes me want to tell you who I am so I can spend hour upon hour with you in person in the hope that I can become your new BFF.
I certainly don't know everything, but spotting a bad poll is not rocket science. God forbid anyone question the "Wizards of YPP." I should have known better.
Must... resist...
Must... resist...
Amateurs
I just want to say for the record, when it comes to writing polling questions, I am certainly amateurish. In fact, this is an all-volunteer effort here at YPP.
I wish someone else had done a poll or in any way expressed interest in gathering public opinion on budget cuts and layoffs.
Oh well.