- Getting Dirty: Dirt! The Movie Comes to Philadelphia
- Soda Exposes the Festering Toothache of our Politics
- SRC outrage: Cartoons but not violence?
- Lewis Thomas III for State Representative Website Launch
- National Coming Out Day for Undocumented Youth
- Gambling's real winners and losers
- VoicesWeb Interview with Joe Hoeffel, Democrat for Governor
- Health care activists are planning a rally near Arcadia
- From Warren Bloom, Candidate for the PA House of Representatives 195th District, 2010.
- Things that make me want to go . . . . UGH
A new year, a new way?
Submitted by Ray Murphy on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:18pm.
So there are a lot of newly minted Michael Nutter haters out there. It's pretty hard to believe how crazy things have gotten in the past two months. Can anyone imagine a lawsuit against the city and Mayor Nutter at this time last year? No way.
The fight to prevent library cuts has been amazing and inspiring. But over the long-term, this anger at the Mayor is not productive, nor do I think it is permanent. The reality is that in Philadelphia's strong-Mayor system, not much can get done in opposition to the Mayor. Neither Mayor Nutter or Philadelphia's citizens can afford to let his administration be divided from the city. Remember how well that went with our last Mayor?
We need to get together.
Here is our reality: Philadelphia is losing population. Median wages have not gone up since the 60's. Our rate of poverty is higher than in other major cities--a quarter to a third of our citizens live in poverty, and many more struggle to keep afloat. We don't have as many college-educated citizens as we should. We don't have a cohesive economic development plan or strategy to grow the sectors with the most potential. And most importantly, we're a 21st century city with a government too aligned with a 20th century industrial economy.
There are a lot of silver-linings of course. We have excellent housing stock and relatively affordable houses and apartments. We are well-located to attract national businesses. We have strong neighborhoods. We have education and health care systems, plus pharmaceutical research companies, that could all stand at the center of a stronger local economy. We have some interesting new emerging leaders. And most of all, Philadelphia has a strong sense of self--enough so that we can and will all pull together at key moments.
But right now we need more leadership than we have. We need to be asked to pitch in together for a common goal.
The nature of that goal is perhaps a matter of debate. Maybe we should focus on green jobs. Or digital inclusion. The trick could be to focus on affordable housing and rental units. It could be city-wide clean-ups, more green space or major public transit expansion. It doesn't matter what exactly our common goal is, but we do need something bigger and clearer than what we have.
More budget cuts are likely in this coming year. But even in a bad economy the people of Philadelphia want the Mayor and Council to dream big, act bold and make an investment plan for our future. After all, more and more budget cuts are likely for each year our city's economy fails to respond to the new economy's demands. We're always going to be dealing with cuts unless we invest some serious cash now in a solution that moves us in a different direction.
That may very well mean raising taxes. And that is where you come in.
Despite all of the evidence of corruption, graft and favoritism in city government, the facer is that Council elections don't cost a whole lot to run. Which means that the perceptions and opinions of constituents--especially in district elections--matter a lot. And just about everybody on Council is scared to vote for a bill to raise taxes. Because they think it will effect their chances of reelection.
But we know that a lot of us would pay a little bit more if we knew that bought us better schools, more after school options, better small business services, cleaner streets, safer streets, new jobs or an improved SEPTA.
We need to let members of Council know that under the right conditions, we would pay more in taxes.
We'd forgo a wage tax decrease from casino revenue. We would also support a change in the property tax formula. We support closing business tax loopholes. And a lot of us think that very high wage earners should pay a bigger share than they do now.
If we did pay more in taxes, we'd certainly expect more in representation from our electeds than we have now. But I think that is a demand Council and the Mayor could meet.
So in the coming weeks, we need to let Council know that we have their backs on taxes. That's an easy new Year's resolution right?
As contentious as these last few months have been, we can move past them and on to a brighter future. But only if we speak up and if those we have elected listen, and demonstrate that they have the vision and the drive to take us to a better place.
I agree but let's not let the state off the hook
I agree with most of this, Ray, but I'd like to add that the State of Pennsylvania should be a significant revenue source for the City, and they have a budget process coming up in the Spring as well that we need to be involved with. The question needs to be asked: Why haven't we heard from any of our State leaders about the City's budget crisis? The Governor, who certainly knows where Philadelphia is, seems to have forgotten that we have any other existence other than as the home of the Eagles and two casinos in the works. The Chair of the House Appropriations Committee should remember Philadelphia since he tried to be its Mayor twice. The current and perhaps future Speaker of the House is a Philadelphian, and the Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, is a Philadelphian. Don't they know we have a budget crisis here?
These people need to step up. The scandal of the unpaid City Court costs is now about 20 years old. For those who don't know, the State Supreme Court ordered the State to pay all county court costs about 20 years ago, and the State has continued to stiff the counties nevertheless. That costs Philadelphia County (which is technically the same as the City) over $100 million a year. The State has an income tax that is far more progressive than the City wage tax because it exempts low wage workers and graduates the tax for slightly higher wage workers. Why not increase the state income tax a few tenths of a percent and create a revenue sharing program for distressed cities?
The business elites constantly berate the City for its high tax rates. Yet, they're perfectly happy with a state income tax rife with loopholes. The tax is widely considered to be a voluntary tax for any business (i.e. big business) that can hire enough accountants to find them. Those loopholes should be closed and the proceeds used to beef up the (now non-existent) distressed cities revenue sharing fund.) And why can't the State at least give the City the power to levy the Business Privilege Tax at its full rate against banks, insurance companies, and PECO?
Come out from wherever you're hiding, state elected officials, and do the right thing by the citizens of Philadelphia, that little town that's just over the New Jersey border, but actually your responsibility.
PA Income Tax Progressive?
I'm a little surprised to read that statement. From what I have always understood, Pennsylvania's state income tax is particularly regressive. The ITEP model from Bob McIntrye at the Center for Tax Justice certainly seems to think so: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/pa%20pr.pdf
How have you determined the progressivity of PA's income tax? Has something changed?
Anyway, philosophically and practically, I see the taxation of wages as something of a dead-end, as the rich easily evade them, and the middle-class and the poor cannot, IMO.
As for the state rallying behind us; I spend a lot of time in other parts of Pennsylvania. Although they would never have prospered or even existed for a couple of centuries without Philadelphia, they seem more than happy to cut us loose now. Their reps reflect that atavistic view. I think that we are probably on our own. We have to fix our own house.
The point about the BPT exemption is well-taken, and it's a decades-long scandal, which ought to be fixed. Yet, the legislature is dominated by both GOP and Dem suburbanite/rural forces that demography has empowered. The current system works fine for them. So, the BPT falls on bodegas, barbers and chiropractors, exempting the biggest of big dogs.
Josh Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
Wage Tax Is The Least Progressive Tax
The city wage tax is the least progressive tax. It is well known here (and well-lamented here) that Councilman David Cohen was a strong advocate of reducing for people exempt from the state income tax to 1.5% (the lowest possible amount to PICA loans that are dependent upon tax revenue), and that Mayors Street and Nutter have once each persuaded City Council to delay its implementation after its enactment.
I am pleased to to have introduced my father to this issue, and to have suggested that he take the leadership role on it that he ultimately did.
The city wage tax was enacted in the late 1930's over three decades before a state income tax was. Governor (1971-1979) Milton J. Shapp, a onetime Logan resident who lived for most of his life in Lower Merion, fully understood issues of tax progressivity and worked hard to make the state income tax as progressive as possible, ultimately winning court approval for a poverty exemption for low income families, and winning a general consensus behind the idea that limiting tax deductions both kept taxes lower and made the tax less regressive.
Shapp also got rid of the sales tax on food consumed at home and clothing. Although he has been out of office for thirty years now, his views on maximum progressivity within a flat tax structure required by the Pennsylvania Constitution still hold sway.
Obviously, the most progressive tax is a graduated tax, which would require a Pennsylvania Consitutional amendment to achieve. Virtually every Republican in Pennsylvania history to vote on such an amendment has voted against it, as have many Democrats from affluent districts. I have voted for it every time it has come, but barring a political catacyclysm of some kind, I doubt it will appear feasible to the necessary legislative majorities at any time in the forseeable future.
The most appealing idea Stan has to raise additional money for local governments is revenue sharing. I think it is worth pursuing; momentum for it stopped with the retirement of its longtime advocate Finance Committee Democratic Chair Fred Trello.
It is never a good time to push new large expenditures of funds for non-targeted purposes, but I think this is as good a time as any to renew old efforts in this area.
As much as the City could use billions of dollars more to achieve public purposes, I believe we should understand that the current talk of financial crisis is reality on steroids: Dan has posted here the admission of Finance Director Rob Dubow that the city will have a surplus of $40 million or so by the end of the fiscal year due to the cuts already made, but not counting whether the costs are of funding the branch libraries mandated at least temporarily by Judge Fox.
I personally would not at all be surprised if the City's year-end surplus is mcuh closer to $100 million than $40 million. Those who want governmental spending to solve urgent social problems should be pushing for more city revenues, but we have to keep in mind that the talk of of fiscal crisis at all levels of government is like the talk of the Social Security financial crisis under President Bush in 2005: it is a one-sided, subjective view of potential future events designed to justify a much leaner future for those who need governmental help.
Good to hear you're on board with revenue sharing, Mark
How can we help you make it happen?
I Would Welcome Any Models of Revenue Sharing From Other States
I would welcome any models of revenue sharing from any states, including amount of revenue shared, source of revenue raised, and distribution formula used.
My gut feeling is that easiest tax to raise is the cigarette tax, and that a nickel to a dime increase may be sellable. I am not quite sure how much money this would raise--perhaps somewhere around $1 billion.
Gov. Mark Schweiker's dictum--"If we are going to raise taxes, we may as well raise a tax that will save lives"-- is based on the well documented research that the higher the cigarette taxes are, the less people smoke.
A distribution formula should give Philadelphia at least its share of the population; we should also look at what Philadelphia's share is of total taxes raised by local governments. Total taxes raised would likely be a standard that would also help the Philadelphia suburbs.
Is Raising Taxes the Answer?
Ray, you mention a number of methods to increase the revenue side of the equation. I think that is important. Philadelphia should capitalize on collecting it debts, becoming more efficient and, potentially, having a discussion about how to better share the burden of running a city. Also, it should look at the elephant in the room, namely the health and welfare costs that, over a year ago, were identified as the major liability in the City's budget.
But, you have consistently mentioned raising taxes as being a part of your solution to save Philadelphia from this fiscal crisis. It is such a casual, but focal, part of your post that you seem to believe it is a foregone conclusion that Philadelphians paying higher taxes is the answer.
As a student of history, I do not agree that raising taxes, business or individual, at this time will benefit the city in anything but a very short term manner. Note, I am not discussing the wage tax reductions due to gaming, that, for me, is a different conversation.
Before the fiscal crisis of 1991-92, the City of Philadelphia raised taxes 19 times in 10 years. Busineses and middle class residents were fleeing the city, in part, because of an oppressive tax burden. Rendell, with the work of his adminstration, the municipal unions and leading Philadelphians, saved the city from what was then a worse fiscal crisis, and did so, without raising taxes. His administration knew that raising taxes is a short term gain, but a long term loss. How did they know this, history. The mayors before him, particularly Rizzo, raised taxes with reckless abandon during similar times of crisis. Raising taxes was a short term solution.
This fiscal crisis is no different, and certainly no worse than the fiscal crisis Philadelphia faced in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, Philadelphia was at junk bond status. Philadelphia's credit rating is better now. Also, this crisis comes at a time when Philadelphia is more competitive than it ever was, at a time when the downtown and certain councilmatic districts are gaining in population. Let's not throw away what we've been building for years, a city that can compete for middle class residents and jobs. We need to come out of this crisis in a strong position, not weaker. The City is more competitive now than it was 20 years ago, and I do not want to go back to the Philadelphia of 1988 (who does?). Raising taxes is a short-term solution.
In terms of the individual wage tax, working Philadelphians are already taxed at a rate higher than most other major cities. Why during a time of economic strain should we drain their budgets any more? For over 40 years, middle class Philadelphians voted with their feet--leaving the City of Philadelphia. The answer then was the raise the wage tax. It didn't work.
In the meantime, over the last decade, we've seen reductions in the wage tax. Nice chunks of Philadelphia has flourished. The first Councilmatic District and Center City Philadelphia have gained population--and it's looking like the population loss is slowing down drastically. I dare say that middle class residents are thinking twice about leaving the City. We should not give them a reason to leave. We have to give them reasons to stay. Raising taxes will surely throw more coin into the coffers, but at what cost.
In terms of the business tax, the same argument applies. Philadelphia needs to attract business, not scare it away. For 40 years, taxes, as well as infrastructure and transportation issues beyond the City's control, caused jobs to leave. Philadelphia's business climate needs to improve so that it can attract jobs, hopefully jobs that pay a decent, livable wage. There are a number of other items that Philadelphia must look at to be more competitive in terms of attacting jobs. But, raising taxes on business is counter intuitive.
Philadelphians want long term solutions to budget problems. History has shown us that raising taxes on families and businesses is a short term fix and long term bust
The foregone conclusion
I think the only foregone conclusion I have made above is that the city's current response to our economic conditions is wrong. As I said above, I think our city government, services, and elected bodies are mostly geared toward an industrial economy that no longer exists.
I think we need to realign toward a mostly service-based 21st century economy. And a major investment of money has to be made to create and improve education, training opportunities and seed capital that will create either new jobs or newly qualified candidates for existing jobs.
Do you agree Gaetano?
If so, I don't care how it all gets paid for, but taxes seem like the most straight forward and I do think a lot of folks who could afford to pay more are currently undertaxed. "Right-sizing" the tax code and making strategic public investments is different than always raising money when the city runs out.
Overall, I agree, but...
Ray, I'm with you on new revenue streams. Definitely. I'll show up at a rally to back good taxation schemes.
Though, I don't think a service based economy is the way to gear ourselves. We need to think in terms of a New Industrial economy. There's a new green infrastructure that needs to be built and maybe we could start building its parcels and pieces here.
My instincts tell me that unless real value is being added to real things, an economy is doomed to unravel. I can't help but think that that is part of our present malaise. Anyway, overall, I do believe we need to raise the money to rebuild the city so that it has the undergirdings that business can be built on,
but Financial Services, Engineering, Lawyers and Healthcare just isn't enough.
I still think we need to MAKE something.
That said, this is a minor difference and the overall larger point... that now is the time for investment (hey, everything is cheap, right?) is right and sound.
Gaetano, I have to differ with you, too... as a student of history myself, governments never scrimp and save their way out of trouble. They spend their way out. It's true that you can tax yourself to death, but there is no resurrection via austerity.
---
This Too Will Pass, for the guts in your cerebrum.
New Industry
This is a correct analysis. Industry can be defined in many ways,the new light/green industries fit the bill for our times. We are often told by our betters that because one Industrial Age has passed, another won't show up. I disagree.
Although this article is about the current downturn, it shows that an older city (Savannah, GA) can have shipping and manufacturing employ many people, of all income and skill levels.
Also, green industries are being made possible in low-tax or subsidized environments. If we recognize the vast amount of zoned industrial land available in Philly - both on the tax rolls and warehoused by the city - then we could see the possibilities of our great location and exploit that gift. Since I don't like targeted subsidies, making it overall cheaper to build and produce here in Philly - like in Texas or Georgia - can be a way to attract that kind of growth without giving away the store.
Josh Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
industry vs. service
Brady and Josh, I am with you. And I would say that Van Jones and to some extent Obama are with us too in the context of a "green collar economy." One of Jones' most interesting points is that the bulk of "green jobs" are actually to be found in weatherization of existing public and private structures--which is relatively low skill.
That said, I think our national economy is not yet there with new industrialism, but it is far past old industrialism. I think cities can forge new economic futures a little bit, but we do rely on the feds and global corporations to really lead the way. And they have already done so with a service economy. And Philly has not caught on to that.
Either way, we agree that an investment on a large scale has to be made locally to get us out of our rut.
The investment
I want the investment to not be paid from the public though. That hurts working Philadelphians; the usual abatements and sweeteners come at the expense of them that can't afford it.
Let's dream: the investment comes from private capital picking a location that will profit them without givebacks and rent-seeking.
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
A great big plan to make Philly a top green industry city
is exactly what Michael Nutter needs.
How much money is the federal government going to be giving away over the next 4-8 years to retool the national economy for businesses and practices that will make for a more sustainable future?
A lot. Probably more than anyone dare speculate. Obama seems firmly invested in the vision that green can be to the next decade what the net was to the 1990s.
And that's good because the U.S. can help build its own markets. Once we join with the E.U. and other first world governments to begin regulating in favor of such new green businesses and practices (since it will be in those governments' best interest economically, once everyone is invested in those green businesses and practices), whole new markets will inevitably follow, as new vehicles, new energy plants, new buildings and practices, and even new agriculture and practices become the stuff of world trade agreements.
With little attention here, Philly was the recently the site of a major green city symposium, Re-Imagining Cities: Urban Design After the Age of Oil, hosted by The University of Pennsylvania School of Design and Penn Institute for Urban Research, both of whom could play an integral role in making the city a real player in those new green markets. I hope someone in City Hall was smart enough to take Worldchanging's influential big brain Alex Steffen and some of the other speakers out for lunch to get ideas for how Philly can get ahead of the curve in a new green economy.
Just to start I'd like to see proposals for uprooting every single industrial park in the Philadelphia metropolitan area and moving it downtown, near our public transit hubs, with maybe a few new transit lines thrown in.
I bet he does, but he's just not telling
I am willing to bet that Nutter does have a plan around the fiscal stimulus. I bet it's a good one. I bet he has some crackerjack lobbyists working D.C. pretty hard on it, in fact.
And I bet we aren't going to know about it until it's a done deal.
And if the plan doesn't work, I bet we'll never know he tried.
---
This Too Will Pass, for the guts in your cerebrum.
Back to the Future on Taxes
Again, Gaetano, it's not a question of raising taxes just for the hell of it. It's a question of whether you'd rather have more taxes or libraries, pools and maybe other things like rec and health centers closing. Personally, I'd prefer to get our revenue from some other place: see my comment above. But if push comes to shove, and the corporate powers that be basically lock us out from other sources of revenue, my choice is to raise taxes. It's a lousy choice, but it may have to be made.
But really, why aren't we marching to Harrisburg over the fact that the f.....g banks and security firms, who've stolen god knows how much from all of us, have gone hat in hand to Washington for their handouts and still kept their corporate jets, their junkets and their golden parachutes, are able to stiff us on the BPT? And why do we accept the fact that the State just doesn't feel like funding the Courts? Why aren't we pounding the table about that?
Taxes in fiscal context
Are Philly's taxes higher than those of most suburban locations? Without question. But let's look at taxes in terms of total cost of doing business in Philly vs. in the suburbs or in other cities.
Relative to the suburbs, yes, Philly has higher taxes. But its commercial real estate costs are, I believe, lower than that of many- if not most- suburban locations. Combine the local tax burden w/real estate costs, + Philly is competitive with, if not cheaper than, many of its suburbs.
Relative to other northeastern cities, it isn't even close: Philly's local tax burden is lower than that in Boston, NYC, + DC (I believe), and its real estate costs are hugely lower. Translation: even considering the wage tax, it's cheaper to do business in Philly than in *any* other major northeastern city.
Much of the problem is more one of perception than of reality. Unfortunately, perceptions are a lot more difficult to change than tax rates.
Long story short: Philly's tax rates aren't really the problem that they're made out to be. Raising taxes is always a hard sell, but, as was posted elsewhere, if keeping my taxes the same helps to save the city, I'm all for it.
The gross receipts portion of the BPT is another matter entirely, and needs to be addressed as such.
-Z
Most who disagree with him on libraries are not “Nutter haters”
Ray,
Most people who disagree with Mayor Nutter on the library issue are not “newly minted Michael Nutter haters.”
I’ve spoken to a lot of people who supported Nutter for mayor about this issue. Most of us think Nutter has done a great job on balance, but are very unhappy about this particular decision.
Irv and others behind the lawsuit have done us all a great service by (at least temporarily) halting the closures. Now we need to step up lobbying efforts with city council.
Mayor Nutter is reportedly considering turning the 11 libraries he plans to close over to private philanthropic organizations. Private philanthropy is not the solution. What happens if these private organizations decide they no longer want to continue funding basic operating expenses for the libraries or “knowledge centers” as they may be called? The public has no redress—neither the courts nor council can force private foundations to keep the libraries open. The public has lost control of a basic community resource.
Let’s do everything we can to make sure this doesn’t happen.
Karen Absolutely Correct On Public and Private
Karen is absolutely correct on the difference between public and private. Public entities are legally accountable in many, many ways that private entities such as non-profit corporations are not.
Philadelphia is one of the nation's leaders in having a strong non-profit center, and various leaders of it are always eager to help it grow more.
But I believe it should grow by doing new things that are not being done now, and not by assuming functions long done--with good reason--by governmental agencies.
As for how big a poltical price Nutter pays for library shutdowns, that depends on how long this ridiculous controversy drags on. Less than two months after it began, many library advocates would likely still be open to voting for Nutter in 2011.
I suspect though that the longer the battle goes on, the bigger the political fallout will be. Those who want Mayor Nutter to be re-elected are hardly doing him a favor if they are silent on, or supportive of, library closings. This is similar to the war in Iraq: Congressional Republicans might still be in the majority today and there might be a Republican in the White House instead of Barack Obama had there been influential Bush supporters with the guts and the intelligence to push for a reasonable Iraq withdrawal strategy.
Karen
I apologize for exaggeration. Though I am not sure you can support your assertion any better than mine. All I know is that when I see an event called "A People's Indictment of Mayor Nutter," I know the man is in a bit of trouble.
Perhaps you are only dissatisfied with the Mayor on libraries, but I have larger concerns.
Remember, it's not just about library cuts. The Mayor proposed and made happen cuts to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. That is pretty sad. There was a huge fight for that pot of money and an acknowledgment back then that it was far from enough to eliminate the need for 66,000 units of affordable housing in the city.
The Mayor also cut funding to CCP. The Chamber of Commerce did a study some years ago that found working harder to get Philadelphia college-leavers back to school to get a degree would be a huge boost to our local economy--providing thousands of new skilled workers--and would help attract new business.
Parks, green spaces, fire companies and more all got cut. And many Nutter-supporters were also business tax reduction supporters. Tax reductions have been halted.
The Mayor cut investment line-items in a time of need. That's a pretty big deal. We have to ask ourselves why. What is the long-term plan? Plus, was there really an urgent need to make all of these cuts now? Are there independent numbers, from an auditor, that provided mid-year cuts were even needed?
Of course, my post is a call for people in this city to NOT hate and be very partisan or bitter, but instead think about how we all--including the Mayor--can work together. That will require the Mayor showing more of his hand and asking for our help as a community much more than he did this last time. It will require town halls BEFORE he makes cuts and a real willingness to listen. And as I said above, on our part it might mean we have to tell him we will pay more in taxes if we have to.
Obama’s stimulus plan and our libraries
Ray,
I agree the city needs major investment in education, housing etc.
Like a lot of folks, I am putting my hopes on Obama’s stimulus program.
Linda Hirschman in a NYT op-ed "Where Are the New Jobs for Women?" pointed out a potential problem with Obama’s plan which has not received much attention from policy-makers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/opinion/09hirshman.html?_r=1
Hirshman argued that the kinds of jobs in construction technology which the plan would generate are the jobs traditionally held by men; a fair stimulus program would create thousands of jobs for women in social work, teaching and child care. She cited the threatened closing of Philadelphia’s libraries as an example of urgent educational needs which Obama’s stimulus plan should address.
Those of us who would like to see some of this public money directed towards building our human capital, as well shoring up our crumbling infrastructure, need to start marshalling our arguments and lobbying our representatives.
And to be fair to Michael Nutter, he has been very visible on the national level arguing the case for a stimulus plan which would benefit urban areas.
Taxes in Context, I do believe they are a problem.
The total cost of doing business has been outlined by grumpy business owners for years, and they do not involve taxes only. There are the hidden taxes of union wages, L & I madness, MSB Kafkaesque experiences and insurance costs for personalty, realty and autos. There is the cost of the BPT, plus a wage tax.
The issue always at hand is not how much we tax, but what we tax. Assuming we want good wages (ergo, keeping this a union town), we must examine that. A wonderful tool is one I have posted before, a link to the DC Office of the Chief Financial Officer that compares total tax burdens in cities. DC does it to pat itself on the back when people complain about their high taxes :) New York, Boston and the other cities are high, but not as corrosively high as Philly's. NYC depended on Wall Street, so we';ll see how that plays out.
Anyway, from poor to rich, Philadelphia clocks in at #1 for a hypothetical family of three. What shocks most people I show the report to is the reality that property taxes are actually quite high, hidden by the lack of full valuation and shoddy assessment of many income-producing properties.
I once heard a councilman say no one ever told him they left town because of taxes (or anything else). Well, I'd say a family with school-age children, who pay high taxes, and just had their child beat up outside of school will say that alerting city government WHY they are leaving is the last thing on their "to do" list as they move to Washington Township.
So, this all leads me to conclude that, yes, of course, commercial real estate is cheaper in the city than in the suburbs. That's because no one wants to do business here, unless they have built-in tax breaks like the BPT-exempt firms or abatement seeking corporations.
The high tax rate on wages and commerce in Philadelphia is capitalized into higher property prices outside of the city. Conversely, the total tax burden, especially on mobile items likes jobs and capital depresses the value and price of non-residential property inside the city. Why did Liberty Place switch to condos? Because they couldn't get high-rent corporate tenants. Why did Conshohocken, of all places land office tower after office tower? They pay MontCo taxes, with quick access to Philadelphia.
Some years ago, then-Councilman Nutter bemoaned why his commercial district on City Line Avenue paled next to MontCo's portion of City Line Avenue. He knew why then, and he knows now: an employer or employee makes more money on their wages or capital investment on the Montco side.
So, finally, sorry for the verbiage, taxes DO matter. People have choices, and they make them, and that means depopulation, disinvestment,disempowerment and decline.
Those that work outside government or non-profits are especially angry at our city's history, because they pay BPT, and the other do not.
I believe we need money, more money to make this a great city again. Yet, sticking with the same textbook can't work in the age of mobility. We can tax publicly-created values to their utmost, and collect much of what we need without distorting our economy, which is what we have.
Happy New Year,
Josh
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
The BPT is a "small" part of the cost of business
I was really with you here when you had an approach to the "cost of business" in Philadelphia that went far beyond taxes:
But I didn't understand how you ended up back on the BPT while making a link to why the family with school aged children is moving out.
I agree with you on Philly's "cost of business." I'm not necessarily against a reduction in the BPT, but I am somewhat baffled by why this is the one thing that proponents often say will turn around Philly's archaic environment when the other stuff you outlined are the things that kill new business.
Yes, taxes are high in Philly, but this isn't the primary thing that drives families away or forces potential businesses to look elsewhere. It's a combination of the complicated things above plus the lingering impact of Philly's pay to play culture from unions to council members, state reps and the like.
In fact, if anything, it somewhat feels like the call to reduce the BPT and tax abatements and the countless other giveaways the City engages in are almost like little bribes to allow the other stuff to continue and to allow ourselves to limp along.
Re: the family with school-aged children. Being part of one myself and having lived on the same block for the past dozen years and seeing more than half a dozen families with children move out, I believe the Councilperson you cited is right. Families with school aged kids usually don't move away because of high taxes. Every single one of my neighbors said they would love to stay BUT they couldn't rely on the public schools and they felt the culture and environment from green space to safety to education would be better for them in the suburbs. Ditto for a number of my sister's suburbanite neighbors who are city transplants.
Again, I'm not against a BPT reduction but a solid conversation needs to be had about the cost of business - not one tax.
The One Thing
Hi, I think we are on the same page.I agree that taxes are not the sole reason people move, and in fact for a family, it's the school and safe streets for their kids that is more of a people mover. Yet, taxes (officials and unofficial) do play a role in choices people make; they count.
Many of the families leaving are small businesspeople that pay the BPT (while many large corporate entities do not). Think of the body shop or beauty salon owner, or the many people that work in freelance services like a massage therapist.
Certainly, and I agree with you again, the BPT is not the one cause of our problems, not would reducing or killing it solve all our problems.
That being said, the only way fix one thing (crime, schools, etc.) is to find money to pay for the fixing. We need tax revenue for that. The point that BPT and wage tax advocates make is that because those things are mobile, they are leaving the city with relative ease.
The BPT may seem small, but when being in Bensalem or Almonessen means you don't pay it...Coupled with a bad quality of life, it's no wonder people say "CU."
So, what can we fix, right now, out of this big pile of junk that makes Philadelphia an unaffordable place tolive? Not the unofficial taxes, and not the cruddy city services, they will take time.
We can fix one aspect of our civic lives: over-reliance on taxes that penalize what people do, make or sell while ensuring that revenue streams not only stabilize, but increase.
It's my position that a reformed property tax that falls on publicly-created wealth is the way to go.
Hey, if there was a silver bullet, I assume our leaders would have used it. On the other hand, maybe they would have privatized it. :)
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
apples and oranges
Joshua, do you have data that compares the effective tax rate in Philadelphia county vs. our 7 suburban counties? Yes, there is no wage tax or BPT in NJ for instance, but pensions are taxed and property taxes are much higher. Is there a charting of all of the taxes paid per county so we can compare intelligently?
Here is what I can tell you,
Here is what I can tell you, Ray, without taking too much time away from my work:
Let's compare Philadelphia's BPT tax rate to Lower Merion's. This exludes Philadelphia's gross receipts tax. These are 2007 taxable year rates.
Assume a company makes $100,000 in taxable income (however that is defined by the municipality).
In Philadelphia that would be taxed at 6.2% or 0.065. That would be $6,500. That is BEFORE the Gross Reciepts portion .00154, which would cost you more. Then, you have to add the two together and double it--so you can prepay next year.
In Lower Merion, that tax would be 1.5 mills or 0.0015. That would be $150.
I realize this is a simplistic analysis. But clearly, the tax advantage goes to Lower Merion--by a lot.
As for more information, I think we need to study the cost of doing business in Philadelphia versus our local competetion.
Not what I am asking for
You are comparing apples to apples, business tax to business tax. But an effective tax rate is the aggregate of all taxes paid by an individual or an entity in a municipality. I want to know if such an analysis/comparison exists. Without one, it is very hard to actually talk with any intelligence about the impact of Philadelphia's business tax rate (let alone all of the other factors that go into business location choice like access to parking, transportation, location, workforce, labor costs, market for product/service, etc.) on business location/relocation.
I agree that business taxes are a potentially easy "fix"
but I am wondering whether they are a diversion from the far more serious fixables.
How hard is it to get that pipe construction requirement off the books? Why can't we see as much energy going into demanding that the trade unions open up and become better business partners rather than squeezing union workers for benefit reductions? Why can't the clean-up and improvement around L&I garner as much political pressure as DHS? How much does it take to prevent the Parking Authority from gaining $3/hour meters rather than making sure money actually gets to the schools and City by cleaning up the patronage there?
I don't disagree with your premise, but I think that there is low-hanging fruit on the "unoffical taxes" end as well that would dramatically improve the environment and shouldn't be seen as down the road.
Low Hanging Fruit
I hope you're right! There is so much vested interest in the continued iterations of L & I and the PPA, and the RDA I'd be surprised to see those constructs go down without a fight. They make a few people a lot of money...
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
Apples and Oranges, to the best of my current knowledge
Ray, I work with cities almost exclusively; so I us the DC comparison primer, put out annually, which is still useful in pinning Philly at the top of almost every conceivable measure of municipal tax burden for families.:
You ask a good question, though, which deserves an answer. Let me dig more. I do know that the NJ Pension tax is fairly light to the touch.
But then, they get to tax more income that PA:
NJ is #2 in household income, Pennsylvania is #20:
Pennsylvania is demographically forced to exclude pensions; we are the oldest state, after Florida. We can't have rioters in the streets, doncha know.
I can say that in places with high property taxes there is no correlation between lack of growth or disinvestment, if taxes on other labor and capital are lower. Good examples are Texas or New Hampshire, or Montco for that matter. Interestingly, NJ and PA are virtually tied for property tax burden:
On the flip side, Louisiana and New Mexico have almost non-existent property taxes, and they are not good places to be poor.
Putting on my Karnak the Magnificent hat, I'd predict the recent skewing of taxation in New Jersey to incomes and sales will reverse the flight from Philly to NJ and will exacerbate the flight from NJ to low-taxed counties like Monroe.
Bottom line, IMO, Philadelphia's family tax burden is pretty harsh considering what you get for it.
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
fwiw
I notice you are comparing PA and NJ property tax burden rather that Philadelphia county vs. suburban county property tax burden. That should make a pretty big difference?
I am not so much arguing that we don't have an uneven tax burden, however I am not convinced based on scant data I have seen that the problem is as bad as reported.
And when talking about business location/relocation, it's just really weird to me to look at taxes alone. I mean cities are really different than suburbs from density of population to car use to race to income status. There are just so many factors...
In-state? I can do that.
One of the spreadsheets from the National Association of Home Builders that I have researched has what I believe are "ok" numbers on effective tax rates in all US counties.
The PA-specific link is here: http://www.urbantools.org/research-and-studies/recent-implementation-stu...
I agree that looking at taxes alone is weird, and not the whole picture. But again, it's something that can be acted upon quickly.
I've done some work on this for the site, so here's my challenge: let's find competing or contradictory data which is probably out there. My mind is open.
Cheers,
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
Not just in-state
I am saying we need a chart that is Philadelphia's effective tax rate--wage, property, sales, fees, etc. vs. each of our suburban 7 counties.
I am keeping my eyes open for more data in the meantime.
Wow, Tall order!
I recall that the PEL did a total-tax countywide burden study, and I don't think its online; in any case its from 2001. It was cited on p. 37 of the Tax Analysis Report from Jonathan Saidel in 2001, also unavailable online, I fear. Philadelphia was #1, in that report, with a quirk for a DelCo commuter into Philly who would pay more.
One thing they noted, and one thing I know people do is to live in New Jersey, work in Philly, and write off most of their local income tax against the NJ state income tax, but that's just a fact, not data.
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
And that burden is for...
individuals, businesses, homeowners, renters, what?
Which study?
Do you mean? In any case, I don't write 'em, I sift through them in my job-related research. I write my own reports for my own non-profit; those numbers I trust 100%:)
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
It doesn't really matter
I agree with your premise that we need to tax everything and everyone in Philadelphia and the whole state fairly. Fairness is compelling to me for fairness' sake. I am not sure I understand enough of the details on LVT to know what to think, but I am open.
However, I think you are throwing me off with the mentions of how much lower tax rates are in burbs vs. city.
For the most part, I would guess only a small cohort of business owners or residents really care. Like most people live in a city or a suburb for a reason. Those reasons range from proximity to work to racism to fear to schools to green space to concrete to density to sparseness, etc. Yet a large part of tax cutters' arguments about taxation are about city-suburban competitiveness and it just seems like a lot of those arguments are way spurious.
I do think a solid, current effective tax rate comparison is important though. I mean all those great suburban services have to cost something.
Spurious and not-spurious
The suburbs are growing in jobs and the city isn't and over the long haul population follows. Are there "cultural" reasons including racism that come into play? Absolutely. A whole lot of the last half of the 20th century was about redlining and people moving away from other people who don't look/speak/worship like them.
The "culture" of suburbanization and sprawl and irrational fear of cities and simple cultural trends where perceptions of "normal" mean a white picket fence, single family dwellings and not being able to get to a store without a car are factors nationally. But Philly is still above and beyond worse than many other cities with similarly ex-manufacturing heavy economies.
Ultimately cultural "perceptions" educated and ignorant alike only go so far. People go where the jobs are - including into cities - if the jobs are there.
So its a real problem, the perception that taxes don't buy the goods and services and schools and safety they should and, further, that City Hall in a broad sense is Kafkazesque at best or corrupt at worse. For many of the diehard tax cutters, to be fair, their perception is that Philadelphia politics is broken and therefore the less tax revenue you give "them" (Philly government) the better because they fear more local taxes is good money after bad. There are lot more people who are just deeply cynical about accountability in Philadelphia politics than actually sweat the difference .3% taxation rates on XYZ tax make either way.
So while the .3% rate on XYZ tax is not a be-all, end-all, the perception of accountablity is and in terms of that it is very important to look at differences in job growth between Philly and its suburbs.
And to hook it back to the libraries one more time, "accountability" means not "this is my plan, deal with it" but that tough decisions are made with all the facts on the table, with specific numbers and costs laid out to City Council and the public, not just repeating broad numbers about the overall budget ad nauseum as if that magically justifies every minutae of obviously self-contradictory cuts and criteria for cuts. Bad political process is bad for small "d" democracy but also for attracting businesses ultimately.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Sean I agree
But if the problem is accountability-which I agree that it is-than tax rate is in fact spurious. That's the same point that Josh (DE) is making elsewhere: Tax rates don't really matter if services suck. Improving quality of service must come first.
Beyond that, I am data-driven today. Can you be more specific when you talk about job creation in the burbs vs. the city? If that is actually the case, how do you support your claim that people go where jobs are as opposed to vice versa? I mean if you were opening a new business and already lived in the burbs, it'd make sense to set up there. And it further makes sense--at least to me--that those who lived nearby would want to work there.
In other words, if the job growth rate in the burbs is growing faster than in the city, we can't just attribute that to taxes. A lot of it has to do with the fact the population in the burbs is also growing. We can debate that in greater detail, but 60 + years of federal policy geared toward suburbanization have a lot to do with that too.
A couple things
Suburbanization has been subsidized by federal policy and when we go the Feds arguing for urban infrastructure and education money that point can not be made enough. Federal highway and transit funding priorities, building out of water infrastructure and economic policy that heavily favored a Toll Brothers model of a healthy building industry were subsidies plain and simple for post-war suburban sprawl.
In terms of job growth, however, its not just that people move to a subdivision and so they build an office park nearby. They don't. Or rather they put in the office park and that greatly influences the rate at which subdivisions go up. Also people these days in the greater Philadelphia region are increasingly long distance suburbs to suburbs commuters or reverse commuters and in the era of global warming, that just isn't the smartest environmentally. Also I found an academic piece you may find interesting how the trends for better paying jobs to be further apart in the greater Philadelphia region has negatively effected the gender gap (moms are less willing to travel far for better paying jobs), Ray.
Re: comparative job growth data
Most recent job growth numbers for the greater Philadelphia region are pretty decent, mild increases, putting us right around the middle of the pack in terms of job growth and loss compared to the top 12 metro regions.
http://www.bls.gov/ro3/cesqphl.htm
In terms of jobs growth by county, Philadelphia's surrounding counties over the last 4 years have seen growth about consistent with the national averages where as Philadelphia county has seen losses or growth 1/4 to 1/6th the rates of Delaware, Bucks, Montgomery County which are around or just behind national averages. Chester County has basically seen numbers that double national growth in employment.
PA counties growth in employment by county.
http://www2.fdic.gov/recon/ovrpt.asp?CPT_CODE=E10&ST_CODE=42&RPT_TYPE=Ta...
For the record I've never been a "cutting the BPT will fix everything" guy but rather a "more accountability to get better services from our tax investment and make the BPT fairer (reform the Gross Receipts portion, look at commercial real estate taxes)" guy. I'm definitely friendlier to the idea that mild BPT cuts in times of plenty can sometimes be one part and honestly a largely symbolic part of attracting jobs back to Philly than you. But these aren't times of plenty and in terms of Philadelphia's competitiveness with surrounding counties versus cuts in service that severely impact Philadelphia's livability, I still say reforming L&I and city bureaucracy is something that gives a lot of bang in terms of attracting employers without costing so much buck in terms of social pain and shooting ourselves in the foot on the educated workforce front (like libraries and CCP cuts).
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Slight counterpoint
A case could be made that times of struggle are precisely the right times to lower such a widely-reviled tax as the BPT. Or, more accurately, to change it from a tax on gross receipts to one on net receipts. Note that part of the reason that taxes are as high as they currently are in Philadelphia was that its strength as a manufacturing hub made it more desirable as a location, meaning that businesses would pay more money to locate here. Since we now need to increase the desirability of Philadelphia as a location for post-industrial businesses, it suggests that now is a good time to lower that tax barrier.
I'm not suggesting a precipitous cut or elimination to any taxes- clearly, Philly can't afford that. But one definition of madness is doing the same thing as ever, but hoping for a different result. Keeping the BPT as it currently but expecting the results to be different than they have been for ~40 years, by this definition, qualifies as madness.
-Z
Harrisburg, Harrisburg, Harrisburg
is going to continue to be my mantra until someone shows me why we should continue to accept being treated as second class citizens by our own representatives. That's where we should get replacement revenue for anything we lose due to the current mess, or from any future tax cutting.
That said, we can't cut local taxes without replacement revenue, whether that be the BPT or anything else. I agree that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something to change makes no sense. You could well argue that applied to local taxes, that theory compels us to stop cutting taxes. We've been cutting taxes since 1996 and we now find ourselves in quite a mess. The truth is that the tax cutting probably neither caused the mess nor will cure it; but it has resulted in less revenue coming in at a time we need it badly.
If we could afford to cut the BPT, which we might if the State actually did right by us, cutting the gross receipts portion would not necessarily be the first thing we should do. The gross receipts portion has already been cut 2/3 from its high point. Yet it remains valuable for taxing big corporations that manage to hide their income, and for taxing out of state companies that sell product into the City but have no taxable Philadelphia income. So rather than a deterrent to locating in the City, it actually acts as a reminder to companies already here that if they move but continue to sell products or services into the City, they will still pay taxes to Philadelphia.
Yes, suburban services DO cost a ton
Yes, that's absolutely right, and a huge part of the problem. The suburbs have a lot more tax base to pay for all the goodies. In the 1930s they didn't. They were rural. A lot has changed.
Suburbs also have these advantages:
1. Most land is taxable. Philly and other large cities are stuck with acres of land off the tax rolls. Live in Narberth and want to enjoy a tax-exempt museum?. Take the train in and let Philly pay for your pleasure.
2. The state (us) pays for their main access and egress roads and other transport
3. New facilities
4. The state pays for their court system.
5. Social services are intentionally concentrated in older urban area. So, the poor have to pay for the poor.
6. The middle class is there, not here.
As for the tax burden comparison, if they have the bulk of high earners and thriving firms, by definition their rates will be lower, and the burden more spread.
At www.newpa.com one can find the tax rates throughout the state. I am looking at Montco, which has 62 jurisdictions. their business taxes are Act 511 taxes, different from Philadelphia, which is a Class One city.
Immediately, I noted that no business tax exceeds 4 mills (.40 %). No combined real estate transfer tax exceeds 1% for school and town combined (compared to Philly's 3%). their business taxes are limited to gross receipts, and are .75 to 1.5 mills.
Check out the rates to other counties as well. Act 511 limits them, and prohivits even adopting many of them in 2009.
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
"considering what you get for it."
Is a huge caveat, and one that really needs to be quantified before some abstract conclusion about taxes can be applied.
If the general perception in Philly were that you get a lot for your taxes, would anyone use tax rates as a reason to leave the area or not locate here?
Unless "what you get" can be quantified, why would anyone assume that the focus should be on lowering taxes as opposed to increasing the quality of services?
If you think the services stink, no amount of taxes would be low enough. If you think that the services are excellent, then I would imagine that people would support an even higher tax burden than we currently have (assuming that adjustments were made to protect that money needed for absolute essentials didn't have to go for taxes).
My conclusion, obviously, is that cutting taxes before implementing highly focused efforts at improving services is putting the car before the horse. It will do nothing to improve the quality of life in Philly, except for a small few who already are well off. If you believe that it is unrealistic to expect an improvement of services, I suppose getting something beneficial for a select group is better than getting nothing at all. But I'm not that cynical. I think that services can and should be improved, and reducing taxes without a concerted effort to do so will only further reduce the existing quality of services.
what you get for it
Well, I meant that this is a question of getting your tax dollar's worth. Here's the analogy I often use: If a family has to pay Philadelphia taxes, but doesn't want to use city schools they have two options:
1. Pay the school tax and tuition for a private or parochial schools.
2. Leave
Cutting tax revenues would starve any effort to improve schools, services and the city, I agree. I don't think anyone is rushing to do that. We need to fix our extant institutions, which takes money, and it requires taxes. Which taxes we use is my issue.
If we can get the money somewhere, and it does not involve taxation of work and investment, who not give it a shot?
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
As a thought experiment
What level of taxation, above zero, would be acceptable to people if they believe that the entity collecting the taxes is corrupt, wasteful, and inconsiderate of what the taxpayers prioritize when making budget decisions?
On the other hand:
Would the current level of tax burden, or one even higher, be an deterrent to businesses interested in locating here if they felt that in return, they were getting clean, safe streets and responsible, efficient municipal services? I don't see how you could possibly know precise answers to those questions - yet the focus on a quick fix of adjusting business taxes is either based on an assumption as to what that answer might be, or on the assumption that it is simpler to cut taxes than to fix services. The later assumption may be correct, but I see it as a short-term fix at the expense of long-term viability.
And your analogy completely ignores the reason why the family doesn't want to use city schools. Is it because they want the prestige of a particular private school? Is it because they want their child to have a religious education? Or, is it because the city's schools are unsafe and woefully underfunded.
Who knows?
There's been no research on the matter. There has been research on the long-term impoverishment of Philadelphia
I think you're assuming that I am writing about tax cutting, instead of tax-shifting. They are unrelated issues. I want to shift taxation to a less unstable and volatile base, and one that I believe is fairer and more just. I do not believe we can fix services without revenue.
I made an analogy, because I don't have the facts; I don't like to conflate my opinion with fact.
So, we'd need a poll of families that don't use public schools. Is there one?
For the rich, the tax burden is of less consequence, so the prestigious schools are fine by them.
Most parochial schools spend their time on instruction, not religion; when I was a kid, at the end of the school day, the Catholic kids were sent to the parochial school next door at the end of the day.
If our public schools were not unsafe and underfunded then parents wouldn't fight to their kids into charter schools or places like Masterman. I conclude the third option is the most common; but that is my opinion based on my logic. Your results may vary!
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly
The current context for BPT reduction
is that it is, in fact, not a matter of tax shifting, but one of tax reduction. I'm sure that you're not unaware of that context But anyway, in reality they are not unrelated issues, although they could theoretically be viewed as such.
I don't really think that the applicability of the school analogy is worth haggling over.
Anyway, even if we really can hone in on tax-shifting as opposed to tax cutting, I think the questions I've raised need to be answered before a conclusion can be reached.
Unless I've misread your comments, your assumption seems to be that the best way to stimulate the employment that accompanies business activities is to reduce business taxes. So my question to you is how do you know that the best way to attract businesses isn't to focus on delivering better services? How do you know that the perception of services delivered per dollar in taxes isn't more operational in business decision-making than the total amount of taxes?
And, more specific to Philly and today - given that we really are talking about tax cutting in the current context - how do you prove that any gains made from reducing business taxes wouldn't be short-term gains that would be more than negated by long-term unintended consequences?
I don't make assumptions about ...
...my co-respondents on this page. I am going to restate what I've said several times today.
Do I "know" that cutting business taxes is a better bet than improving services? I think so, after thinking about it, and looking at business go to lower cost sites with good infrastructure and services. I am not going to rewrite the Tax Reform Commission report here, or the Controller's report (finally got it from a lurker), or the Mayor's 21st Century Commission or a dozen other serious examinations of the subject.
US cities had great services for decades. They still lost out in the long run. As I wrote previously, all other thigns being equal a sane person puts a high-staff firm in Conshohocken, and drives into Philadelphia for the amenities. It's so easy to avoid these taxes. More mobility is not the only reason the suburbs have exploded sine the end of World war II.
Businesses follow a bottom line. Fighting that is spitting into the wind. I have to make a payroll every week,and my accountant hates it because we're in Philly (we want to be here). Hey, we're a non-profit, we don't pay the BPT; I can't imagine the deadweight loss the BPT would have on us, as we barely get by on donations and grants every year. The BPT would kill us off.
Meanwhile, I believe that we need revenue that is stable, growable and sustainable. How does that conflict with the need for better services?
Finally, we are starting to have a communication problem, which I hope can be headed off.
Some people want tax cutting.
Some people want tax increases.
Some people want tax shifting.
That's a trinity, not a duality; I don't do dialectics
It may be that cutting the BPT could set off a volcano underneath Broad Street. It may also not. I can't prove it won't, and you can't prove it will. The future is not written (I always loved Lawrence of Arabia).
That being said, I am sure we can all get along; we all have, I believe the same goal: a fair, free and prosperous Philadelphia for all.
Joshua Vincent
www.urbantools.org
www.ourcommonwealth.org
Phree Philly