- beautiful
- Speck Fitted
- PA Job Numbers Out, The War On Unemployment Insurance, and Inequality
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
Why Does Phil Goldsmith Hate Freedom?
Submitted by Dan U-A on Wed, 03/14/2007 - 8:16am.
Phil Goldsmith, former managing director of the City, clearly hates freedom, wants Philadelphia to wither and die, and probably shot JR:
It's time to ask if Philadelphia's middle-class residents are being taken for a ride by the city's long-term tax-reduction strategy, which has provided them with little in return financially but threatens to undercut the city's ability to provide services critical to their quality of life.
Or, to refer to the song from "The Music Man," isn't it time to talk about the pool table in our community?
Since 2000, Philadelphia has forgone more than $1.2 billion in tax revenues. And between now and the end of the five-year plan in 2012, it will forgo another $1.9 billion.
On an annual basis, that means the city will be collecting about $300 million less per year in tax revenues than it otherwise would have.
That's about the combined annual budgets of the Streets Department, Recreation Department, the district attorney's office, Fairmount Park, Licenses and Inspections and the Free Library of Philadelphia.
.....
So, how have middle-class Philadelphians benefited from the tax cuts?
For a $50,000-per-year wage earner, the difference she paid in the wage tax in 2000 versus 2006 was $144. That's worth about two additional cups of coffee every week from Dunkin' Donuts.
How about the hateful gross-receipts tax for businesses? The difference for a business with $300,000 in revenues was a whopping savings of $295 in 2006 versus 2000.
Has the city's tax-reduction program been worth the less-than-modest tax savings for middle-class wage earners or small-business owners?
Has the tax-reduction strategy, arguably resulting in shrinking city services, accomplished its stated objectives: more jobs and increased population? And if not yet, when?
I guess I am tempting fate here by linking to this. Oh well. The beauty of starting a blog is that you can just keep annoying people.
Anyway, I have said this to a few people, but when I think about a BPT Cut, and the jobs it will supposedly create, I think it is important to consider three categories: 1)Big time Philly businesses, who you hope will hire more people, 2)Big time out-of-Philly businesses, who you hope will be lured to Philadelphia, and 3)small businesses, more of whom you hope will be created, and more of whom you hope will hire additional workers. Let's address them one by one.
1)The big guns of Philadelphia- Comcast, and its friends. Despite being annoyed that Comcast has a unique federal exemption to screw Philly residents, they and their fellow big guns are obviously hugely important for our City, and create a lot of jobs and wealth. However, do you think when Comcast, the biggest, baddest cable company in the Country, thinks about hiring decisions, they think about the Philadelphia BPT? The multi-billion dollar company is saying, "gee, we would like to hire a couple more people, but we just cannot afford it!" Of course not. I doubt that cutting the BPT gets us many additional jobs from the big guys. And these same companies, far and away, are the beneficiaries of the cut. I am not saying no jobs will be created, a small amount might be; but given the tens of millions in costs, is it worth it?
But, there could be another benefit: Increased wealth, recycled back through Philly. Trouble is, where does the profit go when Comcast gets it? To shareholders all over the globe, not mostly to Philly. My point is not to demonize Comcast and the other big companies we have; because frankly, we all know we need them. But, it is to say that if you are looking for bang for your buck, I doubt you get it by cutting their corporate taxes by a percent or two.
2)Out of town big businesses who will relocate. Sorry, nonstarter here. Companies are not coming to Philly on the basis of a BPT cut. Taxes just don't rank as high on the list as things like a skilled workforce, the quality of life, etc. We don't lose money here- we just don't really get anything, either.
And then, 3) The small businesspeople. As Goldsmith says, for a business taking in 300k, the savings has been a remarkably big $295. But, lets make our hypothetical small business a little more successful (lets call it Dan's outrage outlet, or something), and say it takes in about a million dollars a year, meaning it saves about $1,000 bucks a year. If the small business was able to devote all of that extra cash to hiring a new worker, it would be able to hire a worker making $7.15 an hour, for about.... two and a half hours each week for the year. Not exactly a huge impact.
But, small businesspeople are where it's at in terms of jump starting our economy. And to that end there are a number of things that I think would benefit them a lot more than a couple hundred bucks a year. We have these special service districts, for example (which businesses pay for), because fundamentally the City government is not doing what it should be doing and providing these services anyway.
My point is that basically, not only is the BPT cut hurting the City's ability to provide services families and businesses need, it isn't really giving us much in return.
And maybe, in a sense, the cutting is good in that it has forced some real examinations of where we spend our money, and where the government is not doing what it should. But, as a sound long-term strategy to grow Philly? To create good paying jobs? To help more people reach the middle class? I know that I too must hate freedom, but I strongly do not think so.
The Numbers Are Cooked
I appreciate Mr Goldsmith's sentiment, especially when he says this:
And with this statement, I think you have to agree. I would also agree that the Street administration's approach to gradually lower taxes and refuse any real spending changes or QoS increases because of budget anxiety has been a failure.
That said, Goldsmith makes it seem like tax cuts have created a gross loss in the city's budget which in turn has resulted in service cuts, when that just plainly hasn't happened. Revenue and spending have increased nearly every year, and revenue from the BPT alone has increased 25%, or over $100 million, just in the past three-four years. Wage tax receipts have had a similar increase.
The key word is foregone revenue: since more business receipts, profits, and wages were subject to tax, if the city had kept its rates higher, it could arguably be swimming in even more extra money which it could pour into new programs or into shoring up older ones. But to say that the city hasn't been able to perform basic services because of a loss of revenue is just false, false, false.
The service failure is, if anything, an administrative failure, not a revenue failure. The current administration, despite an increase in its overall operating budget, hasn't been able to turn the city around fast enough. I say "fast enough," because I think there are areas where the city's services have improved, if only anecdotally -- street maintenance, to choose one example, actually seems to be a lot better than it was five years ago. In other areas, especially law enforcement, it's continued to be a disaster.
I don't buy some of the figures quoted here. For example, Goldsmith writes, "The difference for a business with $300,000 in revenues was a whopping savings of $295 in 2006 versus 2000." But of course, the gross receipts tax doesn't tax revenue, but total receipts. Does he mean a business that only does $300,000 in total business? Or a business that makes $300,000 on $1,000,000 worth of business? Or $5,000,000? It makes a huge difference, especially if he's quoting at the low end -- and for rhetorical reasons, we can assume he would. But there is no "typical" tax paid by a business w/ $300,000 in revenue.
Lastly, this might not be fair, but if it's solely a numbers game, why don't we raise the sales tax? I'm sure that we can show that that would only cost the average Philadelphian a few hundred extra dollars per year. Or, as I've argued elsewhere, let the property tax revenue reflect the real increase in real estate value in the city. Revenue from wage and business taxes have gone through the roof, while property tax revenue has been kept artificially stagnant. Collections are also a joke. That is real foregone revenue too.
But a sales tax increase would be unfair, and I don't advocate it. A property tax increase, even a targeted one, would be politically inexpedient, and there's more hysteria about even telling the truth in valuation than there's ever been about the BPT or the wage tax. So yes, let's do better by our services, sell our educated workforce, and increase the quality of life in the city. But by all means, let's be serious.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
The point of the post is
The point of the post is that you aren't helping small businesses that much, while taking away the power of the City to provide services. Because yes, we can become more efficient. But things cost money. And, the proposals on the table are not make taxes fairer, like your sales tax analogy (outside of what Stan and Marc have both talked about).
The proposals are to just cut them.
Tax Fairness
The gross receipts portion of the business privilege tax is widely perceived to be unfair. This is why every mayoral candidate has supported repeal of this portion of the tax, and why that repeal has traction with a wide portion of the electorate who have never and will never pay the tax.
Since revenue has increased, not decreased, it's hard to see how the city's power to provide services has been taken away. Again, administrative failures are failures of the administration, not failures of revenue.
The problem with the Street administration has been that there haven't been any moves towards efficiency, at all. Instead, they have held the fort: no new taxes, no new spending, no real changes to or even hard looks at the way the city spends its money. As mdcphilly notes below, this also looks like the approach advocated by Fattah and Evans. I'd go so far as to say that the language of "revenue neutrality" is mostly code to the city bureaucracy that nobody will have to worry about their jobs, while having the mostly accidental side effect of making people like Stan Shapiro happy.
Supporting Michael Nutter.
Not really true
How about the City's housing agencies being consolidated and restructured? That was a pretty messy situation, involved both laying off workers and taking on the power of John Dougherty.
And, yes, revenue has increased. But, the point is it 1)likely would have increased much more, and 2)the City has had to cut budgets for departments while Street has been Mayor. Healthcare costs have made that so. So, yes, the ability of the City to provide services has declined recently.
A smoke screen of reorganization?
I'm not convinced much reorganization was done other than some new weblinks. The lack of transparency causes me to question what exactly was accomplished. The lack of changes to zoning--amplifies my concern.
--------
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
I mean, I hear you on
I mean, I hear you on transparency, and, it is probably a good example of how Street perpetually shot himself in the foot. And I am not saying they fixed the world. But Street did something that did increase efficiency (or, is in the process of it, because it was held up so long), and in doing so directly took on both Jannie Blackwell and John Dougherty. I know you don't want to give him credit for anything. But...
I'll give credit to Street
I'll give credit to Street for balancing the budget, not for having the guts to make hard choices.
He'd have more cred if he laid off those 65 housing workers rather than transferring them to drink coffee and read the paper in another office.
--------
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
You are a real sweetheart.
You are a real sweetheart.
Cred is as cred does
He'd have more cred if he laid off those 65 housing workers rather than transferring them to drink coffee and read the paper in another office.
==================================
Uh, sure - it's clear your employer is getting their money's worth given your time spent posting.
I'm not on the tax payer
I'm not on the tax payer dime.
--------
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Kathy-- I've only met MDC
Kathy--
I've only met MDC once or twice, but I'd imagine he falls in the same category as I do--that is working regularly into the very late hours of the night. So, to some extent, if that is the case, he is completely justified in blowing off steam here during the day.
Now, that does not mean I support 65 people losing their job. And, I don't endorse the comment that city worker sit around. All I am saying is, not all jobs are 9-5 government gigs.
Let's not compare apples and oranges.
Thanks for getting my back.
Thanks for getting my back. You are quite correct. I work much more than 40 hrs. I don't think all city employees are lazy, just probably lots of ones in offices and since I've been in the bowels of various agencies, I'm not completely off base.
Edited: Actually, I know I sound harsh so I will apologize to city workers. Generally, speaking, I don't think they all need to be laid off either but we do need to know that jobs are not jobs for the sake of positions but because there are needed contributions somehow, especially if we are going to be paying hefty pensions for 25+ years for retirees.
--------
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Don't have your back
I did an internship at AFSCME DC 47 my freshman year. That's the union that represents white collar city workers. You know, the ones that work in offices.
Have you ever been to a prison staffer by city social workers? Or any place where social workers work? Those people are working extremely hard and deserve every cent they make. The same is true for the Human Relations Commission, recreation centers, and parole officers.
Some city workers suck. But there are something like 20,000 people employed by the city. You're bound to have a few bad apples, but it is in no way the majority.
---
http://benwaxman.com
Loss of Federal Money the Real Problem
The housing layoffs were largely due to the loss of federal funding, and if you read any of the stories about that at the time, that relationship is clear. I've always said that the real budgetary shortfalls, which have disproportionately hurt poorer Philadelphians, have all stemmed from the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid.
Those real losses dwarf any on-paper non-gains stemming from tax cuts. And I understand that Democrats haven't been in control of federal spending. But now, we've got Chaka Fattah on the Appropriations committee, and Bob Brady, the master negotiator, in a Congress with the Democratic Party in charge. Either or both of those candidates could boost their mayoral chances (and their cred with a lot of people here who are skeptical of both of them) through the roof by delivering just a fraction of the federal money that Philadelphia's lost. Oh, and it would also be the right thing to do.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Pension Costs and Percentages
From the city's 2005 Financial Report:
I can understand why the liability continued to go up... but not why the assets steadily went down. But this is serious; hundreds of millions of dollars.
Well, say you have a cookie
Well, say you have a cookie jar with $1000 in it. Every month you put $50 in for your cable bill and every month you take $50 out to pay the bill.
You upgrade to digital cable and start paying $100 a month, but still keep putting $50 in.
The balance in your cookie jar drops.
I am guessing as liability has increased, they have remained paying the minimums into it, therefore they have been stealing from their cookie jar.
I should say, I can see
I should say, I can see legitimate reasons why the liabilities increased, but no legitimate reasons why the assets steadily decreased. I think you're right though, Raideradam.
Kenney's point re. city making minimum contrib to pension fund
I recall Councilman Kenney making the point that the city has been paying the minimum into the pension fund allowed by federal (or was it state?) law governing pension funds.
He did not indicate at what point the city started paying the minimum allowable by law.
Councilman Kenney, could you clarify this?
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor
Why it always pays to be right rather than bribe the voters
I disagree that raising the property tax is politically inexpedient. If the system worked the same for everyone such that the valuation was fair, as opposed to allowing different rates to be paid by different people on the same block because one person had the nerve to complain and one person didn't, then there'd be much less griping about property taxes. It's politically inexpedient for Council not to recognize this and get us to a full valuation approach yesterday. The laziness and cowardly behavior is going to bite some of them in the butt in two months.
Nutter is on record as supporting a fair re-evaluation process with some sensible guidelines.
--------
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
I don't know about the big picture...
But I think the gross receipts tax is a real problem for small business. I recently spoke to a guy who owns a diner in Roxborough and he did all but spit when he talked about the BPT. He said if he could afford it, he'd put his diner on a flatbed truck and move to Montgomery County.
Losing small businesses like that affect the quality of our neighborhoods.
Not the entire story
What's missed in this analysis is that the middle class is already overtaxed on the wage tax side compared to if they lived anywhere else.
Furthermore, this analysis doesn't include the back door tax increases that have been raised on much of the city's real estate over the past three years. A landlord I know who has about 100 properties in the City said his taxes went up by more than 30% this year alone. (i.e. Row houses in Olney that are worth $100K now pay $1200 a year in taxes rather than $800 annually. And guess what? The poor people are getting their rent raised.) While certainly taxes aren't everything, this article doesn't get at the entire story but it touches on it:
As politically difficult as it may be, Nutter has been clear that he'd examine every Department and promote transparency which is surely needed. His details have been more clearer than any other candidate. Fattah and Brady on the other hand poo pah any need for change.
This article also doesn't acknowledge the huge subcontracting budgets (subverting city limit work rules among other problems) that support much of the services the city outsources. All of that outlay needs to be examined as well.
From talking to small business owners, it would seem that the increased tax burden of locating in Philly versus Montgomery county is almost 10%. Look at Koreatown along 5th Street in Olney and East Oaklane. The Cheltenham side of Cheltenham Ave is bustling.
I have no problem paying taxes. I have big problems paying taxes to a government that is inefficient, incompetent and not transparent--and where that is all just okay.
--------
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
I have no problem paying
I agree. And, I don't think the City is doing what it should and could and must be doing. And, I even left Nutter out of it. But, my point is that if cutting the BPT doesn't get us that much, while costing a lot of money, maybe we should go after the other stuff first.
I think that is part of the
I think that is part of the issue.
So many people have given up on the idea of getting appropriate and efficient services out of the City that they just want their money back instead.
I agree with the sentiment people don't mind paying taxes if they feel they are getting their money's worth. The problem is, the majority don't think they are even getting close.
Prove it
Dan's point here is not about the Mayoral race, and I don't mean to side-track it, but Mike, prove it when you say this:
I understand you support Nutter, but don't do do or say anything to make your point.
You know that Fattah has introduced quite a good transparency and openness in government paper. You may not like the paper, but it does exist which makes your statement above appear to be misinformed and petty.
Check the paper for yourself here.
And if you feel the need to pick the paper apart--which is certainly a good way to get to know the policy and the stances of all the candidates--go for it, but start another thread so this one is not once again subverted by the mayor's race (after all citizens and Council members have quite a lot to do with tax policy too.
Ray:
Ray:
Chaka said that 27 indictments were no big deal and that it was time to get off city employees back--doesn't sound like someone interested in real change to me. Edited: Sure I understand where Chaka's coming from so I don't need a Mayoral Candidate to say that they dislike City workers, only that it's hard to understand what the upshot for change will be if upfront the answer is no one's job is at risk.
Give that, the policy papers seem like John Street with a smiley face promises. Not much real change at all but I'll go end my comments on this thread.
--------
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Cutting taxes has improved
Cutting taxes has improved the perception of Philly as a place where it is worth doing business. Well, when I get to my endorsements--you'll see that's my argument is not significantly different than what DUA mentions, and I think there's only one candidate who'll look at improving city services in a meaningful way.
The focus on tax cuts is misleading.
--------
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Bob Brady Opposed To The Business Priviledge Tax
I've heard Bob Brady speak of his opposition to the BPT. He would also like to reduce the wage tax. Clearly, this will reduce revenue in the short term. In the long run, those cuts will improve Philadelphia's competitive advantage and improve our ability to get new business. That new business will provide additional tax revenues - a good thing.
I've heard that there's waste in city government, but most of the city workers that I know seem to be working pretty hard - to the point of being overworked. Maybe that's where the mis-management occurs. Folks are so overworked, that they can't do their jobs as well as they would like. My brother is an investigator for the public defenders in the Denver area. He handles a lot of capital (murder) cases. He's been so overworked that he's concerned he may overlook a key piece of evidence. While he complained mightily, recently, he turned in his resignation. My brother has the cohones to speak up. and even leave, rather than make an error which might cost someones life. Unfortunately, most city workers do not.
Goldsmith is a sanctimonious ass
when is Phil Goldsmith going to take responsibility for his time running this city?
there is legitimate debate as to whether or not tax reductions will improve the city's future (see all the other posts on this page, for example).
there is no debate that the city's budget is being consumed not by tax reductions, but by two 800 pound gorillas - the rapidly increasing costs of our criminal justice system, and the rapidly increasing costs of our municipal employees' benefits and pensions.
those two 800 pound gorillas just so happen to have fallen under the responsibility of the Managing Director, and yet he did nothing during his tenure to address those crises, but instead always whined about tax reduction.
Phil loves to play the visionary in his columns now that he's gone. Phil, you were running this city for most of the last eight years - why didn't you build a new prison, increase parole and probation officers, institute more at home electronic monitoring of non-violent offenders, improve judicial and police coordination, and implement managed health care plans and defined compensation pension plans?!?
Why do you hate our troops?
U-A, is that a French name?
I think everyone can agree that taxes and the BPT has some effect on business behavior and growth. Right?
The article assumes that lowering the BPT had no effect on the increased revenue over the past seven years. I could just as easily (and just as wrongly) attribute all of the increased actual tax collected over the last seven years to lowering the BPT. I could then write: Since 2000, Philadelphia would have forgone more than $1.7 billion in tax revenue if it did not lower the BPT. (I base this on Philadelphia collecting more than $0.5B more taxes in 2005 than 1998, and some rough math. Figure is approximate and, as I said before, based on wrong assumptions. So don't get hung up on it.)
Absolutely! Yes. Yes I do. I read or heard that Cigna relocated half their offices to the suburbs recently. If they (or any other huge corporation) ever consider expanding or making layoffs, I guarantee they will know the cost of each employee in Philadelphia compared to the cost of a similar employee in the suburbs. Taxes, including the BPT, will be part of the calculation. The Comcasts and Cignas will probably calculate the number more precisely than small businesses.
Do we have to choose one and only one issue to improve? Public schools or crime: pick one and only one of them to address to improve Philadelphia.
There are tons of studies and tons of anecdotal evidence that Philadelphia's excessive taxes are a problem for businesses to locate here or start here. I don't see why it matters if it is number 1 or number 4 on any list. In spite of what some people claim, it is not an either/or choice.
First, I don't think 300K is that reasonable an assumption for gross revenue for a small business. According to this link, dollar stores took in between $0.9 and $5 million and Pantry Stores were around $2 million a few years ago.
Second, he is only talking about the difference between 2000 and 2006. Rates were much higher and elimination has been proposed. Rates are as follows:
1995: 0.3250%
2000: 0.2650%
2006: 0.1665%
2010: 0.1355%
Proposed by Fattah, Brady, Knox, and Nutter: 0
So on $1 million under 1995 rates, a business would have paid $3,250 in just the gross receipts tax. That ignores the rest of the BPT and other expenses. That could be rent for a month or two in just the gross receipts tax. (Even $1,665 in 2006 is nothing to sneeze at.) I don't think this is a negligible amount, especially for a business that is not making a large profit or losing money. (Everyone has heard that if you open a restaurant, plan to lose money the first three years, right?)
So as I asked before, I think everyone can agree that taxes and the BPT has some effect on business behavior and growth. Right? We just disagree whether this effect is negligible. I don't think it is. I think the evidence is staggering that the effect of taxes is profoundly negative on business growth in Philadelphia. Marc Stier, who has much better progessive credentials than I do and who has had much more exposure to the issue, wrote that "reducing business taxes is one way to create more businesses and jobs in Philadelphia" and "business tax reductions will help the economy in the long term". The only evidence against that is that other factors are also important, and may be more important. That's fine, but I don't see why it is either/or. Revenue has not been reduced so far as taxes have been reduced.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
To more directly answer the original questions
Arguably, yes. Adjusted for inflation, taxed wages have increased about 10% between 1998 and 2005. As Price posted:
I don't know of any econometric analysis attributing this increase to the tax cuts, total number of jobs, etc.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Real fiscal life and the BPT
It would be nice if Aardhart's world existed, one in which making BPT cuts were "not an either/or choice". But that's not the world that exists. Unlike the federal government, local government must balance the budget every year. We cannot take $40 million out of next year's budget and wait five or so years for magical growth to replace it. We need to pay next year's bills out of next year's budget. So here's the picture a mayor and council will probably see either this year or some year coming soon regarding budget decisions for the succeeding fiscal year:
Needed: $85 million to plug the school district deficit, $70 million to hire 500 new cops to stanch an out-of-control murder epidemic, $30 million more to fund skyrocketing city employee health care costs, $17 million to replace the payment to the City that PGW used to make but no longer can, $30 million more to plug the whole in the City pension fund, etc, etc., etc.
Options: 1) Use the surplus accumulated in previous years by failing to fill many city positions. 2) Cut some more positions next year. Or: In addition to 1) and 2) Cut the BPT by 10% next year, costing us $40 million, and cut librarians, rec center workers, the sanitation force, or cancel all or part of the new spending. Project that loss over the next fiscal year as well, along with another $40 million cut, and start preparing for that loss now, by making still further cuts now that can ease the blow then. Project those tax cuts even further out, start cutting more now.
That's real life. Choices do have to be made. I'll say it again. The city lives in a balanced budget world. Borrowing tens of millions of dollars from China to pay the salaries of cops for the next five years is not an option.
And let's get real about what's been happening to revenue as well. The magical increases in BPT, if they ever come, are not coming next year to replace the amount of the cut. No one, not a single expert in tax policy, will tell you that you're going to replace every tax dollar cut next year with a substitute dollar based on growth. So you will simply have to cut expenses to match the amount of the tax cut. Period. And even on a long term basis, revenue has not been steadily growing as BPT cuts have taken effect. These cuts, as noted, started in 1996. But after 9/11, the country went into recession. In that light, here are the statistics for FY revenue for the four fiscal years starting in July, 2001:
FY01 $314
FY02 $295.8
FY03 $286.1
FY04 $309.2
It wasn't until FY '05 that BPT receipts increased to pre-recession levels. Since then, according to my sources in the Finance Department, there has been no significant increase in the number of new business accounts in the City. New businesses have not been flocking in. But corporate profits have been high. That means that businesses already in the City, have done extremely well, as have businesses all across the country. The literature is full of accounts of how corporate profits nationally have exploded. So there's no evidence whatsoever that the BPT cuts have created any increased revenue for the City. Au contraire, as Phil Goldsmith suggests, it is far more likely that the cuts have squeezed city revenue substantially, constraining much needed city spending.
So there's absolutely no reason to think cutting taxes will increase revenues in years soon after the cuts are made, and little reason to think it will do so even in distant years. Because even if the economic theorists who posit growth producing impacts from business tax cuts are correct, all of the responsible ones also concede that you have to maintain city services to get that growth. And without additional revenues from other sources, in a balanced budget world, we simply cannot maintain, much less, increase, those services.
And that's the background we face as we make real choices about what to pay for, and what not to pay for, in the years to come.
Finally, let me reiterate: I'm for tax reform. But it should be reform that is paid for by real revenue from the state and federal governments, from a move toward a progressive income tax to replace the wage tax, and from reform that is based on tax justice, not merely nice-sounding theories about how shoveling money toward rich, predatory corporations like Walmart, Sunoco and Comcast will ultimately trickle down to the rest of us.
I'm so sick of the BPT...
Can we just stop talking about it?
We all know Dan is against the damn thing and once every couple of weeks, he posts some inflammatory bit of nonsense getting everyone all worked up about why the BPT should or should not be cut.
Great.
Can we move one???
The real issue is how terrible our government is and how much money is wasted.
Just look at the SOSNA thread from the other day - these whole "faggot/smack down" comment was about a certain group of people keeping personal control of their $100,000 in tax payer revenue. $100,000 in revenue that is not being used for economic development. $100,000 that comes out of the City's coffers and does nothing more than pay a couple of "board members" their yearly salary.
If Stan was really so damn concerned about balancing the budget, he'd should be out there rallying against these economic development "grants" that are nothing more than these off-the-books patronage jobs created by city politicians to reward their supporters. How many other SOSNA's are out there? How many millions of dollars are being wasted paying off such political flunkies?
Instead of focusing on the completely unjustifiable corruption and waste that plagues Philadelphia, we sit in our ivory tower arguing about the BPT.
That's my two cents.
______________________________
Phillyville
You've convinced me
The fact that there is some amount (no one has quantified it, including any of the candidates who keep talking about it) of wasteful spending, means we can pay for all the new cops we need, deal with the School District, SEPTA, and Commmunity College budget crises, fund the escalation in city employee health care costs, make up for the loss of PGW revenue, and just hack away at taxes each year for the next 15 years. Oh and fix the City pension fund. I've decided all of that since I came down from my ivory tower.
First of all, I am not sure
First of all, I am not sure how exactly it was inflammatory. Second, buddy, its a big wide internet out there. Since the extent of your participation on YPP is... complaining about YPP, why bother stopping by?
Ban Me
I think it is perfectly fair for me to point out (1) the BPT thing may be a red herring; and (2) you've got some weird fetish for it.
And if you have a problem with my comments, ban me.
______________________________
Phillyville
First, you said it was
First, you said it was inflammatory, big boy. Now its just I have a fetish for it. Anyway, it is flattering having someone obsessed with me.
More BPT
Businesses and jobs leaving Philadelphia causes decreased tax revenue which also forces hard choices.
I've heard and previously repeated on this board that since the tax cuts were started ('96), revenues increased every year but two. (I did not research to confirm this but no one has disputed it.) Apparently, those two years were the two immediately following 9/11 (FY02 & FY03), when the country was hit with a big recession. You imply that these reductions in revenue were due to the cut in the BPT. I don't think that's the case; it was the national recession that caused the decreases in revenue. Before freedom-haters attacked this country, revenue increased every year in the first five years of the tax cuts.
I think "reducing business taxes is one way to create more businesses and jobs in Philadelphia" and "business tax reductions will help the economy in the long term". I am looking long term and do not have all the answers on balancing the budget next year or the year after that. I don't think that there will ever be a time where the budget would be in a state where you would support cutting the BPT, or that you would support any cuts that benefit large "predatory corporations like Walmart, Sunoco and Comcast," which happens to include the largest employer in this country and large employers in the area.
"Choices do have to be made." I agree with that. I support improving education, job training, public safety and other strategies to improve the business environment. I don't think any of them preclude a reduction in the BPT or that a reduction in the BPT precludes any of them. I think choices should be made to improve Philadelphia, not to increase revenue for city government.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Reading my mind . . .
about whether I'd ever support cutting the BPT doesn't answer the question about how you can actually do it now, considering the budgetary problems we face. It's not so important that you don't have that answer given that you're not running for mayor, but it is important that those who are running for mayor and pushing such cuts also haven't told us how they're going to balance their priorities (except in the grandest generalities.) And I'd also like to know what their priority list is, i.e., what comes first if the choice has to be made, cutting taxes in the next few years or fulfilling their campaign promises for more spending.
2003 Dip in the BPT
A nugget I found in the 2003 Annual Financial Report:
[A]ccording to my sources in
I'd be interested in knowing how many new business accounts have been created in the suburbs over the past five years to better understand what's happening here. I would also like to know how many businesses have relocated to the suburbs or vice-versa.
--------
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Lots of things we'd like to know
but the main thing I'd like to know, is how we're going to finance all of the emergency budget needs of the City while cutting taxes and balancing the budget.
Returning to the basics of
Returning to the basics of government programs (like infrastructure, schools, etc.)?
Collecting property taxes on delinquent owners?
Solving the municipal pension and health care issues for the next 50 years and not just for the next 4.
Make it more attractive to do business in the City.
** This announcement sponsored by the "We don't need tax cuts, but better tax policies" Foundation
Fine.
Let's agree to a list of things to do (I would agree with some, not others on your list) figure out what they would save, determine if that number is big enough to encompass the new spending we need, and if so, cut taxes in a progressive way. And btw, I don't know much about your foundation, but if it's purpose is truly expressed in its name, I'll be happy to contribute.
Yes, my views are what I
Yes, my views are what I mentioned in my "foundation". ;) I tend to be on the side of the "cut BPT" people since I think the business tax structure needs reform, but not to the point of just cutting it out.
I also think modifying tax rates has a large marketing aspect to it. Miniscule tax increases send everyone in a tizzy just as much as if it was a large increase. On the reverse, miniscule tax decreases do little compared to large tax decreases.
Also, I believe the negative effects of raising a tax is NOT proportional to the positive effects of lowering it. Meaning, if you raise wage tax 1% and 200,000 people leave, lowering the wage tax 1% will most likely not bring 200,000 people back in.
So, with that in mind, I do not see a point in lowering taxes unless you can do a significant jump. As pointed out by others, you probably forgo revenue and do not really become a stimulator.
So, my theory is this. "If" it is decided taxes should be lowered to X%, you go over revenue streams and calculate what the drop in revenue would be at this time and calculate budgets based off the tax rate you want to be at. You then figure how long it would take to adjust budgets to match that different revenue stream. You then announced planned restructuring and the goal to change the tax to X% by year Y.
What this can accomplish is that you don't forgo revenue while trying to fit into that new budget. The "surplus" can be kept off to the side to deal with growing pains towards year Y.
Then, if everything goes as planned, year Y comes along and you do the significant tax drop/restructuring. From a city marketing standpoint, it makes big news. "Philadelphia's 5 year plan results in Z% drop in business taxes, on average" or "Philadelphia's 5 year restructuring plan results in Z% tax drop for companies below $300,000" or "Philadelphia's 5 year restructuring plan makes it one of the best places for new businesses to start up or relocate". It makes news, it gets people and business to notice and that is what also bring business into the City. The buzz.
Dropping .1% a year doesn't make news. Incremental is not buzzworthy. Significant is.
In summary, I think if tax cuts/restructuring is the goal, it should be planned over a period of time, but the actual cut happen at one time, not incrementally. The marketing aspect needs to be leveraged to. You need that cut/restructure to show up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal while efficiently planning the change and making sure it can be done. This way, you don't need rollbacks or moratoriums. If the City can't pull it off, you just don't cut/restructure the tax on Y year.
Well, at least you have a plan
but I don't think it's workable. As I understand it, you propose to create a surplus over the next few years to finance a tax cut coming later. That would be fine if we could afford to spare any of our current revenue to put away for those future years. But we can't, not if we meet the needs of the City in the next few years which require more, not less money, and the spending plans of the mayoral candidates.
Well, that is sort of my
Well, that is sort of my point. If we can't budget down to that "target number" before we make it a reality, then obviously we can't afford to tighten the belt and at that point would not enact it.
The "surplus" created would be from gathering revenue at the current rate but trying to spend at our future rate over several years. If we can do it, we can justify it. If we can't do it, we can't justify it.
Granted, budget issues are easier to force through when the money physically isn't there, so yeah, my plan would require resolve from council and the mayor.
I think we both know the difference between policy on paper and policy in action. As of right now, I am talking about policy on paper.
I do admire your honesty
in confronting the hard choices we have. The wishful thinking characterized by many of the other tax cut enthusiasts, including Mssrs. Brady, Nutter and Knox, accomplishes nothing but to conceal from the voters the fact that no free lunches are available at this time.
Mr. Shapiro
I appreciate your concerns about budgetary integrity, but it doesn't seem like you're as concerned about fiscal efficiency on the expenditure side. You didn't blink an eye when the airport sale plan was rolled out, massive numbers were thrown around, and no concrete plans for effective programmatic expenditures offered. What's up with that?
Mr. Friedman
It's understandable that you'd like to change the subject, but I didn't start this thread and it's about the BPT. However, on the airport sale, the lack of detail is a concern, but not as much as the fast footery that's being practiced by 3 candidates on taxes. Fattah has offered new spending based on new revenues. He's not pretending he can actually accomplish the spending without the revenue. That's the difference between his plan and the "plan" of Brady, Knox and Nutter to spend like crazy and cut taxes at the same time.
And that is my problem with
And that is my problem with Fattah. He is running on a platform that he may have no way to implement. "I wanted to do all this stuff, but I couldn't get the money. Oh well."
Mr. Shapiro II
But what about all of the other pressing needs that you've articulated in the posts above? My inner fiscal conservative tells me that we need to fund them before launching new - completely undefined - programs. Doesn't yours? I don't really want to change the subject, but the BPT discussion is getting pretty old. I keep making the suggestion - and maybe it's a bad one because nobody ever encourages me - that BPT reductions should be brokered in exchange for measurable job creation targets from the companies and trade groups in Philadelphia that want them. On another note, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Raider in that I think that modest tax cuts do have a powerful symbolic effect.
I don't remember that idea but
it's not a bad one. In fact, it's one of the suggestions that witnesses from One Philadelphia made in opposing the tax cuts that previously came before Council, to no avail. However it still doesn't solve the problem of how to make up for the funds lost in the near term. That's another issue that needs serious attention, particularly now, given the budgetary stress we're facing.
Ok, but...
How does selling the airport and using those funds for an undefined array of programs fit in with your vision of fiscal conservatism when there are so many other pressing financial needs?
You keep wanting to change the subject, but
no matter what I say about Fattah's plan, it has no bearing on whether or not cutting taxes without replacement revenue in the near term makes any sense. Are you trying to say that if Fattah's airport plan is bad, sharply cutting the BPT without replacement revenues becomes good? I'm afraid the logic of that escapes me. Unless you're simply trying to bait me, which, unfortunately, is what I've come to expect from you. Then, I guess the logic becomes "if Shapiro has a double standard, that means tax cutting without replacement revenue is good." Sorry, that logic escapes me too. But feel free to keep pounding on it if it makes you feel good and if you have nothing else to contribute.
It's the same subject Stan
It's about being fiscally disciplined. I'm not trying to bait you, it’s just that your positions don't appear consistent to me. On one hand, overwhelming concern with how to replace revenues lost through tax cutting. On the other, seemingly no concern whatsoever about selling a major City asset and using billions to fund unknown programs, even while acknowledging other tremendous fiscal strain elsewhere in the City's budget. I’m not perfect; I’m not always consistent. I’m not trying to make you feel bad but I am trying to contribute something productive to this discussion. That is, if we’re talking about being more fiscally responsible as a City, as progressives, that’s awesome! It’s just that real fiscal responsibility should occur on both the expenditure and revenue sides of the general ledger, wouldn’t you agree?
You're not making me feel anything
whether bad or good, you just have me observing that you're engaged in a useless discussion about whether I'm consistent or not. I am not the topic of this thread. But given that you insist on changing the substantive topic without starting a new thread, either about my consistency or Fattah's plan, I guess I'll bite.
I think I've said this before. I don't know if Fattah's plan will work or not; I just don't know enough about the economics or legality of it. However, if you can transform a physical capital asset into a fund which provides resources to educate and find jobs for young people, that would be a good thing. Normally one wouldn't suggest using a capital asset to pay operating expenses. But I can see visualizing this particular plan -- again, if it's economically and legally feasible which I don't know -- as exchanging a physical capital asset for a human capital asset, namely a well-educated and employed workforce.
Furthermore, given the huge expenditure the City makes annually on law enforcement, I can more readily see where there would be a beneficial fiscal impact from the expenditure of funds for the purposes that Fattah suggests, than from tax cuts. So to me, such expenditures represent a far better risk. But Fattah's plan is more responsible than across the board tax cutting for another reason. He ties his new expenditures to the new revenue he plans to raise from the airport plan. On the contrary, those who would broadly cut taxes also want to increase spending with no plan for financing those spending increases. So philosophically I think Fattah's plan is far superior to any other spending plan I've heard.
You are the center of my universe!
But seriously...I'll stop now. But it seems that you're not really concerned about fiscal responsibility, you're just ideologically against tax cutting. You're willing to put your faith in a plan that has no details but that comports with your philosophical inclinations. And hey, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m sure we’ll meet again when the next dead horse flogging begins on this issue. Have a pleasant evening.
If I haven't said so before, I remain deeply flattered
that you think this whole conversation is really about me. And with that, I wish a good evening to you.
More Unintentional Hilarity
I missed this the first time. Phil Goldsmith's article in the Daily News begins with this quote:
The pool table, presumably, are the cuts to the BPT and the wage tax. He goes on to write: "By now the mayoralty candidates should know that there is some fiscal trouble brewing right here in New River City, Philadelphia."
But in The Music Man, the whole reason Prof. Harold Hill (who sings the lines above) is down on the pool table is because he wants to sell the people of River City a bunch of musical instruments they don't need. In other words, the "trouble" with the pool table is purely manufactured, in order to perpetrate a much grander scam.
Unintended consequences of what you write are a real pain in the ass. Great musical, though.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Sort of off topic
But I was Harold Hill in 8th grade. Only trouble was I couldn't act or sing.
So what are the instruments?
As Friedman notes, it could be the airport deal. It could be Philadelphia business-as-usual politics, pumping revenue to save certain city jobs.
But for Phil Goldsmith, it's eliminating "structural impediments": that is, union rules and civil service protections.
Goldsmith buried the lead. He's dangling the imaginary specter of cuts to the BPT; what he wants to do is tear up or run over the rules that protect city workers. That's the game, folks.
If people haven't seen The Music Man
... the Simpsons episode "Marge Vs. The Monorail" is based on it. Instead of musical instruments, the traveling con man sells Springfield a monorail. This musical number is based on "You've Got Trouble."
Conan O'Brien, who wrote that episode of The Simpsons, performed a version of "Trouble" at the 2006 Emmys.
Assessing 96-06; Success! (No?)
I was thinking about this, and I don't understand why Phil Goldsmith and Dan U-A consider the tax cuts to be failures. Prior to the tax cuts, Philadelphia had decades of consistently losing jobs and population, and then jacking up taxes more, which led to the loss of more jobs and population. Since the tax cuts started in 1996 however, Philadelphia has had increased tax revenue (more than inflation from what I looked at), increased business activity, and increased taxable wages within the city.
The tax cuts seemed to be accompanied by the benefits they were supposed to deliver and were not accompanied by declining revenue that opponents warned about, with the exception of two post-9/11 recession years.
The forgone revenue argument is complete bunk. Claiming that "[s]ince 2000, Philadelphia has forgone more than $1.2 billion in tax revenues" is as absurd as claiming that Yugo would have been the most profitable car company in history if they sold their cars for $25,000 (assuming of course, that they would have sold as many cars at $25,000 as they sold at $3,998). The fact is that economic activity in Philadelphia would not have been the same without the tax cuts. It is wrong to assume that economic activity would have been the same regardless of the price (whether the tax rates were cut or not.) It is entirely possible that without the tax cuts, economic activity would have declined and revenue would have declined as well (or failed to keep pace with inflation) like had happened for the decades before the tax cuts. Instead, tax revenue has increased more than inflation under these cuts.
I find the argument that Phil Goldsmith doesn't consider the savings to taxpayers to be significant to be irrelevant and, rather insulting. If he is that willing to part with $439 for no apparent benefit, I should give him a call and ask for mine. It is also insulting that he is that generous with OPM (that's "other people's money" for those of you not following the Fumo indictment). Whether Goldsmith can burn the money or not is irrelevant, the question is whether the cuts created jobs.
As I addressed above, I don't think that Dan U-A makes any convincing arguments that the tax cuts have been bad. He wrote that "the BPT cut [is] hurting the City's ability to provide services families and businesses need" and that "it isn't really giving us much in return." I assume that the cut is hurting the city under the foregone Yugo sale fallacy, because in reality, revenues are increasing. I don't see how the BPT cut is hurting. Increased revenue and jobs are great benefits.
I know that correlation does not prove causation, but it certainly is good evidence of causation. In fact, it is the most important evidence of causation. Comparing the decades of rising tax rates with the decade of declining tax rates seems to indicate that cutting the taxes has been good for the city since 1996.
I am not an economist and have not researched the issue exhaustively. I have formed my conclusions responding to posts on this board. I have not read any econometric analysis of how the tax cuts actually effected businesses, tax revenue, and jobs. I am curious in others' assessments of the tax cuts since 1995. Has it worked so far? Are there studies and conclusions?
From 1998 to 2005, taxes wages apparently increased about 10% more than inflation. Does anyone know if this is because the number of jobs increased or the wages of existing jobs increased. Does anyone have actual data on wage quality?
Please address only 1995-present in responding to this post, and not whether the cuts should continue or more cuts should be made or whether elephants should be moved to the airport. And please use the reply feature to keep replies nested.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
The argument that is
The argument that is seemingly glossed over is that people aren't sold on the idea that gradual tax decreases is directly correspondent to increased revenue.
It is a very valid argument.
It could be a valid
It could be a valid argument, but is there any support? Are there any studies, analysis, or even more stats on the tax cut since 1996?
EDIT: Actually, "people aren't sold on the idea that gradual tax decreases is directly correspondent to increased revenue" is not a valid relevant argument. The argument would be that the tax cuts did not contribute to the increased business activity, jobs, and revenue. I don't think this argument is valid based on the above, but want to see any evidence that supports it.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Businesses Like Gradual Decreases...
... because they like to show annual growth. Plus it signals that in the long-term, the tax and business climate will continue to get better and better. It's predictable, on-the-books, changes.
As for the correlation/causation business, correlation does not imply causation, but correlation is a necessary condition of causation. So noncorrelation => noncausation.
In Philadelphia, tax cuts have (on the whole) correlated with revenue increases. Therefore, it is certainly not the case that tax cuts have caused revenue deficits (as Goldsmith claims/implies). Nor will they necessarily in the future.
Maybe global warming caused the revenue increases
If "correlation does not prove causation, but it certainly is good evidence of causation" then I nominate global warming as the real basis for our tax growth. It's been steadily increasing you know. Maybe carbon is good for the economy.
No dice
Ah, but global warming has been observed at least since the '50s (that at least is when Al Gore's professor started paying attention). Economic growth in Philadelphia, sadly, has not.
You're better off using the standard Republican explanation for all economic growth -- Ronald Reagan did it all, it just took a while.
Well, there you go.
Republicans took power in Congress, and the state legislature, in '93. Republicans are good for business as we all know (and therefore for the rest of us) and slowly but surely those policies sunk in, and the economy took off starting in Philly in 96. All we really need to keep going is to elect Republicans to everything forever and abolish as much anti-business regulation as possible. Once business is completely unrestrained by regulation and taxes, that will take care of everything. Correlation will cause causation. Closed case. Al Taubenberger for Mayor.
Nah. I like my John Street
Nah. I like my John Street theory. Let's amend the charter.
Why do you think we haven't pulled out of Iraq?
Because it's too good for Philadelphia's local economy.
Stan's numbers for 01-04:
And:
Case closed.
P.S.: Where are your numbers from, Stan?
What case is closed?
My numbers are from the Finance Department.
So here's what we've got: two years of stupendous growth after three years that were flat. I think it was the outing of Valerie Plame that turned the corner for us.
Go back further
Really, the years of stupendous growth were 1999, 2000, 2001. BPT revenues went up by 7%, 14%, and 8.25%, or from 237.4 million in 1998 to 314 million in 2001 -- an increase of almost $80 million, while rates on gross receipts went from 0.2875% to 0.2525%.
Then two years are flat in the face of cuts (recession + changes in tax collection), then it starts moving up again, while the rate cuts accelerate.
Ok, how about this. Revenue
Ok, how about this.
Revenue increasing has correlated to John Street being in office.
Therefore, the longer we keep Street in office, the more revenue the City gets.
John Street is the savior of Philadelphia!
Property, Wage, BPT, and Gov't Numbers since 1992
All numbers are from the city's 2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. They are also in millions of dollars.
My best guess is that "Other Taxes" includes the sales tax, which pushes up with inflation and increased purchasing power, but the real reason that number starts going up, up, up is the real estate transfer tax, which now nets the city hundreds of millions of dollars. That's the beginning of the real estate boom (coinciding with the tax abatements, which began in 1996).
Thanks for digging up some
Thanks for digging up some numbers. I don't know what they show. The largest increases in wage tax revenue were in 2001, 1998, and 2000. The tax cuts could have contributed to job creation in this time period. Without more information, I'm not sure if that conclusion is justified yet, but I don't see how you can conclude (as Dan U-A does) that Philly has not benefited from the tax cuts either.
If it's not too much trouble, could you go back further to see longer trends. And go more recent too, like at least 2005. And find job numbers for Philadelphia and the region from the 70s to 2005. And a measure of wage quality too; I doubt if average is truly informative enough. Be sure to look at city, regional, and national trends as well. And inflation.
A Philadelphia Inquirer story (cached here) states: "Across the larger metropolitan region (including suburban Pennsylvania and New Jersey, as well as northern Delaware), the overall pattern of job growth is precisely the opposite of the city's: steady, gradual gains interrupted by short downturns that last no more than a few months." The article cited a Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia report. That may be a good source of information. (EDIT: I could only find this report from Jan. 2001, but it is informative. It says taxes hurt job growth.)
Unless you are an economics student with too much free time, I don't expect you to actually dig up everything I requested. I hoped that someone would link to a Chamber of Commerce, Philadelphia One, Philadelphia Forward, or Federal Reserve Bank analysis of the effect on the tax cuts since 1996, or something to support the view that they had a negligible effect, other than useless semantic arguments that don't actually support that view.
If we keep beating this horse, I'm sure it will get me to the market.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Oh, Homework! Boo!
I can try to find numbers for 2002-2006 -- some of these are already posted in my "Hard Numbers from the Philadelphia Budget" thread. Part of the problem is that the budget reports aren't as logical as they used to be -- that 2001 financial report doesn't have color prints or a lot of pie charts, but it is a beautiful document for actually finding the information you need. And sadly 2001 is the earliest financial report that's still online, so 1992 may be as far back as I can go. I'd love some help, though.
Adjusting for inflation is tougher -- and I'm guessing that these are not already adjusted for inflation -- but you can find good inflation calculators online if you're looking for specific comparisons. I will probably do this in my thread on "Other Taxes in Philadelphia" for the property tax, where collections have almost definitely gone down in inflation-adjusted numbers since 1992.
The only thing I think these numbers do prove is that the overall trend for revenue growth in Philadelphia is small gains in the early-to-mid 90s, bigger gains after 1996, mostly flat between 2001 and 2003, and strong growth again since 2003. Any years that showed a loss in revenue from one year to the other seem to be largely explainable by changes in the way the tax was collected + national recessions, and always bounce back very quickly to meet and beat previous levels. I think you can legitimately say that the tax cuts between 1996 and 2006 have been a tremendous success.
The big thing that I think is debatable is whether we're at or approaching a sweet spot right now in terms of tax cutting vs. growth promotion. It's quite possible, for example, that outright elimination of the gross receipts BPT will lead to widespread profit concealment and a sharp reduction in BPT collections, even in the face of growth. We really have to determine which tax cuts and possibly even tax increases will really lead to the optimal level of economic and revenue growth. There are good reasons to assume that further small, gradual cuts to gross receipts or the wage tax will not have a negative effect on the city's budget. But they might not produce as much growth as a different kind of tax cut will. Likewise, maybe we need to rethink the property tax abatement program. All of this is on the table. But it helps to have the facts right first.
Tax Rates Since 1992 (up to 2001)