The liberal Charleston Gazette has come out in support of the Charleston user “fee.” We all know that it is a fee in name only so that it could be called legal and seeing as we are all adults here, I will call it what it is: a user tax.
The Gazette begins the article by describing the legitimate plight of many cities in West Virginia. The Democrat controlled legislature has restricted them to where there is no leeway for extraneous and legal taxes. Therefore, Huntington had to get creative and pass a user tax. Charleston saw an opportunity and followed suit.
So far we agree – well, everyone but the Democrat legislators who cannot release their vice grip, but that is another article.
The Gazette then lists the sundry benefits of Charleston’s user tax. By squeezing even more money out of an already overtaxed populace and by trapping those who live outside the city but must come in to work each day, Charleston has been able to pave roads and hire more police officers. All good uses, no doubt.
If the Gazette had stopped here in the article and ended with a pithy quote or tear jerking poem, it would have been brilliant. But like most of their editorials, the irrationality has to come out eventually.
They called Thorton Cooper a gadfly lawyer (gadfly: “an annoying person, esp. one who provokes others into action by criticism) who joined with state Auditor Glen Gainer to challenge the tax in court, while in the same paragraph admitted that the State Supreme Court ruled he had a point: the user tax was imposed illegally. The Gazette used the words, “Charleston hadn’t enacted its plan properly,” but that is the nice way of saying it is illegal and wrong.
Then they fault Cooper for insisting that all 7 pages of Charleston’s ordinance be printed on the ballot at a cost of $120,000. After collecting $2.5 million each year for the last 2 years, I would say the city has it in their budget. The Gazette should not cry over spilt milk when the cash cow stands outside the kitchen window.
If the user tax fails, Cooper promises to go to court and make the city return the illegal funds. Returning nearly $6 million would put them in “big trouble financially,” according to Mayor Danny Jones. As my mother always told me, “it never is right to do wrong to do right, so do what’s right to do.” In other words, if you took over $104 dollars from me illegally and the voters refuse your tax, it is not my problem.
In reality, I sincerely doubt the Supreme Court would make the city return the tax dollars. As we have seen in their ruling for the user tax, they will jump through whatever legal hoops necessary to get the result they want. As they considered the case, talk was less on was it legal and more on how much the city needs the money. Lawyers who are definitely more knowledgeable than me said the hairline the Supreme Court walked to differentiate a “tax” from a “fee” was contrived and ludicrous.
Charleston is a good city that has legitimate bills that need paying. The solution is not to be scared into voting for a regressive, anti-worker tax. The solution is for the legislature to lower state taxes and give the cities the freedom to be creative and raise money as their citizens see fit.
For now, the tax has raised millions, but what about the seven hundred people who have left Charleston over the past 2 years? Do you think they, just maybe, grew tired of being taxed one more time?
As for this non-resident who travels to Charleston each workday and spends an average of $10 per day already, I hope the tax goes down in flames.
–
On a side note, I grow weary of the liberal’s argument that “it’s just a dollar.” If you do not think it is that much, you pay it and stop being cavalier with my money. Remember the revolutionary war was sparked over a 3-cent tea tax.
- Add your comments (20 so far)
© Copyright 1999-2007 William Stewart. All rights reserved.
Comments
As an employer in Charleston I made the early decision to support the fee. I also made the decision to pay this fee for my employees as part of their benefits package. I prefer having decent streets and a working sewer system and $52 per year per employee is a small price to pay. I would prefer to pay this money than to have a good employee opt for employment outside the city so they wouldn’t have to pay the fee.
Would I prefer the City live within its means and be fiscally responsible? Yes, but history shows this is an urealistic expectation. So, while I certainly have never been called a fiscal liberal, you can count me among those who say “it’s just a dollar.”
Stanton,
Since it’s “just a dollar”, you can pay my fee too. It’s all the principal of it. I think I’ll impose a tax on my neighbors to help alleviate my credit card bills, my eletricity bill, my natural gas bill, etc, etc, etc.. Sound silly? Sure does. Just as silly as Charleston doing this to cover their bills. Live within your means. Live within your means.
Hmm… first the Gazette says “respect Al Qaeda” now it’s saying “Vote for more taxes…”
No matter what they do, they’ll never live up to their big brothers at the New York Times
Sure it is just one dollar now, but how long will it be before it is two dollars like I pay in Huntington for the oppurtunity to navigate pot holes and drive by shootings on my way down Hal Greer Boulevard every morning. Huntington has already proposed raising the fee to $3.50. Where will it stop? As a citizen of Charleston I will be voting against the Charleston user fee if for no other reason than it is a rare oppurtunity for a citizen of WV to actually vote down a tax.
Just thought I’d share…..
TAX (n.)
1. A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
2. A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses.
3. A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain.
FEE (n.)
1. A fixed sum charged, as by an institution or by law, for a privilege: a license fee; tuition fees.
It seems to me that the conservatives like to push the buzz words (in this case tax) to send people into an uproar. By my interpretation, the User Fee is in fact a fee. It is a fixed sum charged, rather than a function of income. To look at the definition of tax, it is interesting (nay expected) that it mentions that it is a ‘fee’ imposed on members of an organization, or ‘within the domain of that government.’ So I suppose it IS a tax to the people that live within Charleston city limits but it is only a FEE to the good folks that are ‘privileged’ enough to drive into the city from their tiny, unincorporated towns to make a living. If we are grown-ups, lets just call the commuters what they are, migrant workers. They come, they work, they get paid, they leave…. End of story. Shouldn’t they contribute something??
One of the points I’m trying to meander toward is the fact that City Tax, User Tax, User Fees are only new in WV. Most larger cities (i.e. Pittsburgh, Chicago….. Hoboken, NJ) have a city fee that is either based on labor, tourism, sales, or a combination of the three. The bottom line is this… As a citizen of Charleston, I would much rather appease my local government by paying $52 annually with the knowledge that outsiders have to pay the same, rather than pay hefty city annual taxes on my home while country folk from Sissonville spend most of their waking hours here and go back to their trailers, tax (or fee) free.
William: To call the User Fee a regressive, anti-worker tax tells me two things… #1 You have not spent much time outside of WV (no, Louisiana when you were 4 years old doesn’t count), and #2 you are spectacular at regurgitating office rhetoric. It saddens me that a young person like yourself is such a slave to the opinions of others… you must have a tremendous need to fit in… regardless of where that may be. Good choice.
Now, a word on the comments beneath this article. Bravo Stanton… you are an inspiration. You are realistic, and you respond apropriately to economic externalities. I would work for you anytime. Stacey… typical woman… abandoning reason for the sake of making a point. Jim… out of the entire article, you take a poke at the city’s rag? Well done, chap… very poignant.
BK - Stacey’s a man and you’re a misogynist.
BK: This discussion was civil until you entered it. You are an employee of the city and are to be commended for your loyalty, but there is no need for ad hominem attacks.
It is a common misconception that people who live outside of the city but work inside somehow live off the fat of the land and leave without putting anything in. Not only do workers support the businesses that hire them, they avail themselves of the other businesses in the city.
Allow me to tell you about my Monday.
* I had lunch at a local eating establishment: $5.
* Left work and got gasoline: $45.
* Met up with an acquaintance at Capitol Roasters, a local coffee shop: $1.50 for the meter and $3.50 for the coffee (which the other guy paid for, but it still counts).
* After we met, I went to Taylor Books and purchased a book: $40.
I spent $91.50 in your city in one day. Do not tell me I am not doing my fair share.
If you and the rest of your town hall buddies really think workers are a burden and take more than they give, then write a city ordinance that says the only people who can be hired in the city must live here. You won’t do it because you know your assertion is bogus.
Your analogy of Pittsburgh or Chicago to Charleston is comical. I love Charleston, but it cannot compare to a larger city like Baton Rouge where I was born and reared for 19 years (not 4). Baton Rouge’s population was 227,818 in 2000 and has grown exponentially sense then. Charleston’s population was 53,253 in 2000 and has gone down by over 2,000 in the last 6 years.
Baton Rouge has had a user fee since 1985 on the owners of homes and commercial buildings hooked into the city’s water and sewage system based on how much they use it. If Charleston were doing it, they would charge a dollar to everyone who flushed a toilet within the city limits regardless of whether they owned the building.
As far as “office regurgitation” goes, Senator Sprouse supports the user fee at $1/week.
Stanton: Thanks for your comments. I love your blog.
Bravo for paying for your employees. I understand there is a need for funds, but I think sticking it to the out-of-city worker is the wrong way to do it.
Raging Red: Very funny!
Sorry for the re-post so soon, but I need to address a few things before I leave town:
BK: You can work for me if you pass the muster of my new HR manager, Raging Red.
Red: You are obviously an astute judge of character. Come work for me and I’ll pay your user fee.
Will: How do you eat lunch downtown for $5?
Yours Truly,
Stanton, Inspirer of Misogynists
I do go to far sometimes. My apologies…. esp. to Stacey. Red- I don’t think I deserve the label of misogynist. I was more going for a comic bit. Apologies go out to you too.
Further comments will be submitted this evening.
Stanton: I have two words (and I gag as I say them) capitol cafeteria.
What’s your business, BTW?
BK - Well, obviously I don’t know you “in real life,” so my assessment is just based on what you wrote here, which I think is misogynist, even if it was intended as a joke. You addressed the merits of everyone else’s arguments but completely dismissed Stacey’s because you thought he was a woman.
But apology accepted.
Oops. Somehow I missed Stanton’s comment. If the position for HR manager is related to your ongoing pursuit of the perfect WV hot dog, then I accept.
I just wanted to get back on topic for a moment. Sorry to spur the off-topic comments Will.
Will - The need for funds is universal, regardless of the size of the City. My point in comparing the tax/fee structure in larger cities was to reveal the comparative insignificance of the User Fee. $52 a year in Charleston might as well be $0 when you compare it to the city (in addition to county and state) homeowner taxes somewhere else. Despite homeowners having to pay in excess of $5,000 per year to own a reasonable home within city limits, the city of Chicago is not in need of homebuyers, workers, or businesses. Those that don’t like it or can’t afford it, simply live or work somewhere else. Given the job availability outside of Charleston, $52/yr will not dissuade a potential employee from taking a job offer.
Thanks for showing how much you spend on a given day… one, single day. I don’t know how long your commute is, but I’m sure you do not have to fill your tank to the tune of $45 dollars on a daily basis. And how often do you purchase a $40 book? One a month perhaps? So let’s say you get gas once a week and buy a book once a month, and lunch/coffee/street parking are daily expenditures. So, at 0.5% B&O contribution from local business revenue plus the $1.50 straight to the city each day, you are talking about about a $2+ per month contribution to the city… maximum. I’m sure the city would thank you, but processing costs and cost of tracking down and collecting delinquent businesses, whittles that contribution down to something in the neighborhood of 30 cents a month. So, $3.60/year for an individual, and assuming you are the average consumer, would put net gain for the city at $150K+ per year. Let’s provide the city’s workers and citizens with meaningfully improved police service and street conditions with $150K a year.
Also, lets talk about your spending. If the user fee is too ‘taxing’, then how about carpooling, or checking a book out from the library? Bam! $85 saved in one day! Suddenly the user fee isn’t so bad! Now I realize there are some logistical and practical arguments that can be made, but this should illustrate the minor changes people can make if, in fact, the user fee causes some kind of undue hardship. Besides, I’m sure the KCPL would appreciate the foot traffic, and the environment would enjoy the reduced pollution. You ARE pro-environment, aren’t you?
I don’t mean to harp on this really, but it is something I feel strongly about (obviously). You noted that you think ‘sticking it to the worker’ is the wrong way to improve a police force and streets. My question to you is…. Then how? Everyone has complaints but when you ask them for suggestions a room will fall silent. You know as well as I do that the State severely limits the ways by which its political subdivisions can raise funds. Would we all feel better if the city were allowed to tax gasoline? Or how about imposing a $1 fee for movie admission? Heck… I don’t know, but at least I’m throwing ideas out there and willing to help get the job done.
As a segway here…. It is funny that you mention the sewage system. How about that Combined Sewer Overflow? I think we should all be saving our breath for the boom in fees that the Charleston Sanitary Board is going to have to impose. It truly will cost about a dollar to flush the toilet in 5-10 years. And there is nothing any of us (the State included) will be able to do about it.
The User Fee vote is basically asking the citizens whether or not they want more police and better roads. The migrant workers (ahem, commuters) will simply have to suck it up or find somewhere else in the region to work (to whom a wish a very hearty goooooood luck).
Anyhow… my fingers are getting tired…Hopefully this adds some fuel to the fire.
Red - I was actually being sarcastic about Jim’s comment. Stanton’s comment was the only one I was being nice to.
BK:
Paragraph 2: The last sentence is your opinion, not empirical data.
Paragraph 3: Your math is nothing short of appalling. I don’t have time to correct you on every mistake. I’ll just give you an “F” and tell you to be on your way.
Paragraph 4: So the reason your tax is onerous is because you believe I waste my money? How arrogant can you get?
Paragraph 5: What about you tax the citizens of Charleston and leave the people on the outside out of it? Increase the property taxes. As I said in my article, the legislature should give the cities liberty to be more creative with their methods of taxation.
–
The user fee is supposedly my remuneration to the city for the services I use, right? Then I want the city to prove I have used $1 of paving and police. With Baton Rouge, they have meters that know exactly how much of their service a citizen uses. With Charleston, people are just saying a dollar because it sounds good.
Will
Paragraph 2: I think it is plain to see that the bulk of what I have written is opinion.
Paragraph 3: Its not like I spent an hour on Excel working out the numbers. It is merely an (admittedly rough) illustration that certainly does not take into account SEVERAL factors. If you would like to meet up and hash out something more formal, I’d be glad to do so. Therefore, I reject your “F” and substitute my own “B-”.
Paragraph 4: I’m saying that we all waste money…some more than others. Why do we complain about $52 a year for the common good? I know I would gladly pay a buck a week for the increased chance of someone’s life being saved, or an additional criminal being caught. How selfish are you?
Paragraph 5: I know what you wrote and I was agreeing with you. No need to take such an adversarial stance.
-
See Paragraph 4 again- It’s not about you personally making use of police services… It is a community benefit (i.e. not measurable by a meter). Someone, somewhere will benefit from additional police, and the Chief of Police will certainly have some statistics to verify it.
If you work in the City, you use the streets. No reasonable argument can sidestep that. If you would like it metered somehow, why not have toll booths be placed at every entrance to the city? Better save your change, because it will cost you a dime to come into my city via any convenient roadway.
As far as accounting procedures are concerned, it is written into law that the funds be treated and noted such that there will be no question as to how the money is spent. However, most opponents to the user fee are too busy complaining to ask for this information.
If the user fee is to pay for services I use like driving on Charleston’s streets, how come the streets that get paved with the money are mostly in residential areas where I never drive?
Aren’t citizens of Charleston being taxed twice? Don’t they already pay a municipal fee for these services?
WV Hillbilly - Strictly speaking to street proportions, yes, there are probably more streets in residential areas than commercial or industrial. But the people in those residential areas pay the city fees too. Furthermore, residential streets experience much less wear and tear than the primary thoroughfares, and therefore require a reduced frequency of repair (simple shear friction principles). Perhaps the reason you don’t notice the main street repairs would be that crews patch roads after 5pm rush, and are so incredibly good at what they do, it takes very little time to complete repairs.
Fire protection, trash, and sanitary fees are all you pay if you are homeowner. Renters generally pay only sanitary fees. The Charleston Sanitary Board is a completely separate entity from the city government, so the city never sees any of your trash and sanitary fees.
It is amazing that people think the city has such a robust plethora of revenue streams. I don’t think the User Fee would even exist if it had all the money people thought. The City’s budget is only about $68 million a year. Sounds like a lot to us, but when you do things like pay 1000 employees, equip them, give across the board 3% annual raises (to keep up with inflation), pay insurance, put up with several annual frivolous lawsuits, provide free or inexpensive recreation and entertainment alternatives, and support social programs like the KRT and homeless shelters its no wonder the city wants this fee. Gosh…. $52 a year to save my butt and my car’s shocks doesn’t sound like a bad deal!
Maybe the ‘User Fee’ should be renamed to the ‘Police and Paving Fee’. Maybe that would calm a few people down.
[…] Charleston Gazette says vote for more taxes […]
[…] The Charleston user tax was a big issue around here in the middle of the year. In “The Charleston Gazette Says Vote For More Taxes” I explained why I do not think I should be taxed once again in this overtaxed state. Mayor Danny Jones wasn’t too happy with the article and subsequently called me a coward for not going into the military. Yeah, go figure. […]