Wednesday, September 12, 2007

So Much Heat Over RTA Sales Tax Hike Plan from a Typo

I see my typo generated a lot of heat yesterday on Illinoize while I was occupied elsewhere. From the comments, I sense that not a lot of people linked to McHenry County Blog's original story.

My calculations indicate that the RTA tax hike proposed by Democrat State Rep. Julie Hamos will cost McHenry County families about $200 a year, not the "$200 a month" that I mistakenly typed in yesterday's article.

That may be chump change to the folks in Chicago that want to pick suburbanites' pockets yet again, but out here we fight major battles when local tax districts want to raise our taxes $200 a year.

One other comment I found laughable.

It was about collar county residents should be happy that half of the tax hike will be be earmarked for our county boards to spend on highways. That's about $9 million for that square on the upper left hand corner of the Chicago TV's weather map.

If we want to raise our sales taxes by one quarter of one percent and earmark it for highways, we can follow Rockford's example and VOTE on that idea in a referendum. It might even pass.

I know Chicago-centric Illinoize commenters may be unfamiliar with the concept of people actually voting on tax hikes. But, you did it once way back in 1974. The official results show you won that RTA referendum, but there was demonstrable vote fraud and the timid new State Board of Elections would not allow a recount. You won by under 12,000 votes using paper ballots.

If you advocate increasing RTA taxes again, why not be big and bold and put your idea on the ballot?

But, you're not that bold, are you?

We in the collar counties don't need Chicago Democrats doing us the big favor of forcing our sales taxes up $100 a year to pay for roads the state has woefully neglected. (The potholes are on McHenry County's main north-south road, Route 31.)

Not that some of our local county board members wouldn't be delighted to have state legislators take the fall for raising taxes and giving them $9 million a year to spend on asphalt. (Or does the bill require the county board to vote to impose the tax?)

What follows is how I got to the $200 per year. If you want to challenge my logic, have at it. But have the decency to use source date from the Illinois Department of Revenue, as I did.

And, if you can find anyone else who has brought the price of this legislation down to what it would cost a local family, please tell me where to find the story or the analysis.

It's at least $18 million that will be picked out the pockets of McHenry County shoppers every 12 months if the General Assembly passes the half percentage point RTA-Road Sales Tax Hike.

To put that in perspective, $207 million was collected in sales taxes throughout the county this past year. So, the proposed sales tax increase would hike sales taxes 8.7%.

Previously, I estimated the increase would be at least 7.6% and pointed out how a local newspaper was helping the RTA to raise taxes with its headline. That calculation was based on using the tax rates. This one uses actual dollars.

If only the 89,403 McHenry County households paid the tax, it would amount to $231 a family. But, since businesses pay some sales tax, the figure per household will actually be less.

Maybe local folks won't care.

That’s certainly what the legislators behind this tax hike are hoping.

If the legislation becomes law, the Regional Transportation Authority will get another $9 million. About $100 per McHenry County family.

Almost half of the RTA’s McHenry County $9 million will go to the Chicago Transit Authority, according to Kevin Craver’s Northwest Herald article.

And the county board will get the same amount--$9 million--to spend, apparently as it wishes, on roads it wants to improve. That’s almost twice as much as $4.6 million collected in McHenry County Motor Fuel Taxes this past year.

The county board just decided to borrow $50 million to improve roads. If the $9 million per year were similarly bonded, an extra, what, almost $100 million could be spent on roads.

14 comments:

Anonymous,  8:05 AM  
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cal Skinner 9:12 AM  

And, the blog administrator is not me.

Rich Miller 10:11 AM  

It was me. The guy spammed half the posts here and my blog as well.

Anonymous,  5:51 PM  

antoin,
Morons like you are one of the reasons Barack is so popular among all voters in Illinois.

Anonymous,  8:16 PM  

First of all, thanks for the clarification Cal. I’m glad to know it was an honest typo. All of us make mistakes.

Second, I respect your opinion and am glad you contribute to Illinoize. I also admire your tenacity. Good for you for going all out with your argument and allowing people like me to comment on your posts. You have more guts than I do.

I don’t agree with you on this issue, plain and simple, and have neither the expertise nor the time to explain why your arguments are false. Others more articulate than I have done that already, here and elsewhere. I’ll try to add some light to my previous heat.

I don’t like the way you present your case, it’s emblematic of the manipulation of public ignorance that passes for news analysis, when in fact it is self-serving political bias. As one example, you said: “the RTA tax hike proposed by Democrat State Rep. Julie Hamos will cost McHenry County families about $200 a year.” Clearly that is correct, according to your financial calculations, which you cling to desperately, and which I don’t dispute.

What you didn’t say is that Hamos’ bill has the support of Democrats and Republicans, of business groups and non-profits. It has the support of the members of the RTA board. In short, Democratic State Rep. Julie Hamos is one member of a broad regional, bipartisan coalition that has been developing this massive legislative reform package for several years. That’s why most editorial boards have endorsed this idea.

So I’d like you to acknowledge that, that lots of respected people have spent the necessary time investigating and examining regional transit in the Chicago area and have concluded that $200 in annual sales tax increases for McHenry County residents isn’t an unfair burden. Families in Cook County will pay more too. And families in Chicago will continue to pay the most. And users are paying higher fares already. And that after 30 years of the same funding structure, perhaps it really is time for an increase.

Pass a referenum is your answer, and in many ways we’d agree that this was a preferable course in certain circumstances. Except what happens when you inflame opposition with your factually correct, yet horribly out of context arguments and then McHenry votes it down? Will the benefits stop at the County line? Of course not.

My main reason against referenda on critical public issues is that simplistic arguments like yours continue to convince people to vote against their self-interest, and the public good. Arguing against you is difficult given the simplistic framing of very complex public policy issues. You manipulate rather than inform, because informing the voters is simply too difficult, too costly, and too counter to your wishes. Private interest v. the public good, where increased taxes are easily quantified and public good is almost a foreign concept, that’s not an argument. It is a manipulation. That's what I'm opposed to: dumbing down the debate.

I’ll ask you again: what do you think is the fair tax contribution from McHenry County residents for the benefits they receive from regional mass transit? You opposed the creation of the RTA in 1974, are you advocating now for its elimination in 2008?

Let your readers know the whole story, or your commenters will try to fill in some of the blanks.

JBP 6:13 AM  

47w,

So Julie Hamos, a "bipartisan coalition", "most editorial boards", "Democrats Republicans and non-profits" are backing a political issue? That sounds to me like an ideal opponent for any sensible resident of Illinois.

Wouldn't the average taxpayer in Illinois be a better judge of how to spend his own money than the rogues gallery you listed above?

JBP

Anonymous,  10:14 AM  

why let taxpayers deciede how there money should be spent when you have honest hard working officals like Daley Stroger and Blago

Anonymous,  10:43 AM  

A typo, short for typographical error, is when you strike the wrong key. Typing "month" when you mean "year" is not a typo. But it may well be an honest mistake.

Cal Skinner 11:45 AM  

When you get to be 65, may you never type the wrong word.

Anonymous,  3:36 AM  

How can Chicago run the Olympics if it can't run a World Class transit system?

We keep on focusing on more money, which is a current reality BUT we have not yet talked about (or Daley and Blagojevich have not yet talked about):

1. Patronage at the CTA, lots of hacks in painting, administration, construction including convicts or ex convicts, people fired from the city, political

2. A politically appointed hack board.

3. Contract cronyism at the CTA, remember that Victor Reyes stole the contract from Gery Chico to represent the French design company of the euro-chique yet expensive CTA waiting stations downtown that Daley like--lobbying for them WHILE HE WAS ON THE BOARD!!!! lots of other contracts too

4. Pensions that are sky high and you could never find in the private sector.

5. Drivers and other employees (admittedly you can get some tough passengers too) who are rude, bad drivers, ignorant etc.

6. The elimination of service that made no sense. There were cuts in Hispanic areas where an illegal probably para transit jitney system exists that you can find by going to 26th Street at starting about 4 AM and seeing people from 4AM to 7 AM riding vans with other people going to work--it exists elswhere too. When I lived in Washington DC the El Salvadorians had their own non government regulated "bus" and cab system. For all the Mexicans working at night and weekends, and yes not to stereotype--but maids, janitors, chefs, busboys, waiters, dishwashers, nannies, construction--who work nights and weekends--public transit was the way to go--they a lost a lot of ridership.

7. Too much money spent on new downtown stations, and beautification of downtown and north-south lakefront lines

8. No people who know transit.
Isn't former Alderman Mike Wojcik--the guy who didn't finish his Physical Education degree from UIC or Northwestern have a 6 figure job in Public Affairs--maybe his grammatically correct press releases--or IT--he probably took a lot of computer classes in PE major.
Fire Mike Wojcik before you talk about money.

9. WHAT DOES RON HUBERMAN KNOW ABOUT THE CTA OR MASS TRANSIT????!!!!!!!
Why is he so brilkiant again???!!!!
Was he the one who cleaned up the City???!!!!
Was he the one that cleaned up the Police force???!!!
What is his resume???!!!!!

10. Cal, didn't you serve with Sam Panyototayovic in the State House--wasn't he known as Edward Vrdolyak's guy?? I think he was even a Republican State Rep until Clem Balanoff beat him.
How was his wife qualified to be on the CTA board???!!!!
Did she know transportation??
or finance???
or mass transit???
or computers

11. There is no VISION, NO PLAN, NO PHILOSOPHY, NO MISSION STATEMENT

12. Daley likes to go to other countries--what can we learn from other countries with good trains and buses

13. Can we privatize anything???

14. With gross mismanagement, patronage jobs, idiots like Mike Wojcik, 11th ward hacks, Victor Reyes on the board, State Reps wives on the boards (these boards make $35,000 a year with pension, and health benefits--hell--I would do it for FREE just for the PENSION AND HEALTH!!!!)
So the workers are political
The board is political
The contracts are fixed and political
The jobs are political
The pensions are huge
AND THEY WANT MORE TAXPAYER MONEY!!!
I agree with Mass Transit--I agree that low income people should have a way to get to work--WORK IS GOOD--TRAINS AND BUSES ARE GOOD--I think less gas, less cars on roads, less traffic, less congestion, less air pollution--ALL GOOD

WHAT IS BAD IS
WASTEFUL PATRONAGE
BAD PEOPLE IN JOBS
LOTS OF WASTE
IDIOTS IN JOBS
POLITICS RUNNING EVERYTHING
CRONYISM IN CONTRACTS
BAD CHOICES TO SPEND MONEY
HUGE PENSIONS
BAD EMPLOYEES
OUTDATED TECHNOLOGY
AND ALWAYS WANTING TAXPAYER BAILOUTS
OR HIGHER FARES

We need to get to the root causes. Not always just ask for money or put on a show.

Anonymous,  4:50 AM  

47W,

You indicated that the Hamos Bill had "bi-partisan support".

While there was no publiched roll call, reports indicated that only 5 House R's supported the bill when it came before the Illinois House.

This is not to suggest that no more than 5 may actually support it either now; or in the future, but when given the best opportunity to demonstrate their support, it would seem an overwhelming number of the House R's refused to do so. On its face, that does not seem to be very "bi-partisan", but rather just the opposite.

The measure when served up alone; and defeated as it was, seems to be nothing but partisan, by both D's and R's.

The R's seemed to have determined that you will not "get yours" until we "get ours" also, and they simply helped to defeat the measure as a means to a more comprehensive "bipartisan solution" to a broader range of issues.

I think what Cal is suggesting in a referendum, is that both the R's, and the D's might be surprised to find that there could be considerable opposition to the bill from average citizens that lean either way politically but are not entrenched in the system.

It looks to me however like the measure as proposed only has "bi-partisan support" as part of a larger budget compromise, and does not enjoy "bi-partisan" support on its own.

Not only that, but given the Senate's cancelled session, it appears as though it does not even have unanimous support from the D's in that chamber, which would be sufficient to send it back to the House. Instead of the absence of "bi-partisanship" there, the objections would seem to be geographic, rather than political ideology.

In essence you could say then that this measure not only falls short of b-partisan support, but also doesn't have sufficient "partisan support" even from a veto proof majority partisan group.





Without one; "let them eat cake"

It looks to me

Cal Skinner 11:35 AM  

Jitneys make all sorts of sense.

I think I introduced--or maybe I had drafted--a bill while I was helping conservative legislators that would have allowed anyone with an inspected car and sufficient insurance to run a jitney.

You can bet they would not serve routes that wouldn't make money and they would provide "taxi" service to areas which can't get enough of it now.

Rich Miller 9:47 AM  

Cal, I'd still like to know how you reached the $200 a year figure.

According to the census, McHenry County retail sales per capita in 2002 was $9,451. Persons per household was 2.89 in 2000. So, a 0.5 percent increase in the sales tax would be $136.57 per household, which is far away from your $200 figure. Do McHenry County residents do that much out of county shopping?

Please respond.

Anonymous,  11:27 PM  

Thanks for the plug, Cal. Of course a land tax is the way to fund public transit, as even an RTA study done in 1997 showed. Jeff Smith and Tom Gihring recently updated their big compilation of such studies, which I can find if you're interested. As you know from my blog (http://taxpayer.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/new-data-on-supporting-transit-thru-a-land-value-tax/), total land value for the RTA area is estimated at substantially more than $1 trillion.
It seems that Illinois Dept of Revenue no longer publishes "effective tax rate" data, but the Civic Federation calculated it for 2005 http://www.civicfed.org/articles/civicfed_253.pdf and for homeowners Chicago is still lower than anywhere except Barrington. Of course this is partly due to Cook County's classification system, as I am sure you know. And partly due to so many folks wanting to live in Chicago, so land costs are high. Who pays a lower percentage of value than Chicago homeowners? Owners of Chicago vacant land, as shown on page 5 of this http://revenue.illinois.gov/Publications/LocalGovernment/PtaxStats/2005AssessmentRatios.pdf report (Triad 1 = Chicago). Although the data show assessment ratios rather than effective tax rates, within Chicago or any other tax jurisdiction the ratios are proportional.

-- Chuck Metalitz
Henry George School/Chicago
hgchicago.org

btw, this comment actually responds to your post on McHenry County Blog...google wouldn't let me post there.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP