The city can't afford bus service or health care but can afford fish for a salt-water aquarium.
You've got to be kidding, right?
On October 24, 2008, a claim was submitted to the city council in the amount of $423.00 for purchases made at Pet Playground, 6944 Kennedy Avenue.
A variety of tropical fish (Black Bar Soldier, Yellow Angel, 2 Bluefin Damsels, Pajama Cardinals) were purchased for a salt-water aquarium.
Further investigation revealed claims in 2006 for $2,239.35, in 2007 for $3,693.95 and in 2008 (up until October) for $2,766.50 for fish, salt and other aquarium-related items. This comes to a grand total of $8,699.80!
Where did the money come from to pay for the $8,699.80 in fish and aquarium supplies? The mayor's discretionary gaming fund. Contrary to what the mayor believes; gaming revenue is still taxpayers' money!
Hammond citizens will lose their ability to get to work, the doctor or grocery shop when bus service is cut as of June 30, 2009 but hey! the mayor has a beautiful salt-water aquarium with tropical fish for him to enjoy.
Well you know what they say, it's all about the RIGHT PRIORITIES!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The city can't afford bus service or health care but can afford fish for a salt-water aquarium.
At Monday night's Hammond City Council meeting, council members approved a heavily amended 2009 city budget.
Missing from the budget was the clause which would have raised Fire Chief Dave Hamm's salary to parity with Police Chief Brian Miller's salary. In Mayor McDermott's proposed 2009 city budget submitted in August, Hamm's annual salary would have jumped from $70,000 to $82,400. Hamm's salary was bumped back down to $72,100 after the city council nixed the request.
McDermott argued that the city council was risking a $250,000 lawsuit for violating the firefighters' contract requirements; however, Council President Dan Repay said the city council had agreed to give all city employees a 3 percent raise. The issue was a matter of fairness.
"If Dave Hamm wants to sue us, that's a chance we'll have to take," Councilwoman JoAnn Matanovich said.
Had the City Council voted down the amended budget, they would have had until December 1 (state deadline for 2009 budgets) to meet in a special session. Otherwise, the budget submitted to the state would have been at the amount submitted in September. (Is this a good thing or a bad thing for taxpayers? What is the difference in the two amounts?)
The issue first came up in February with a city ordinance to achieve parity between the Fire Chief and Police Chief. The ordinance was rejected by failure of the council to bring it to a vote.
If the mayor declines to sign off on the budget, the 2009 budget would revert back to the 2008 budget amount.
During the next two weeks, the Lake County Council will schedule four meetings to finalize a 2009 cost-cutting budget.
Budget workshop sessions are scheduled for 2 p.m. Friday, November 21, 10 a.m. Saturday, November 22, and 5:30 p.m. Monday, November 24. The final meeting will be at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 25 and will be for the second and final reading of the 2009 budget.
County council members said they are only two-thirds of the way to cutting $15 million from current spending levels. This amount must be cut from the budget in response to declining property tax revenues imposed by the tax caps of House Bill 1001. A reduction of 66 full-time jobs has already been pledged by county officials.
Christine Cid, Lake County Council President, said she will make new public recommendations shortly regarding the sheriff, coroner and assessor offices.
In September, Sheriff Roy Domingues announced 48 payroll positions would be lifted from the
county tax levy. This would be achieved through job elimination, privatization and a new eviction fee landlords must now pay resulting in a savings of $2 million.
In her opinion, Cid said the sheriff's cost-cutting measures weren't enough. Cid has already said if certain county departments don't make the required budget cuts, the county council will do it for them.
Blunt Proof of the Feasibility to Permanently Abolish Property Tax
Melyssa Donaghy 317-938-8913
Max Katz 765-409-6669
BLUNT PROOF OF THE FEASIBILITY TO PERMANENTLY ABOLISH PROPERTY TAX.
Hoosiers For Fair Taxation, Senator Delph, Representative Noe, Representative Elrod and many other legislators along with Stop Indiana, attorney John Price, Eric Miller's Advance America, and the Statewide Taxpayer Alliance know that property tax abolishment, without substantial increases in sales tax and income tax, is realistic and possible. The economist Dr. Bill Styring's 2/2/2 Plan demonstrates that the state of Indiana can completely replace property tax without changing the state's current spending habits.
Dr. Styring's plan does not account for positive changes in Indiana's economy that will undoubtedly follow the elimination of property tax such as heavy real estate investment and increased consumer spending due to increased statewide disposable income. The real estate investment in Indiana alone would cause such an economic boom that it could likely end our abandoned property and foreclosure crisis. Property tax elimination would also likely cause a surge in Indiana's population as more people locate to Indiana to take advantage of real estate purchase opportunities without the burden of property tax. With the population surge would come more sales and income taxes.
The General Assembly does not have to adopt a specific plan until the year 2011. In the meantime, we recommend that the General Assembly approves the 27steps outlined in the report prepared by the Sheperd Kernan commission. While the Governor's commission cannot forecast the savings to the state once the plan is implemented, there is no doubt that the savings would be substantial--perhaps equivalent to the the entire property tax burden currently placed on Indiana's homeowners because our legislators have not had the political will to liberate Indiana's governing structure and her taxpayers from the 19th century.
Our citizen networks will work to replace all legislators who do not support property tax repeal in the November 2008 election.
The 2/2/2 Plan, to replace property taxes in Indiana based upon the latest revenue forecast (07/08 fiscal, estimate):
1) Current IN sales tax (state level rate of 6%): $5.601 billion2% increase would yield an additional $1.867 billion
2) Current corporate profits tax: ~$2 billion
2% increase would yield an additional $.286 billion ($286M)
3) A 2% statewide average of the COIT would yield $2.705 billion to cover local civil units of gov.
By adding these three together ($1.867 billion + $.286 billion + $2.705 billion), a total of $4.858 billion is realized; enough revenue to replace property taxes.
PROPERTY TAX HISTORY PREPARED BY DR. BILL STYRING
Indiana has a 70-plus year history of attempts to lower property taxes by raising other, non-property taxes. In every case these have failed miserably. The new taxes, or higher rates on old taxes, remain in place. And, in short order, property taxes rise back to their old levels, poised to roar even higher.
--1933. General Assembly imposes two new taxes: an individual gross income tax and a corporate gross income tax. The morgue of the Indianapolis Star indicates that the political leadership at the time said this was for property tax relief (1933 was the pits of the Great Depression, and people were losing their homes. Home prices declined by over 40% in the 1929-1933 period). Property tax relief was nonexistent. The state used the money to bail out the state's own finances.
--1963. General Assembly imposes a new sales tax at a rate of 2% and changes the 1933 individual gross income tax (from 1933) to an adjusted gross income tax (the one we have now) at a rate of 2%. Again, the ostensible reason was for property tax relief and again little PTR was forthcoming.
--1967. Those 1963 tax changes were raising more money than projected. The GA decides to give back 8% of sales and income tax revenue to local government for property tax relief. Local units spent the money. No PTR.
--1973. Gov. Otis Bowen launches the most determined PTR offensive yet. The sales tax goes to 4% and a new corporate supplemental net income (profits) tax is imposed. Strict property tax levy controls are imposed. It works... for a time. By 1980, property taxes adjusted for inflation are some 30% lower than in 1973. When Bowen leaves office the levy controls are relaxed. By the end of the decade, property taxes (adjusted for inflation) are back to 1973 levels. The doubling of the sales tax rate from 2% to 4% remains in place, along with the new corporate SNIT.
--2002. More fiddling with the sales tax in the hope of property tax relief. The results of this are obvious, or we wouldn't be debating the current property tax mess. All of this suggests that unless the property tax is totally ripped up by constitutional amendment, the assessment and collection mechanism dismantled, it will grow back. The PTR-inspired hikes in other taxes remain. That is our history. It is a terrible deal for taxpayers.
2. A vote in the 2008 legislative session for a constitutional amendment to repeal property taxes does not amend the constitution. It merely starts the amendment process. Amendments must be passed by two consecutively elected General Assemblies, then submitted to a referendum. Thus any amendment passed by the '08 Assembly must be passed by either the 2009 or 2010 legislatures, then submitted to the voters at the 2010 general election. The General Assembly does not need to decide on a "replacement revenue" package until the 2011 session.
3. What might such a "replacement revenue" package look like? The particular answer will come from the 2011 General Assembly and cannot be determined now (if for no other reason than forecasting state level taxes and property taxes out that far would be a most unreliable exercise. No one need be locked into any particular plan just yet. However, as an illustration that a replacement plan is feasible and less scary than many fear (we don't need to be talking about a 12% or 13% sales tax ... in fact, we should not be), consider just this one possibility.
Local sales taxes are generally very bad policy, for a whole host of reasons too numerous to mention in this short sketch. Sales and corporate taxes are best levied at the state level. It happens that roughly a 2% increase in the sales tax and a 2% increase in the corporate profits tax roughly take care of school propertytaxes. The loss of local control by the state assuming school property taxes is minimal. About the onlylocal control left is on building projects.
For local civil units, a statewide average increase in the individual adjusted gross income tax of about 2% suffices to replace local civil government property taxes, higher than 2% in some units, less than 2% in others.
Thus, a "2-2-2" plan~2% sales and 2% corporate profits at the state level for schools and a 2% average on personal income taxes for civil units—is about what would be needed. This is merely a ballpark projection to 2011.
There may be better plans, it's really a policy question for the General Assembly: do you want to make the trade of something like this in exchange for no-property-taxes-forever-on-anything? Everyone understands "zero."
4. Are there "practical problems? Of course. The two identified are how to make the civil government transition from a property tax base to an income tax base, and how to handle debt backed by property taxes. Without elaborating, the former can be handled using locator software (Map quest-type programs). The debt problem might be handled by treating the current state paid PTRC's as in lieu of property taxes (which they are) and paying PT-backed debt service from each unit's own PTRC.
Conclusion: Total elimination of the property tax via constitutional amendment is the only way to give property tax relief that will stick. The other tax action necessary to achieve this goal—in 2011-are large but not so scary as "a 13% sales tax." They are feasible. The question is for the General Assembly. Are we going to once again go down that 70-odd year path of failed PTR policies or are we going to rip the property tax up by the roots?
Posted by Hoosiers For Fair Taxation on Friday, January 4, 2008.