Posted on 07/24/2008 6:47:40 AM PDT by DallasBiff
n 2005, I asked Angelenos to join me in re-imagining their city as a dynamic world capital defined by its flexibility and mobility, not by traffic and smog.
I challenged them to imagine communities connected not by bigger, wider highways but by a real network of public transit options -- rapid buses, trains and subway lines -- connecting every neighborhood in our county's 88 cities.
I asked them to imagine cleaner and greener neighborhoods where we each pitch in to combat global warming and create a more sustainable city.
Today, when I take the helm as chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, I will seek to place a measure on the November ballot increasing the county sales tax by half a cent to raise the badly needed funding to help make this vision a reality.
Over the last three years, public transportation in Los Angeles has received an unexpected boost as record gas prices have changed the math and more commuters are ditching their cars for trains and buses. Yet, as a board member of the MTA, I have also watched every year as transit lines get cut, projects are scaled back and critical construction on our clogged freeways is delayed by budget concerns.
Lack of political will and lack of funding have always been the fundamental obstacles in the way of a vision that demands long-term commitment and big investment.
The political will is now here. We have the opportunity to create a greater Los Angeles no longer chained to its cars and dependent on foreign oil, and where we are making smarter investments to ease traffic congestion and improve our quality of life.
The measure other board members and I are proposing -- which will raise the sales tax from 8.25% to 8.75% --
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
These government jerks just keep stealing greater and greater amounts of $.
Doubtful. So many people are now used to getting everything from the government that they can't wait to vote in a candidate who will be giving away the store. In the case of LA county in particular, are there even any right-leaning people left or did they all move away already?
It seems they do this every ten years. If you pay this additional tax, we promise to use it for something worthwhile. Then once it is passed they take the money and squander it. Every ten years there are enough new voters to fool.
Uhhh...let's see. The US Census places average US household income at $43318/year. While it's probably higher in LA, let's say it's this number. A half percent of that is $216. Since this is only a "half a tank of gas", in LA it must cost $432 to fill up your tank. Okay, that seems to suggest his math is wrong unless you have a 100 gallon gas tank, but there's an even bigger problem.
If he's so damn sure that better public transportation is the desire of everyone, then let the ticket prices pay the cost of the investment. Put the construction cost up for vote as a bond levy and let the people vote on it. If they think like he does, it will sail through with no problems. Once the system is constructed, set the ticket prices such that it pays all operating expenses plus debt funding. That way, it becomes a use tax rather than a general tax on everyone, especially those who don't want to, and never would, use public transportation.
This is just another example of empire building by some politician who is afraid to let the people decide what they want.
Not that I'm in favor of this, but the proposal is for a sales tax increase. Americans don't spend anywhere close to 100% of their income on retail purchases. The largest item in most household budgets is housing, which is not subject to sales tax.
Thank God I don't live in LA anymore. If I did, my answer to Villagarosa's pretty words would be the same as my answer to any government official who waxes rhapsodic about the benefits of some proposed new program: if it's that damned important, cut spending on something that isn't as important. The government already takes more than enough of my money, thank you.
I heard the same excuses when I lived there in the late nineteen sixties.
Yep, you’re right. I should have deducted something for housing. However, I still like my idea of a bond levy better than a general sales tax increase. Here in Indy, we added a special sales tax to everything purchased in and around downtown to fund the new stadium. So, even if you don’t like sporting events, you must pay for it anytime you buy something in the downtown area. Why not ask the voters if they want to fund it from a bond and then use the ticket prices to fund the debt service for the stadium? I’d much prefer a use tax to a general tax for specific items.
“I asked them to imagine a world in which all of these things are paid for out of the pockets of homeowners who were not asked if they wanted sweeping, grand, feel-good programs implemented on their behalf, and then I asked them to picture homeowners abandoning their homes to move to cities where the tax burden does not drag down people who are struggling to survive under a democratic Congress that won’t budge on drilling our own oil...”
“I asked them to imagine a world in which all of these things are paid for out of the pockets of homeowners who were not asked if they wanted sweeping, grand, feel-good programs implemented on their behalf, and then I asked them to picture homeowners abandoning their homes to move to cities where the tax burden does not drag down people who are struggling to survive under a democratic Congress that won’t budge on drilling our own oil...”
Los Angeles can increase its sales tax to 50% for all I care.
If that’s what the mice who live there want, they can vote for it.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I used to when I lived down there. At the time, with tranfers, it'd cost about .75 to $1.00, about the same as gas would of cost (1970s).
I never saw free busing until I rode one in Seattle in the 90's.
Los Angeles is laid out like a checkerboard for the most part, and they already have a monolithic RTD system, with buses everywhere conceivable. If an established bus system (they also have some light rails) has failed, WTH makes them think an underground system would be a success? Not to mention the unlikelyhood of anyone wanting to venture underground in the earthquake capital of the US.
If they're losing money, trim the fat and raise the rates, and if there aren't enough riders to pay for a line, cancel it.
If this is just another effort to force people out of their cars, forget it. Anyone driving alone in their own car with $5 gas is doing so out of need, such as shopping, having multiple destinations, less than 2 hours available to reach each destination, anyone who brings more than a laptop to work, or are tired of the crime that goes along with mass transit.
Yep, you’re right. I should have deducted something for housing.
It's not just that. You can't multiply income by sales tax and get anything meaningful... an awful lot of anybody's income goes to things other than retail sales. (The percentage of income that isn't spent on items subject to sales tax, by the way, is much lower for the poor, therefore sales tax increases like this one disproportionately hurt people on the lower end of the income scale.) You also erred in using average household income as your baseline, when Villaigarosa's claim was about additional costs per capita.
Los Angeles County has a per capita income of $20,683 (2000) and a population of 9,948,081, for a total income in the county of about $206B. But total taxable sales in the county were only $138B. From this we can conclude that the average resident of Los Angeles County spends about 66% of his income on taxable sales (which is honestly more than I expected), or $13,650, so an increase of 0.5 in the sales tax rate would cost him $68/year... which is still way more than Villagairosa said.
However, I still like my idea of a bond levy better than a general sales tax increase.
I don't see the difference. If the state issues bonds, the state will have to pay them back at some point (or, I suppose, default, which it would not at all surprise me to see California do at some point. I suspect, though I haven't checked, that I'm not alone in this opinion and therefore California has to pay higher interest rates on its bonds) and the money to redeem the bonds will have to come from somewhere. Hike taxes now, or hike them later.
I agree that user fees are vastly preferable to general taxes, but they're not very likely.
But this whole thing is ridiculous. California's general fund took in 95 BILLION dollars in revenue last year. That's "billion" with a "b". Seriously, that ought to be more than enough to run a state government.
I don't live anymore in California but all these tax increases are just going to prompt more people to pack up and leave the state and it will discourage others from settling in California.
I don't know why anybody would be dumb enough to start a business in California today. The government there seems to be badly afflicted with static thinking: "if we're collecting a billion dollars today with a tax of 10%, then we'll collect two billion with a tax rate of 20%" Well, no, you won't... because the people who are making the money and paying the taxes will get tired of it and leave.
It may be different in CA, but in IN, bond levies must be voted on by the people affected (e.g., new school construction, libraries, etc.) If it applied to CA, then the people in LA would get the chance to have their voices heard via a bond levy vote, whereas a general sales tax increase doesn't require voter approval.
If your mayor really believes that people want the expanded public transportation services, he should let the people vote on it. If the voters say no, case closed. If they say yes, then the fare price for the use of the transportation system should be high enough to pay the expenses plus debt service. In that sense, it is a use tax. I think this is a more fair solution since it follows the Benefits Received principle of taxation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.