Chamber Organizes Against City Tax Increase

Tax increase is must if we need to maintain the curren standard of living in our city. Business community must understand the hard choices we face as we moved in to deeper recession, and possible double digit unemployment. Seattle leaders should not ignore the public services at the expense of the chamber of commerce.

I always hear that Americans are compassionate people. A time of difficulties, those who have more money need to pay a little bit more for the common good. And in fact, it is the interest of the business community to increase tax because the added tax will increase employment, and services which will increase the consumption. Higher cosumption means the businesses are generating more income.

I think the champer of Commerce needs to take 101 Economics.

And what services does the Chamber think should be cut? Oh, that's right: like Eyman, that's not for them to say.

There are a lot of businesses that have raised their prices in the last 18-24 months as this recession hit.

Further, government is NOT a business, nor should it act like one. The only reason there is even a modicum of economic recovery underway is the massive, yet not massive enough, federal stimulus bill.

At the local level, the Seattle economy needs public services and the spending that provides those services to be sustained, if not increased, if the city is to come out of the recession strong and able to attract jobs and businesses.

The quote was “cut costs and reduce expenses”. While that could include blunt force solutions like cutting out services, it could also or instead mean more furlough days, offering early retirement and not refilling the position, skipping or delaying COLA raises (yup, I went there…) as long as the budget isn't balanced, etc.,.

I don't know what was included in the press release, but the conference hasn't even been held yet, maybe the groups are saving any suggestions they might have for for tomorrow? History tells me probably not, but why should they or anyone else have to come up with all of the solutions? Coming up with creative and effective solutions to budget problems are exactly the kind of thing that the city should carry the burden of. If they can't do that, then maybe certain cuts ARE part of the answer.

We are surprised? Well maybe only that they came out before any proposals instead of waiting to react.

If they offer no suggestions on what to cut, I'd like to see the news media point that out as much as the fact the groups are simply calling for cuts. The news media (not pointing a finger at Publicola here, since nearly everyone does this) of simply reporting random statement diarrhea by various groups as 'news' gets a little old. “I HAVE A PRONOUNCEMENT!” Good for you! Why do you matter to society at large enough for us to give you free political air time?

Government always has to act like a business.

Services provided / cost to provide those services / taxes to pay those costs.

A city shouldn't run a profit, ideally, but it should always be a little bit in the black, but not in the way you'd like a business to be deep in the black. If government were a business that was always just getting by, things would be fine.

The real question is how many and what services should be provided, followed by the costs of those services, and last by how they should be paid.

C'mon, there's no sustainable recovery going on here, just a ton of Keynesian deficit spending and Fed printing that is papering over the same problems that we had a year ago. Nationally, private sector growth is very negative year over year and public spending is through the roof. Sadly, all this free money going into the banks is driving equities and commodities back into bubble land – which is making it look like there is inflation – hence the need for COLA's. In reality, everything besides gas, commodities, and food (heavily dependent on gas prices) is down – including housing, clothing, household furnishing, electronics…But while government costs increase, there is no growth (and instead contraction) in the private sector wages needed to pay for these taxes. A really vicious cycle. Pretty soon we'll all be like Greece.

The Chamber had a proposal to raise more revenue for the city, aggressive panhandling tickets, but the city rejected their idea. Now, they are taking the ball and going home.

If inflation doesn't go up, as it hasn't, COLA increases are nil.

Early retirement will tax an already stretched city pension fund. Since that will have to be made up by current city employees, I wouldn't be looking to cut them too much, or take away meager wage increases.

Face it, folks: Since 1980 or thereabouts we've deluded ourselves that we don't need to pay taxes. It was a lie when Reagan said it, it's still a lie today.

Sales and property taxes are the reason we got into this mess in the first place.

The political ball's starting to roll on a potential high-bracket income tax and that's a more practical way to go. Sure, businesses are being inherently selfish in fighting proposed tax increases, but they've got a point here. This is only going to hamper the economy in the short and long run, and isn't going to help the coffers in the long run, if at all in the short run.

Dollar for dollar, what costs more? The current salary or the would-be pension for the same person? The City's budget is already 'stretched', reducing and moving a budget item from one line to another (yes, I recognize it's more involved than that…) is still a savings for 'already stretched' taxpayers.

As far as 'meager wage increases' go, what makes them in particular more deserving of such over anyone else that has likely weathered income stagnation if not reduction or outright unemployment?

I never said anything about believing there is no need to pay taxes. What is being discussed here is whether or not the City should/could be doing more to reduce costs and whether or not it is smart to increase tax burdens in our current economic state.

I think panhandling ordinance would have increased the prison population. More Prison population would have cost us( the tax payers) way more money than what the city could have received from the poor panhandlers.

Again bad strategy…

Yes, government should run like a business. Also, this car should run like a bicycle and cats should eat dog food.

I'm sure Martin Luther King would be proud to have his name attached to the County with the highest sales tax on the West Coast, the second highest sales taxes in the nation, and a punishingly regressive tax structure on its poorest citizens.

Yes Gomez, if you mean revenue and spending for government that was unsustainable then property taxes and sales taxes got us into the mess we are currently in. Can't we just print some more money take Greek lessons ?

My wife and I aren't rich by any means, but I'd be willing to pay more in taxes if it meant we could maintain the quality of our City services. I'm not interested in seeing Parks gutted, Library branches closed more often, or other needed human services curtailed.

“….what makes them in particular more deserving of such over anyone else that has likely weathered income stagnation if not reduction or outright unemployment?”

They have a contract with the city. The city agreed to that contract out of their own free will – there wasn't even a realistic threat of a strike, because city employees are somewhat limited as to when/how they can strike.

The unions haven't been ironclad on this contract; Most unions (exceptions being Police, Fire, and certain Electrical Workers) have already agreed to a two week furlough this year, and will likely agree to another furlough next year.

Contrast that with my private sector employer, who cut our wages, but expects us to still perform a forty hour work week. Instead of being jealous or resentful of the city employees, I respect them for working with the city.

As someone pointed out, government is not private business, and should not be run as such. We need basic services (Water, sewer, Electric, Fire, Police), and we need to adequately fund the things that we have invested in (parks, libraries, community centers, etc). In addition, we need to fund human services; Not only is it “the right thing to do”, it helps reduce the need for labor in the essential services.

We need mature, serious thinking here – not emotion driven, knee-jerk response because of some long-held mythology about entitled city workers.

remember when this same coalition was advocating for the largest tax increase in seattle history? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edcetera/… oh how the times have changed.

Yes, we must continue the flow of money from the North End to the South end….go figure.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the mature, serious thinking that was threaded in with your earlier emotional and knee jerk response to even the suggestion that there might be more that the city could do besides cut services entirely.

It's neither through resentment nor jealousy that I'm asking for some creativity on the city's part in dealing with this. The most basic alternative to small cuts and well thought out tax increases are big cuts (think layoffs) in departments that nobody is going to be happy with and still probably some poorly thought out and bigger tax hikes.

“cut costs and reduce expenses—as private employers would do—before pursuing new taxes,”

—Riiiiight. Because private corporations never reduce huge wages instead of raising prices.

Pot: meet black kettle.

Yes, because everyone knows that dumps like Greenwood, Aurora, Lake City and the U-District all support Seward Park, Leschi, Queen Anne, Mt. Baker, Madrona, Denny-Blaine, Montlake, Madison Park, Broadmoor and all of West Seattle.

That fairy tale ended decades ago, darling. You have as much ghetto as we do.

Yes, they waste money. No, they're not going to fix their problematic wasteful habits. Yes, if they don't find new revenue sources they're just going to cut programs and services. No, it's not fair. Yes, I'd wish they'd fix how they do things and spend money. But no, it's not going to happen, no matter which party controls the legislature.

the fact that the COLA this year would be “meager” isn't a pity point; it means that there is little or no savings to be had by cutting it.

I totally disagree. If government rightfully should act like a business, then why have government at all?
Government must provide services – more services in hard time, less in flush times. In a tough economic climate, a business can cut back, and if they can't serve all their customers, they can just have fewer customers. Government has an obligation to serve all their “customers” all the time, and if it cuts back in hard times, that creates more need for services. (cut off income to the unemployed, and crime will go up. Close domestic violence shelters and the jails and hospitals will have more work to do. Starve education and your future tax recipts go down). It's a counterproductive thing to do.

I never said anything about cutting services. My point was that fiscally a well-ran government is one that's always a “bit” in the black and running a little surplus. That's just common sense, political ideology and everything else left and right aside. That's how it should be like business, but just that.

I see. “government should be like a business” can be pretty broad.

I happen to disagree- I think it's appropriate for government to run in the red some in recessions, when income goes down and obligations go up, as long as that deficit is paid off during the high point of the business cycle. But I think you have a reasonable position.

Thanks. Apples and oranges, really.