Sunday's column on tax reform brought responses from several readers:
From Charlotte:
Just as important as the goal of ensuring that a new tax system will be less vulnerable to the vagaries of economic downturns is a goal of ensuring that it is also less vulnerable to budget creep during economic upturns. I hope our leaders are looking in both directions as they develop tax system revisions.
Another Charlotte reader:
I searched your Sunday article for come evidence of a call to examine the TOTAL tax rates of taxpayers at various income levels and am sad to say I found nothing. You might recall Warren Buffett's congressional testimony a year or so ago that his TOTAL tax rate was just over 17% while his receptionist's TOTAL tax rate was just over 34%. How can we set tax for various income levels and disregard what each income level is paying in TOTAL? It's unfair and ridiculous!
Before setting the tax rate on employees making $100,000 and less annually and those earning $1,000,000 and more annually we must in fairness realize that the first group is paying +7% payroll tax and that the latter group is paying one tenth or less of that rate, i. e., +0000.7%. That's a rate of 7.3 basis points more.
Then we also should consider the sales tax rate that lower income earners pay. Because they spend all they make, they pay as much 8.25%, compared to those who spend only half of the $1,000,000 they earn annually.
Please, I ask you, use your platform to help transparency!!!
Another reader:
Jack Betts' column this morning calls for state revenue reform, essentially the same call issued by an Observer editorial a couple of weeks ago. This is a good idea.
What I don't hear, however, is a call for reforming the state's spending. Let's don't squander a major advantage we have over other states -- like NY and CA -- less tax burden, an attraction to potential businesses and residents that will improve our economy, including our tax base.
Jack closes his piece with the observation that a new tax system should be less vulnerable to economic downturns. One way is to make sure services provided by government are necessary and really desirable.
In Mecklenburg a few months ago, Commissioner Robert led the charge for a new property tax appraisal to capture the property tax increases in the county since last evaluation. This was in the midst of a recession and business failure of one of our valued corporate citizens. Real estate values have not bottomed since. On the spending docket was the extension of health care benefits to partners of gay and lesbian county employees.
In Charlotte, falling sales tax revenues are hurting CATS. This will ultimately result in part of CATS operating expenses being off-loaded onto property owners. Yet, we are considering adding additional rail lines, even as much of the operating expenses are projected to be covered by increasing property values along the line projections. Will we have the residential base to back up the property utilization estimates? Looks doubtful.
The balance is this: In attracting new businesses and people, how much of the attraction is provided by government services, and how much of the attraction is provided by a low tax, pro business environment, located in the sun belt. Lawrence Summers, in an address Thursday carried on Bloomberg radio, stated that an integral part of the administration's economic plan is carbon emission restriction and limitation of foreign imports of oil and the expansion of non carbon energy sources, thereby helping to keep energy dollars in the country and creating new energy related jobs. This will raise energy prices, placing a premium on mobility and geography. Our warm winters, tolerable summers, keep home cooling and heating costs down, and our convenient location between the mountains and the seaside minimizes travel costs. Let's make sure we don't kill the goose with taxes?
