Jeff…You couldn’t be more wrong.
By
David G. Fago
The Parma Sun Post is a decent rag for the most part. They do a great job reporting who the best t-ball players were for the week, and sometimes I enjoy the article written by Mike Seuffert ("Open Mike"). One thing I hate about the rag is how they take what appears to be a normal citizen, and print an editorial that spews the bias of the "elected/appointed aristocracy".
Jeff of Parma wrote the most recent editorial begging Parma’s citizens to increase the income tax. However, he couldn’t be more wrong in his plea. He compared an income tax increase in South Euclid to what Parma voters should do in November. Jeff wrote, "They (the citizens of South Euclid) recognize that a majority of the taxes will be paid by non-residents working in their city. Parma should also vote likewise for the upcoming income tax increase" (Parma Sun Post, August 11, 2005).
Jeff I appreciate your research, but there is more to South Euclid than you can compare to Parma. The August 2 issue in South Euclid (Issue #1) did indeed pass. The wording of the issue reads like: "ISSUE #1 - CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID MUNI TAX (INCREASE) 0.5% TO RATE OF 2% GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES". They raised their income tax from 1.5% to 2%. Since South Euclid passed this tax increase, their citizens that work out of town will also suffer an increase even though they don’t work inside the city of South Euclid.
You know my favorite game…"Let’s do the math!!" Prior to Issue 1 in South Euclid, the municipal income tax rate was 1.5% and the city offered a tax credit of 75% to her citizens that worked in another city (much like you do in Parma Jeff). Example Joe Fabeetz:
Joe Fabeetz lives in South Euclid, and works in Cleveland. He makes $25,000 per year at his job. Joe pays Cleveland 2% ($500 per year) via a payroll deduction, and does not owe South Euclid anything because South Eucild gives a 75% credit. 75%(the tax credit in South Euclid) of 2%(the tax Joe pays in Cleveland) is equal to 1.5% (which was the current tax rate in South Euclid). Therefore Joe Fabeetz does not owe South Euclid Income Tax.
After Issue 1: Our friend Joe still works in Cleveland and lives in South Euclid. He still makes $25,000 per year. Now that the increase has gone into affect in South Euclid, Joe will owe South Euclid tax money even though he still works in Cleveland and still lives in South Euclid. South Euclid still gives a 75% tax credit to her citizens that work outside South Euclid.
Math time again! 75%(the tax credit in South Euclid) of 2%(the tax Joe pays to Cleveland) is still 1.5%. But low and behold, the tax rate in South Euclid has gone up to 2%!! 2% minus 1.5% = .5%. Now Joe owes the city of South Euclid .5% of his income ($125 per year). Hey Joe Fabeetz…if you haven’t met R.I.T.A., you are going to get to know her fast. By the way…R.I.T.A. is not a pretty girl…the acronym stands for Regional Income Tax Authority with the operative word being Authority.
Now Jeff…let’s go to Parma. You are asking us to increase the tax rate in Parma and you believe that City Council will give us our credit back like they "promise". In your own words… "The mayor and council have promised to reinstate a portion of the credit we receive for working outside the city. Let’s put them to the test of their promise and pass this income tax increase." Jeff…in December of 2004, they failed that test already. The "sunset clause" was supposed to give us a quarter % back in 2005 and the full credit back in 2006. They repealed their ordinance and lied to us, and….failed the proverbial test you are talking about. Do you realize, if we "put them to the test" and pass the increase, and they "fail the test again"…do you realize your taxes will go up higher than you could have imagined??
They failed once already. Three members of council went back on their word already. I would never give them another chance. Also…the ballot issue is not worded in a way to guarantee our tax credit back. You said it yourself…The mayor and council "promise" to give it back to us. They should have put that wording in the ballot. That would have proven to me that they are the honest people they claim to be. Please don’t fall for it. Now, I am not attacking you personally Jeff. However, you did write the letter to the editor, and it was published. Fair game my friend…fair game.
More to come…
By
David G. Fago
The Parma Sun Post is a decent rag for the most part. They do a great job reporting who the best t-ball players were for the week, and sometimes I enjoy the article written by Mike Seuffert ("Open Mike"). One thing I hate about the rag is how they take what appears to be a normal citizen, and print an editorial that spews the bias of the "elected/appointed aristocracy".
Jeff of Parma wrote the most recent editorial begging Parma’s citizens to increase the income tax. However, he couldn’t be more wrong in his plea. He compared an income tax increase in South Euclid to what Parma voters should do in November. Jeff wrote, "They (the citizens of South Euclid) recognize that a majority of the taxes will be paid by non-residents working in their city. Parma should also vote likewise for the upcoming income tax increase" (Parma Sun Post, August 11, 2005).
Jeff I appreciate your research, but there is more to South Euclid than you can compare to Parma. The August 2 issue in South Euclid (Issue #1) did indeed pass. The wording of the issue reads like: "ISSUE #1 - CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID MUNI TAX (INCREASE) 0.5% TO RATE OF 2% GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES". They raised their income tax from 1.5% to 2%. Since South Euclid passed this tax increase, their citizens that work out of town will also suffer an increase even though they don’t work inside the city of South Euclid.
You know my favorite game…"Let’s do the math!!" Prior to Issue 1 in South Euclid, the municipal income tax rate was 1.5% and the city offered a tax credit of 75% to her citizens that worked in another city (much like you do in Parma Jeff). Example Joe Fabeetz:
Joe Fabeetz lives in South Euclid, and works in Cleveland. He makes $25,000 per year at his job. Joe pays Cleveland 2% ($500 per year) via a payroll deduction, and does not owe South Euclid anything because South Eucild gives a 75% credit. 75%(the tax credit in South Euclid) of 2%(the tax Joe pays in Cleveland) is equal to 1.5% (which was the current tax rate in South Euclid). Therefore Joe Fabeetz does not owe South Euclid Income Tax.
After Issue 1: Our friend Joe still works in Cleveland and lives in South Euclid. He still makes $25,000 per year. Now that the increase has gone into affect in South Euclid, Joe will owe South Euclid tax money even though he still works in Cleveland and still lives in South Euclid. South Euclid still gives a 75% tax credit to her citizens that work outside South Euclid.
Math time again! 75%(the tax credit in South Euclid) of 2%(the tax Joe pays to Cleveland) is still 1.5%. But low and behold, the tax rate in South Euclid has gone up to 2%!! 2% minus 1.5% = .5%. Now Joe owes the city of South Euclid .5% of his income ($125 per year). Hey Joe Fabeetz…if you haven’t met R.I.T.A., you are going to get to know her fast. By the way…R.I.T.A. is not a pretty girl…the acronym stands for Regional Income Tax Authority with the operative word being Authority.
Now Jeff…let’s go to Parma. You are asking us to increase the tax rate in Parma and you believe that City Council will give us our credit back like they "promise". In your own words… "The mayor and council have promised to reinstate a portion of the credit we receive for working outside the city. Let’s put them to the test of their promise and pass this income tax increase." Jeff…in December of 2004, they failed that test already. The "sunset clause" was supposed to give us a quarter % back in 2005 and the full credit back in 2006. They repealed their ordinance and lied to us, and….failed the proverbial test you are talking about. Do you realize, if we "put them to the test" and pass the increase, and they "fail the test again"…do you realize your taxes will go up higher than you could have imagined??
They failed once already. Three members of council went back on their word already. I would never give them another chance. Also…the ballot issue is not worded in a way to guarantee our tax credit back. You said it yourself…The mayor and council "promise" to give it back to us. They should have put that wording in the ballot. That would have proven to me that they are the honest people they claim to be. Please don’t fall for it. Now, I am not attacking you personally Jeff. However, you did write the letter to the editor, and it was published. Fair game my friend…fair game.
More to come…
posted by David Fago at 10:26 PM
1 Comments:
raising taxes for all is better than taxing others than yourself, did the mayor and council, volunteer to pay more taxes, if a select few can pick who pays more let's have city workers pay the most starting with the mayor paying the most
Post a Comment
<< Home