The News Tribune Reader recently requested comments from citizens about a radical tax plan floated by new City Manager Eric Anderson. In short, Anderson wants to:
* Abolish city property taxes and the business and occupation tax.
* Replace them with monthly user fees for fire, library and police services. The fee size would be based on property value or occupancy.
* Charge the fee to all households and businesses, but also spread it to those that don't pay property tax now - schools, hospitals, non-profits, the port and governments. (But not houses of worship.)
Presumably, most property owners would pay less, but renters and tax exempt groups would stand to pay more. Anderson admits his idea is vague, but he wanted to hear more discussion of the concept before getting to specifics.
Here is my contribution to the discussion:
Mr. Anderson's plan sounds intriguing but there is further substantial study that needs to be performed before anyone can get excited about its prospects. As you said--this radical tax plan is only now being "floated."
My question/concerns about this plan include the following:
1. What is the dollar amount of the "fees" that will be paid in lieu of the property taxes?
2. The additional cost to hospitals will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer at a time when so many are underinsured or completely uninsured.
3. The additional cost to non-profits may result in elimination of public services, which will then have to be covered by the government (i.e., the Tacoma Rescue Mission). If anything, Mr. Anderson should consider subsidies to these organizations so they can continue (and even enhance) their public services.
4. The additional cost to schools may mean further cutbacks in education. We simply cannot afford this.
It seems to me that Mr. Anderson's proposed plan is an attempt to reinvent the wheel. Why not manage the city budget the old-fashioned way--by eliminating frivolous spending? Here are a few suggestions for the City of Tacoma:
* Limit travel, car, and meal expenses for employees or city politicians (i.e., eliminate three-martini lunches, driving fleet vehicles for personal use, and traveling for personal enrichment rather than for the direct benefit of the City).
* Create an enhanced human resources department to consolidate job responsibilities, prevent unnecessary hiring, and eliminate incompetent employees. Top level employee perks should also be re-evaluated to ensure cost effectiveness.
* Establish a business liaison to assist the city manager in evaluating all government services. Necessary services should be streamlined and unnecessary services should be eliminated or given to properly equipped non-profit agencies or churches.
* Any outstanding financing the city may have on the books should be evaluated to ensure the minimum amount of interest expense is in place.
Only after all other potential cost-cutting options are explored, should the city attempt to change its tax structure.
What are your thoughts on this?
