Toledo Talk - Toledo's City Government .pdf Giving Info on 3/4% Payroll Tax Use

From oldsendbrdy's workspace

Toledo's City Government .pdf Giving Info on 3/4% Payroll Tax Use

This link, http://www.ci.toledo.oh.us/, takes you to the City of Toledo web page for information. I looked at the .pdf they have put up giving "information" about the use of the 3/4% tax. One thing I noticed is that on a bar graph in about the middle of the report is a graph showing how the budget is used. Unfortunately, the information seems to have little relationship to the budget. The proposed budget is $251,789,259. The graph showing how the budget is spent (showing that 76% of the budget is for police, fire, sanitation, judges, and another I can't remember) shows "everything else" (after "safety") starts at about $180 million, and tops out at $215 million.

Whoever did the .pdf is doing the public a disservice. How can you make a determination from this graph on how much money really goes to the different sectors when the graph itself stops short of the total budget? About $37 million dollars isn't accounted for in the bar graph. Anyone else notice this, or did anyone find out why this is so? Without accurate information how can we (the citizens) have any input?

created by oldsendbrdy on Feb 17, 2008 at 11:46:33 am Comments: 9

print source versions

Comments ... #

It seems to me that the powers-that-be should consider making this "temporary" tax, that has been going on since 1982, permanent if it is so crucial. Twenty-five plus years is a long time to either not scale back expenditures or to realize we really need this and make it permanent.

posted by Adam on Feb 17, 2008 at 01:16:31 pm     #

There's no such thing as a temporary tax.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised that they can't understand the graph. They don't want you to know what they are doing with your money. If you did, you wouldn't vote them back in office over and over again.

My favorite part is the "Assumptions" page in front where they are assuming they will be receiving more of our money in various manners (taxes, fees, fines).

If I planned my own personal budget like that, I'd be labeled an idiot. You NEVER assume you will have more money next year when budgeting.

posted by FatBabe44 on Feb 17, 2008 at 01:53:11 pm     #

Most of the people I've read on the Internet want lower taxes, but more police. When you talk about scaling back on expenditures, and raise the issue of public safety, they say they want police, fire, and trash collection. They just want more and cheaper. I don't know how you can do both. Unfortunately, there are legal contracts with the unions that prevent reducing hourly wages and benefits. The only alternative for the city administration is to lay-off employees. I did a thought "experiment" on Swampbubbles where I tried to set up a budget based only on the public safety component (that most people don't want to touch). The thread I commented on was authored by tekrat. In it I left the 76% of the budget that funds public safety alone. I removed "everything else". That removed $60, 429, 422 in expenditures. Since we would "only" lose $57 million if the 3/4% tax isn't renewed then we would have $3,429,422 for "everything else". If (as I commented) I decided street repair was important, and added back the budget for "streets, harbors, and bridges" I would have to add $3,695,637 to the expenditures. I would be over budget, and would have to consider laying of 3-4 firemen, policemen, or employees from Solid Waste (considering also their benefits). This would further affect the budget because if these employees live in the city where the income tax is collected then they would lessen the revenue. No much but it all adds up.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Feb 17, 2008 at 02:04:07 pm     #

One of the things I wonder about is the retired population. I am one. Since I am retired I don't have to pay this tax (even though I benefit from it). I wonder what percentage of the adult population in Toledo benefit from this tax, but pay nothing toward it? I guess you would also have to consider those who are on some form of public assistance. I wonder how low the tax could be if everyone who was "eligible" (including those who are retired) contributed to the public weal.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Feb 17, 2008 at 02:34:40 pm     #

It would be interesting to see if this tax would pass if only those who have an "income" from work were allowed to vote on it. I bet a lot of the police are pissed. They have chosen to live outside the city, and so have no ability to vote on this issue.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Feb 17, 2008 at 02:36:55 pm     #

Perpetual temporary tax. It might even be "voluntary." Lawmaker humor is so blue.

posted by charlatan on Feb 17, 2008 at 08:35:43 pm     #

The Toledo homepage also mentions that "40% of the entire city workforce, most of which safety personnel, would have to be laid off".
This is just such nonsense. The impending doom that is being spewed in an effort to advance their tax agenda will never come. There is and will be money in the budget to fund fire, police, judges and trash without renewing the tax. The city just has to learn to optimize its' use of money.

posted by JJFad on Feb 18, 2008 at 04:00:56 pm     #

Lay off Carty. Go back to a City Manager style goverment,

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 18, 2008 at 06:34:53 pm     #

One thing I wonder about is whether various administrators are looking forward to the 3/4% income tax not being renewed. If I were a manager in one of the departments, and I had people under me who had been a pain in the ass I would be looking forward to an excuse to "lay 'em off because of the budget". It will be interesting to see who gets laid off if the 3/4% budget isn't passed. People better start playing nice-nice with their supervisors and managers.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Feb 18, 2008 at 11:19:44 pm     #