| Posted: Sat Feb 6th, 2010 05:28 am |
|
1st Post |
J&JFarms
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | 50644, USA |
| Posts: | 814 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
I agree in principle with Elliott here. Taxing is not always going to be the answer.
The fiscal management of the City is better than most. The cost over-runs of the City Hall complex not withstanding, we have done well, but most of the cost cutting has been accomplished. Next will be programs, services, personnel and capital improvements/costs. Elliott, I implore you to sit down with George and discuss the cost cutting steps that have been taken. It is eye opening.
First, the 0.2% is set to sunset this fall. The calls for it to continue as a stop-gap for the proposed $1.1M shortfall from the State. While the 0.2% is projected to net around $850,000, there hasn't been much attention paid to the proposed 1% State sales tax increase. If it passes in May, how will that impact our State revenue?
Secondly, if the 0.2% tax is continued there has been no mention of a sunset period. As we know the economy will eventually rebound making the 0.2% unnecessary. Given that, if the tax is continued, it should have a short sunset period. Moreover, let us put it to a vote.
I fear that if the tax is continued, without a sunset, it will become the permanent tax rate and 15 years from now when capital improvements are needed watch out for another 0.2% (or more) tax.
While I agree that the tax is relatively small and the impact is slight, it should be noted that our tax rate is 0.85% higher than Mesa. If the 1% State sales tax increase is passed, our sales tax rate will be 9.9%(!) There is a limit and we are rapidly approaching it.
Keep in mind that the enticement of an extra $850,000 is going to be awfully tempting. I say if we can't stop the continuation of the tax we DEMAND a brief sunset period.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 6th, 2010 04:58 am |
|
2nd Post |
Fisher 2009
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1486 |
| Status: |
Online
|
back to top
|
He's being manipulative about it, Shannon.
EF
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 03:15 am |
|
3rd Post |
ShannonFlynn
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 430 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Starlit wrote: For years, Elliott has been painted as some spend-thrift liberal from Chicago who was dropped in by some Bolshevik air raid.
The same people who painted Elliott as a 'tax and spend liberal' now want to convince us that he's some wacko-Conservative. Which will it be?
Seriously, Elliott wants to know Shannon, if we allow this tax to continue as George Hoffman wants, what is in it for us?
You have to question if George Hoffman needs this figure of close to a million dollars a year (that was from a tax that is supposed to sunset) what is wrong with his management of this City? Why would he need all this additional money?
Especially if put in to the context of previous reports where Hoffman has said he froze salaries, cut services and retired many city workers and encouraged early retirement of other city workers, why the additional money?
Is he now ready to admit that going $2,000,000 overbudget on the Capital Facilities Plan was wrong?
And that is just what Elliott knows about. What other larcenies have been committed?
If his budget was in balance - it is clearly not - he would not need the additional taxation.
Please do not get me wrong I understand your thoughts on this and I'm sure Steve my spouse is questioning me as well. I think there is much more to this issue than what is written here.
I am not trying to paint anyone in a bad manner. Fisher knows this about me. I just do not see his point on this. Sorry.
Shannon
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 5th, 2010 01:37 am |
|
4th Post |
Starlit
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
For years, Elliott has been painted as some spend-thrift liberal from Chicago who was dropped in by some Bolshevik air raid.
The same people who painted Elliott as a 'tax and spend liberal' now want to convince us that he's some wacko-Conservative. Which will it be?
Seriously, Elliott wants to know Shannon, if we allow this tax to continue as George Hoffman wants, what is in it for us?
You have to question if George Hoffman needs this figure of close to a million dollars a year (that was from a tax that is supposed to sunset) what is wrong with his management of this City? Why would he need all this additional money?
Especially if put in to the context of previous reports where Hoffman has said he froze salaries, cut services and retired many city workers and encouraged early retirement of other city workers, why the additional money?
Is he now ready to admit that going $2,000,000 overbudget on the Capital Facilities Plan was wrong?
And that is just what Elliott knows about. What other larcenies have been committed?
If his budget was in balance - it is clearly not - he would not need the additional taxation.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 4th, 2010 11:34 pm |
|
5th Post |
ShannonFlynn
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 430 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Boy, Fisher...... rethink..... rethink..... rethink..... Hoffman isnt the problem. You know that.
"By admitting that they are already paid for, why on earth would we continue to need to pay this taxation increase? From 1999 this was an actual Sales Taxation increase for Apache Junction citizens and still is".
Look where we are today.... How can we not have this tax? Again HOFFMAN is not the problem the city faces.
Yes, Steve may or may not agree with me on this..... It happens from time to time.
Shannon Flynn
Last edited on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 11:38 pm by ShannonFlynn
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 4th, 2010 05:26 am |
|
6th Post |
Fisher 2009
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1486 |
| Status: |
Online
|
back to top
|
Mr. George Hoffman at the Feb. 2nd 2010 City Council Meeting started to make his case for continuing a tax that was cast in 1999 and had a specific date to sunset, i.e. September 1, 2010.
Mr. Hoffman is playing a dangerous political game. He is more or less reminding the public how 'benevolent' he and his seven clowns on the City Council are by saying that they have never as yet passed a "Property Tax" and therefore, he feels justified in continuing a tax that he clearly admitted on this same Council meeting session has already paid for all the Capital facilities that the 0.2% Sales Tax in Apache Junction was slated for:
Namely, these Capital facilities are the new fancy City Hall, the Multi-generation Center, the Library and the Police Building.
By admitting that they are already paid for, why on earth would we continue to need to pay this taxation increase? From 1999 this was an actual Sales Taxation increase for Apache Junction citizens and still is.
Mr. Hoffman also tried at the same Council Meeting to use linguistic games to justify a tax that he clearly admits is no longer needed. This tax is generating nearly one million dollars ($1,000,000) per year according to Hoffman's figures at the Council Meeting. In his slick attempt, like a used-car salesman, Hoffman said (he's) only supporting a flat tax by not allowing this 0.2% Sales Tax to sunset. (I suggest people re-read this last sentence several times over.)
Why would Mr. Hoffman and his seven clowns on the Council who have for years been berating me by calling me a "Big Government Advocate/Socialist/Tax and Spend Liberal," etc... be continuing with a tax? More taxes? Clearly this tax has no purpose as Hoffman himself admitted from his seat in last night's Council Chambers.
Mr Hoffman and the City Council members, if you're going to continue this tax, what are we the public going to get for it? What is in it for us?
Let us not forget that the Multi-gen Center had an additional fee quietly imposed after the 0.2% (CFP) was passed never mentioning that there would ever be a cost imposed to use this Facility.
Don't insult our intelligence by saying it is all because of the Recession. This money was meant to be for one purpose and one purpose only - the Capital Facilities Project - completed for some time now and paid for.
What have you been doing with this money in the interim? Have you been stealing it to pay for the overbudgeted City Hall or some other Activity we the citizens know nothing about? Apache Junction City Council and Mr George Hoffman should really look in the mirror and see the true tax and spend politicians they are.
Mr Hoffman, quit using your car-salesman tongue and say it like it is. Even after all the wage freezes, retirements and service cuts, you still need to raise taxation. Period. If anybody does not understand what this means I will tell you: Financial misappropriation and mismanagement that is no different than the likes of Wall Street.
Mr Hoffman, I would certainly like your resignation effective immediately but please don't disappoint us the Citzens of Apache Junction. Do what we all would expect from any financial fraudster. Give yourself a bonus and a 'slap on the back!'
Elliott E. Fisher
Pinal County - Independent.
|
|
