At this time of year when most New York State Towns and Counties are developing and passing their budgets, the Tax Cap is once again in the news. Now in effect for its second year, the Tax Cap is becoming more onerous on municipalities – perhaps as intended by its creators. But it is also becoming onerous for tax payers.
The Tax Cap, enacted in 2011, is almost universally misunderstood by taxpayers who are affected by it. Most think that it means that their tax rate cannot increase more than 2%. Wrong. The Tax Cap stipulates that the taxing jurisdiction’s tax LEVY cannot increase more than 2% or the rate of inflation as determined by the NYS Comptroller. Under the law, a taxing entity can pass along to the taxpayer an increase of 2% over its previous year’s tax levy. This sounds reasonable to most people but the reality is that municipalities have so many State-mandated costs, that the entire 2% is used up, and more, just meeting these costs allowing for no expansion of local programs and projects.
Pension contributions, unemployment insurance, health benefits make up the largest of these mandates but there are other smaller ones as well. This means that by the time the taxing entity accounts for these mandates, their discretionary budget is already less than the prior year's. As a very simple example, if a municipality raised $10 million last year through taxes, this year the Tax Cap would allow them to raise that levy by $200,000 to $10,200,000. But if State-mandated costs have increased the expenses by $400,000 (not unusual), this year’s operating budget must be reduced to $9,800,000. This is, of course, a simplification as there are some exceptions. Likewise, there are also financial penalties if a taxing entity exceeds the 2% Tax Cap levy without officially opting out of it.
What this means to the tax payer is that cuts to a municipality’s discretionary spending are going to be made – services, infrastructure and personnel are the most likely places for these cuts to occur. Looking at local Towns currently undergoing their budget processes, two things are occurring amongst almost all of them – 1) they are passing resolutions to opt out of the 2% cap to protect themselves against future penalties and 2) they are cutting things that are likely
to cost them more in the future – road resurfacing, vehicle replacements and repair, amenities such as recreation and leaf removal, important capital expenditures, and also personnel, leaving fewer people to do the essential tasks. One way of keeping some of these services intact is to raise revenues outside of taxing. Of course, this results in higher fees for permits, applications, recreation programs, parking, etc. Another form of taxation.
While the 2% tax cap may sound good to the taxpayer right now, in the long run local governments are not going to be able to live up to their taxpayers’ expectations as a result of an inflexible tax cap and mounting State mandates.
They have different rules ... rules that haven't been updated since God knows when. And they're in the pocket of liberal politicians ... who they fund and fund and fund and fund. Once, such perks were necessary to attract and maintain talent ... as a form of additional compensation because salaries were not sufficient. Not the case anymore, but unions fight tooth and nail to hang onto old gains. They're successful, too, because there aren't many politicians who will incur their wrath. Look at their actions in Michigan and Wisconsin. What politician has the oysters to stand up to that stuff?
I've got news for you, state workers and retirees ARE taxpayers. What you REALLY mean is, "Why don't state workers and retirees take more of a hit than me?"
Yes we hear about a Cop that bangs up the OT and retires with a six figure income, but they are very few. Part of the reason people work for the State at modest wages is the benefits and pension.
Re-read my original post. It says that at one time such benefits filled a void. That void ... the discrepancy in wages and salaries between public and private workers ... no longer exists. Study after study indicates that public sector workers are better compensated than private employees ... and that there is no need for such lucrative benefits any longer. Tell me the logic that suggests otherwise.
Now, to suggest that these Cadillac benefits are for the "few" is ludicrous as all teachers, firefighters, and police officers (among others) certainly earn more than the compensation ceiling you state. Here in Westchester average teacher salaries are in the 75k range ... at least. That's twice the ceiling you offered up. Don't you think that some folks who earn such a salary ... and many earn much, much more ... should be able to deal with the issues of pension and healthcare as their private counterparts do? At the very least, there should be some sort of income threshold where employees assume more of these burdens. I can't see the unfairness in such a matter.
Just as I commented back to the Port Chester School Board members and administrators as the whined about the Tax Cap during the school budget process, by blaming the Tax Cap you are "Shooting the Messenger". The problems is skyrocketing taxes are bankrupting citizens of this state and the real problem is all the unfunded mandates by the state, corruption, waste, and a plethera of other reasons. I applaud the Tax Cap for bringing the spotlight onto every one of my dollars that is being spent. If municipalities cannot continue to dig deeper into my pocket and if services that residents come to expect are starting to suffer, well that is a good thing. Maybe the voters will start to get rid of the career politicians we have running this state who feel the taxpayers are an bottomless pit of money. We all need to live within our means. The government is no different. Oh and don't forget, if it really would make sense to do so, I am sure enough voters would vote to override The Cap if it made sense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/opinion/06sun1.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I have seen many times on these threads that raising taxes will result in jobs lost,well i have one question,taxes have been cut since George Bush was president so if cutting taxes creates jobs where are the jobs. I have my own opinion on that subject but not once have i seen a right leaning individual moan and groan about what is being called corporate welfare.i see them crying about helping working people,i see them moan and groan about welfare,but not one time have i seen them address corporate welfare in their rants.
25 www.osc.ny.us/localgov/pubs/lgmg/reservefunds.pdf