Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343
I would argue yes. More companies paying slightly less in taxes is FAR better than less companies paying slightly more in taxes. Overall, it generates more tax revenue. As well, it brings more people into the city, living here or commuting here, which in turn generates more tax revenue as well.
Business taxes in Philadelphia need to be lowered - plain and simple. Wage tax needs to be lowered to 2%
|
Very few people like paying taxes---plan and simple; if the wage tax were set at 2% you and many others would be pushing for 1.5%, and so on. If taxes are lowered then either programs (expenses) need to be cut and/or efficiencies in running the programs need to improve. Only the federal gov't can borrow money to pay its operating cost.
On this forum people are regularly asking for better maintained streets that are regularly cleaned and better schools, just to name two issues. Those and other items aren't going to happen if the City cuts taxes. Sure there are more complicated methods of changing the tax structure around, such as higher taxes for land, that might look great on paper but don't have nearly enough support to even get to the table for discussion. Meaning there is a small window where changes can be made.
The 10 year tax abatement on real estate taxes seems like it was a program that worked largely as hoped for. It didn't cost the City anything from its purse and it didn't lower taxes, but it gave people a way of avoiding higher taxes for a period of time. I'd like to see similar set ups proposed for other possible areas of growth in the City, and not just helping a big time law firm to move 8 blocks or something like that. Growth is different from moving the same pieces around on the playing field.