Voters in Duplin, New Hanover and Onslow counties approved referendums to impose local-option quarter-cent sales tax hikes on Tuesday. The ballot measures had previously failed in Duplin and Onslow counties. David Thompson, executive director of the N.C. Association of County Commissioners, said the voter-approved initiatives will help those counties avoid property tax increases. “These results show that citizens understand the dire situation many county budgets are in,” Thompson said in a written statement. “With county sales tax revenues declining and property values decreasing, many counties are facing tough choices about whether to cut services and employees or raise property taxes.” The measure narrowly passed in New Hanover County, but 70 percent of voters in Onslow County backed the increase.(THE INSIDER, 5/06/10).
CITIES IN OUR COALITION
Posts Tagged ‘tax’
(Voters Pass) Sales Tax Hikes (The Insider)
Friday, May 7th, 2010
Payroll tax plan gets cool reception in Durham (News and Observer)
Thursday, April 29th, 2010DURHAM The notion of a payroll tax on people who work in Durham County but live elsewhere got a cool reception this morning from Durham County’s delegation to the state legislature.
“Why do you want to put that on us?” said state Rep. Mickey Michaux, the delegation’s senior member, when the proposition came up during the delegates’ pre-session meeting with the Durham County Board of Commissioners.
However, the legislators were warm to another idea for bringing more revenue into Durham County: sharing in the sales taxes collected at Raleigh-Durham International Airport. Currently, those receipts all go to Wake County.
The state General Assembly convenes for its 2010 short session, dealing mostly with budget matters, May 12. Its “long session,” for business of all sorts, begins in January 2011.
“If things remain the same in the long session,” Michaux said, “we might be able to do it.” The qualifying “if” reflected the fact 2010 is an election year, and several of Durham’s General Assembly delegates face opposition for re-election.
As things are in the General Assembly, Michaux is Senior Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Durham state Rep. Paul Leubke is Senior Chairman of the House Finance Committee.
“I’m writing the budget and Paul’s doing the financing,” Michaux said. “We got a bit of leverage.”
Durham County, the City of Durham and the City of Raleigh, along with Wake County, share the airport authority and pay toward airport operations each year. Durham also provides the airport utilities, and the issue of equity could win support for sharing tax receipts from legislators from other parts of the state, Michaux said – helping overcome anticipated opposition from Wake’s delegation.
“Develop the argument,” said state Sen. Bob Atwater.
The commuter tax, which County Commissioner Joe Bowser has advocated for years, has less likely prospects.
“We have probably 100,000 people who come here to work,” Bowser said. “Those people are getting some services [paid for by] our citizens.”
Mecklenburg County tried to get authority for such a tax some years ago, County Manager Mike Ruffin said, but the proposal went nowhere.
“I can imagine the uproar from small businesses,” said state Sen. Floyd McKissick. “I don’t see anybody saying they support it.” It would also be easily liable to fraud, since all a commuter would need to do to claim county residence is to open a post office box.
Michaux said the tax would probably be unconstitutional, applied to only a “certain class” of citizens.
“You take care of the constitutional problem and I’ll look at it,” he said.
Published Wed, Apr 28, 2010 02:44 PM
Modified Wed, Apr 28, 2010 02:48 PM
House, Senate pass transportation bill (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
Friday, April 23rd, 2010Breaking a legislative traffic jam that has endured for more than three years, the Georgia General Assembly on Wednesday voted to allow referendums throughout the state on transportation funding.
Taking to the well for the first time this session, Speaker David Ralston in a rousing speech led the Georgia House to pass the bill, HB 277, by a vote of 141-29. The Senate passed it 43-8 shortly afterward.
The bill would divide the state into 12 regions. A “roundtable” of local elected officials in each region, working with an appointee of the governor, would draw up a list of projects for the region. The region could then submit the list to its voters for their approval in a referendum, along with a 1 percent sales tax to fund them. No county could opt out of a region’s tax, but a roundtable could decline to hold a referendum in the region.
If the bill becomes law, it also will probably ease the draconian cuts MARTA was facing, though it was unclear Wednesday night by exactly how much. It lifts, for three years, a restriction on how the transit agency can use its revenues from sales taxes, freeing up several million dollars for operations.
The strong margins of support in both houses delighted supporters.
“I feel exhausted. I feel ecstatic. I feel so thankful for the people who worked so hard,” said Sam Williams, president of the Metro Atlanta Chamber, one of the bill’s key backers. That includes Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, Williams said, who was instrumental in helping deliver the House. “We were afraid we were going to lose the House this afternoon,” Williams said.
Reed was at the Capitol on Wednesday, and after passage, he said it was not yet law and there was still work to be done to get a good referendum passed. But he said it would be a massive boost for the Atlanta region’s transportation. Projects have yet to be chosen, but would Atlanta get the Beltline? “No question,” he said.
The bill now goes to the desk of Gov. Sonny Perdue, who first proposed the legislation earlier this year, giving it critical momentum. Transportation Planning Director Todd Long, who reports to Perdue, said the governor supports Wednesday’s bill. A spokesman for Perdue, Bert Brantley, said Perdue would have to review the final language, but he supported the concept and had worked closely on the compromise.
Sen. Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga), who worked on the issue for years, said it wasn’t perfect, but could be refined.
Indeed, not all was perfect with the bill. If a region approves its tax, it still won’t get money for about the next three years. But the money will be significant: The Atlanta region’s tax could raise about $750 million to $790 million per year. It would sunset after 10 years, and go up for a vote again.
In his speech, Ralston, brandishing his MARTA Breeze card, hit back at criticism that the bill does not do enough for MARTA or mass transit. The new tax could not be spent on operations for the current MARTA system, or on raises for MARTA employees. But it could be spent on operations for new MARTA projects.
“I have heard this talk about two Georgias to the point that I’m sick of it,” Ralston said. “We are one state. And you know what, the members of that committee accepted that challenge” to spread the benefits of the bill.
DuBose Porter, the House minority leader, said that “this is basically a Band-Aid for MARTA, if that.”
House Transportation Committee Chairman Jay Roberts then took to the well and replied, “Are you telling me that you want to keep the wound open?”
A critical moment apparently came when Perdue backed down on the issue of whether a region could opt out of the tax. The final compromise: Yes, it can, but the region will lose out on some new state benefits, including a bit more money for small local road projects. And it wouldn’t be able to try again for a vote for two years.
In a show of cooperation, Lt. Gov Casey Cagle, who heads the Senate, and Ralston praised Perdue in a joint statement and said they made transportation a priority and looked forward to the referendum.
Staff writer Ernie Suggs contributed to this article.
By Ariel Hart
Most NC voters think they pay higher taxes than people in other states (Public Policy Polling)
Tuesday, April 20th, 2010April 20, 2010
Every week it seems there’s a new study or statistic that some interest group or other can use to claim that North Carolina does or does not have an unusually high tax burden. When it comes to the perceptions of voters though it’s no contest- North Carolinians think they pay higher taxes than people in other states.
59% of voters in the state feel that way compared to 26% who think North Carolina’s taxes are about the same as other places and 10% who feel that the state has lower taxes. It’s a sentiment that there’s bipartisan consensus on- 70% of Republicans, 56% of independents, and 52% of Democrats think that residents of the state pay more than average.
So do these numbers spell big trouble for Democrats as they try to keep control of the General Assembly this fall? I doubt it. Only 3% of voters in the state say taxes are the most important issue to them. And although we’ve never asked this particular question before I imagine the numbers would have been pretty similar even when the state had Republican Governors or for the brief time it had a Republican House. And it’s harder for Republicans to use this as a wedge issue when voters across party lines feel the state has unusually high taxes- there’s a pretty large segment of the electorate that feels that way and is still perfectly content to vote for Democratic candidates.
I would, however, advise Democratic candidates not to try to convince voters that North Carolina’s taxes aren’t unusually high. The perception is so widely held that it’s probably immutable. Better to focus on the positive aspects of the state that result from them.
This analysis is also available on our blog:
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/nc-voters-think-they-have-higher-taxes.html
The full results of this poll question can be seen here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_415.pdf
Alternate Ways to Fund U.S. Transportation System (RAND Corporation)
Friday, February 12th, 2010Congress should take the opportunity provided by the pending reauthorization of the federal transportation bill to consider new ways to fund the U.S. transportation system, shifting from indirect fees such as fuel taxes to ones that charge drivers directly for the miles they travel, according to a report by RAND Corporation researchers.
The report, which focused on the strengths and limitations of alternate mechanisms for adopting mileage-based road use fees, was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and prepared for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program of the Transportation Research Board, a division of the National Research Council.
“Failure to raise fuel taxes in recent years to keep pace with inflation and improved fuel economy has created significant transportation funding shortfalls at the federal and state levels,” said Paul Sorensen, lead author of the report and an operations researcher at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.
“The prospect of more fuel-efficient conventional vehicles and alternative-fuel vehicles in the coming decades—though clearly beneficial in terms of the environment and energy security—threatens to make funding challenges worse,” Sorensen said. “Shifting from fuel taxes to mileage-based road use fees would help to overcome this problem, and there are several promising options for implementing such a shift.”
Currently, the United States charges various direct and indirect user fees such as fuel taxes, road tolls, vehicle registration fees and truck weight fees to build new roads, repair existing roads and make other necessary improvements. The idea is to charge more to those who benefit from the transportation system and those who also impose costs on the system by using it.
But the federal gasoline tax has not increased since 1993 and as vehicles become increasingly fuel-efficient, the amount of money needed to maintain the transportation system has fallen woefully short. Since 1980, the total number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States has doubled, but fuel consumption has only increased by 50 percent. Many state and federal officials now are looking to a more comprehensive system of direct user fees to replace the current revenue system.
One option being considered is to use technology to charge drivers on the basis of vehicle miles of travel (VMT). Oregon already has completed a VMT-fee system pilot project and the University of Iowa is managing ongoing trials in 12 cities across the United States.
While the principal goal of such a system would be to preserve or raise revenue, there are other potential advantages. Agencies could charge a higher per-mile rate for driving on crowded roads during peak hours, helping to reduce congestion by encouraging travelers to shift some of their trips to less congested roads or times of travel. Agencies also could charge different rates for different types of vehicles; for example, low-emissions vehicles could pay less per mile than highly polluting vehicles.
Most VMT-fee proposals envision the use of sophisticated in-vehicle metering equipment, which might be phased in as consumers buy new vehicles. Sorensen said most of the options he and his colleagues considered face one or more significant drawbacks or uncertainties that would argue against immediate implementation for all vehicles on a national scale. However, with some additional research and planning efforts, some options could be put into place starting in 2015 to help meet the nation’s urgent transportation funding needs.
RAND researchers found three options offered the most promise: estimating mileage based on fuel consumption; metering mileage based on a device that combines cellular service and a connection to an on-board diagnostics port; and metering mileage based on a device featuring a global positioning system receiver. Systems that rely on self-reported odometer readings or annual odometer inspections were found to be unreliable and too difficult or expensive to administer and enforce.
The report suggests that real-world trials of these options could be funded now, to determine which system ultimately will have the best combination of accuracy, cost-effectiveness and ease of implementation.
Martin Wachs, director of the Transportation, Space, and Technology Program at RAND, said another major concern for policymakers will be privacy issues.
“Even though people’s movements can now be tracked to some extent through their cellular phone records, law enforcement officials often need a court order to access that data,” Wachs said. “Consumers will be understandably concerned about on-board devices tracking their vehicle’s position and movement, and will want safeguards as to what kinds of data are recorded and who has access to that information.”
Liisa Ecola, another co-author of the RAND report, said that there is no guarantee that instituting fees based on vehicle miles traveled or subsequent efforts to increase VMT fees to keep pace with inflation will be any less controversial than increasing fuel taxes. Also, the collection of VMT fees will likely be more costly and more burdensome than the collection of fuel taxes.
“However, it’s clear that the present system isn’t working and fees based on vehicle miles traveled, if properly implemented, could result not only in more money to support the nation’s transportation system, but also spread the cost burden in a more fair and equitable way,” Ecola said.
The report, “Implementable Strategies for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for Transportation Funding,” can be found at www.rand.org.
Other authors of the study are Max Donath and Lee Munnich of the University of Minnesota and Betty Serian of Betty Serian Associates. The report was prepared for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program of the Transportation Research Board, under subcontract with ICF International.
The research was conducted by RAND’s Transportation, Space & Technology Program, a part of the RAND Infrastructure, Safety and Environment division. The division’s mission is to improve development, operation, use and protection of society’s essential built and natural assets; and to enhance the related social assets of safety and security of individuals in transit and in their workplaces and communities.
Learn More
Full Document
Transportation and Infrastructure Research Area
E-mail sign up
About the RAND Corporation
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.
Wednesday
February 10, 2010
Indiana Plans New Tolls, Tax (Bond Buyer)
Friday, February 12th, 2010$10B of Projects for Indianapolis Area
CHICAGO — A central Indiana task force yesterday unveiled a nearly $10 billion regional transportation plan that recommends imposing a local sales tax and building express toll lanes to help keep Indianapolis competitive in the Midwest.
The group proposes creating a bond-issuing authority to oversee the regional transportation system and entering into public-private partnerships whenever possible to help to mitigate costs.
The task force, a private-sector collaboration of the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, and the Central Indiana Community Foundation, has spent the last year studying the region’s system.
It unveiled its recommendations yesterday in downtown Indianapolis and said it plans to spend 2010 holding public meetings to refine the plan and setting up a body to govern the new system. In 2011 the group hopes to begin lobbying state lawmakers to put a sales tax proposal on the ballot.
“This will be the year for a discussion,” Mayor Greg Ballard said at the press conference where the plan was released. “This is not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal.”
The plan would tap into the current $8.9 billion, 25-year roadway expansion plan, deferring about $600 million of previously planned local road projects and shifting that money to other transportation infrastructure projects.
Additional costs would be covered by imposing a local sales tax of 0.35% to 0.50% on top of the state’s current 7% tax.
“For over 60 years, our transportation strategy has focused almost entirely on building more and better highways, a strategy that produced both notable benefits and shortcomings,” the group noted in a report outlining its proposal. “Continuing our current transportation strategy will not adequately meet our needs in an increasingly competitive world.”
Building express toll lanes on state highways running through Indianapolis would cost $21 million and $13.2 million annually to operate — but would bring in more than $29 million annually, generating a surplus that could be used for other projects, the group estimated. Drivers could opt to pay a toll to use the express lanes, which would have the added benefit of easing congestion.
An expanded bus and rail system would cost $2.4 billion to build, plus $107 million to operate annually. Riders would pay for about 20% of annual operating costs, and $56 million would come from the existing IndyGo bus system. New revenue from the local sales tax would generate the rest, the group said. The rail system would feature new light-rail and passenger trains along existing freight rails.
The new system would create 4,500 new jobs and more than $27 billion in economic development, as well as a 4% increase in property values for buildings located near rail service in Marion County, the task force said.
The state funds its transportation costs with local, federal, and state sources, but the group focused on local funding, which currently pays for 60% of capital costs and more than 90% of operating costs.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
By Caitlin Devitt
A 2010 agenda (Tax reform, Stop sprawl, Regional Transportation Planning) (Charlotte Observer)
Monday, January 4th, 2010In many respects 2009 was the worst year of the worst decade in memory for North Carolinians. It was especially brutal in Charlotte, a city that once thought itself immune to financial reversals. In a state once known for its late entry and early recovery from recessions, the economic toll of the Great Recession was devastating. Unemployment topped 10 percent, and many lost jobs, homes and hope. Revenue to take care of such vital public services as education and mental health was inadequate – even with significant federal stimulus funds. North Carolina and the Charlotte region have much to do in 2010. Here are six important things the Observer’s editorial board believes state and local governments and the people of this region must tackle in 2010:
Restructure the tax system
If the economic recession did nothing else, it showed once again the inadequacies of North Carolina’s Depression-era tax system. It relies on high income tax and sales tax rates with a narrow base – which will only get narrower as consumers turn to more online shopping. The legislature’s 2009 approval of a higher sales tax, whether temporary or not, only makes it more regressive for low-income citizens. A new report points out that people in lower tax brackets already pay a higher proportion of their income in state and local taxes than the state’s richest residents – 9.5 percent for those earning less than $17,000 a year, compared to 8.1 percent for those with incomes topping $1.15 million.
Lawmakers such as Mecklenburg’s Sen. Dan Clodfelter have been pushing for tax reform, but others may not be in a mood to restructure the tax system in the 2010 election year. Yet failing to significantly broaden the sales tax base to include a wide range of services will do two things: Guarantee the revenue system will be even more inadequate next year and following years. And guarantee that income and sales tax rates will remain high – at a level economists say discourages economic development and hamstrings the economy.
If ever an issue required forceful, cogent leadership, this is it. Gov. Bev Perdue and legislative leaders of both parties must find a way to broaden the base, phase in key tax rate cuts and give this state a 21st-century revenue system. Perdue has declared tax reform a priority, but unless leaders of both parties agree to make a special effort on tax reform, it likely won’t happen. This is also a year when lawmakers plan to convene for a relatively short session to revise the annual budget. The General Assembly must show unusual bipartisan spirit and determination to replace a fundamentally flawed revenue system.
Appoint judges
Former Mecklenburg District Court Judge Bill Belk – who resigned after the Judicial Standards Commission recommended his removal from the bench – has long said he wanted to reform the state’s judiciary. His high-profile case bolsters that need, though not the way he intended. Belk’s confrontation with Chief District Court Judge Lisa Bell reflects how poorly suited for judgeships some candidates are, though they are able to tap into voter discontent and win election to the bench.
While we believe careful screening of potential judges and appointment with confirmation by the legislature would be a better way to select judges, many legislators do not want to take elections out of the judicial selection procedure. Nor should they. We prefer a hybrid electoral system that uses appointment and confirmation to choose trial and appellate judges, and which would then require a retention election after two years and periodic retention elections in future years to give the public a voice in whether judges stay on the bench. This would be a far better system and help assure that judges are well-trained and well-suited for the job.
North Carolina has led the way in recent years with a public funding mechanism for appellate judicial elections. It was intended, among other things, to remove the taint of big money from judicial elections and spare judicial candidates the ethical dilemma that comes from seeking campaign donations from other lawyers and clients who might wind up in courtrooms with a legal issue at stake.
The public funding program has been encouraging, but there isn’t enough money to fully fund all elections, and there probably won’t be for a long time. Switching to an appointive system with periodic retention elections would be far less costly, while keeping the public involved in the process.
Tackle school dropout rate
The last time official statistics were published, there was a little bit of good news: North Carolina schools’ overall dropout rate had improved a little. For the first time in three years, the dropout rate dropped, from 5.24 percent to 4.97 percent in 2007-08.
But the state’s graduation rate – defined as the percentage of students who enroll in ninth grade and eventually graduate from high school – is still horrible. Defined that way, about 70 percent of students graduate – which means about 30 percent drop out, many becoming a drag on the state’s economy, not to mention their own future. That appalling failure rate is why the state has adopted its Learn and Earn program and the N.C. Virtual Public Schools, and it’s why the General Assembly has approved a grants program. They are designed to encourage students to keep pursuing educational achievement so they’ll be prepared for the working world.
And it isn’t working – or isn’t working in proportions the state needs. That’s one reason Gov. Bev Perdue is developing a new program called “Ready, Set, Go” – details of which have not been released – to focus on helping students graduate. One key, she said, may be better vocational programs to keep at-risk youth in the classroom. College readiness will be another focus.
We look forward to hearing Perdue’s proposal, but we also know from sad experience how difficult this problem is. It begins not in ninth grade, but in elementary school, when students don’t learn to read and can’t handle basic math. By all means we should improve vocational and college prep training. But we must also remember where the problem begins – and know that it can’t be solved by schools alone. The whole community must decide to work together to solve this.
Get greener, stall sprawl
Everyone’s talking about making Charlotte a magnet for green energy jobs. That’s a visionary goal. It’s time for local governments to make visionary – and visible – “green” commitments.
Recycling doesn’t solve global warming but it’s an obvious signal you take the environment seriously. The city and county should make recycling containers readily available in all public places and push private ones such as shopping malls to do the same.
Get visibly friendlier to pedestrians. Pull the draft of a city pedestrian plan from the shelf where developer opposition has stalled it for two years. Realize that building sidewalks is only a beginning. The city needs crossing lights, crosswalks, refuge islands in large intersections and a way to ensure that sidewalks are kept clear of debris, poison ivy, ice, trash bins and other hazards.
It isn’t green to let the local developers’ lobby gut a proposed beefing up of the city’s tree ordinance. That is what is happening. Charlotte’s tree ordinance was a pioneer when it was adopted years ago. But since then, many other cities have adopted stronger ones. It’s time Charlotte did the same.
A city that makes low-density, single-use suburban growth easy will not be taken seriously as “green.” With development at a crawl, now is a good time to revamp local ordinances and zoning standards. Low-density sprawl and strip commercial buildings should not be the default setting for growth. Instead, make environmentally friendly mixed-use development the default. Those wanting to build suburban office parks, stand-alone stores and sprawling subdivisions should have to jump through hoops for a rezoning, not the other way around.
Former Mayor Pat McCrory was strong on transportation issues but weak on environmental ones. New Mayor Anthony Foxx has a good grounding in both. This is one area where he can show much-needed leadership.
Discover all of the ‘Great State’
Memo to all Charlotte politicians, of both parties, and all Charlotte business and civic leaders: Work on your Raleigh relationships – and those elsewhere in the state as well. Tamp down the bragging about how wonderful Charlotte is (folks elsewhere already know it) and how much we love our city, and start bragging about how wonderful North Carolina is and how much we love our state.
Learn about your state – and go beyond the state mammal (gray squirrel), state dog (Plott hound) or state shell (Scotch bonnet – pronounced bo-nay).
Do you know where Randleman is and who made nearby Level Cross famous with his 200 NASCAR wins? Ever watched the sun rise over Silver Lake harbor in Ocracoke? Have you seen a game at Ficklen Stadium in Greenville? Climbed Pilot Mountain and one of the most recognizable monadnocks in the world? Know how to pronounce Conetoe? (Hint: It isn’t CONE-toe.) Driven the Blue Ridge Parkway end to end? Watched, as the late Sen. Sam Ervin used to recommend, the sun set in indescribable glory over Hawksbill Mountain? Cruised down the Intracoastal Waterway in the fall from Hobucken to Oriental? Strolled through Duke Gardens in Durham in the spring?
Learn more about the Old North State – its people, its places and its history. Memorize the first verse to “Here’s to the Land of the Long Leaf Pine.” See the “Lost Colony” at Roanoke Island’s Waterside Theater. See Bridal Veil Falls up close. Climb Jockey’s Ridge. Take in a show at the Morehead Planetarium in Chapel Hill – the first Astronauts did.
And pick up the phone and call your legislators and get to know them. Relationships matter – and you’ll likely find you’ve got more in common with folks from the East, the West and Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill than you imagined. Plus, the more they understand how much you all love your state, the more willing they’ll be to learn to care about Charlotte.
Plan transportation regionally
It sounds like a bizarre camaraderie of dwarfs: MUMPO, GUAMPO, CRMPO, GHMPO and RFATS (in the Disney version he’d be the chubby, clumsy one). Let us not forget LNRPO and RRRPO (the small but snarling pirate dwarf?).
As if the names aren’t funny enough, here’s a thigh-slapper: All seven are transportation planning agencies for greater Charlotte.
Even if you toss out GHMPO (Greater Hickory Metropolitan Planning Organization) you still have an insane number of separate agencies ostensibly planning transportation in one metro region. And if you don’t think transportation planning in Rock Hill-Fort Mill (RFATS) and LNRPO (Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization) doesn’t affect transportation throughout the greater Charlotte region, well, you haven’t traveled on Interstate 77.
Ask most planners and they’ll tell you – off the record of course, so as not to tick off politicians – that sane transportation planning is mere fantasy until all six or seven MPOs and RPOs merge into one true metropolitan planning organization.
MPOs are federally mandated to plan “regionally.” Indeed, Title 23 of the U.S. Code says an MPO should cover a whole metro area. However, smaller cities such as Gastonia or Concord have little interest in joining with the Mecklenburg behemoth, fearing their share of state and federal transportation money would shrink.
If the region’s governments won’t do the right thing, the state should force it. At least two men in Raleigh get it. N.C. Department of Transportation Secretary Gene Conti is savvy about transportation policy, politics and about true regional planning. So is Sen. Dan Clodfelter, a Charlotte Democrat whose seniority and smarts have given him significant clout in Raleigh.
And both states must figure out how an MPO can cross state lines, so York County, S.C., can join the region’s transportation planning. Cincinnati, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., all have multi-state MPOs. It can’t be rocket science.
Posted: Sunday, Jan. 03, 2010
Questions of tax fairness (News and Observer)
Friday, November 20th, 2009Generally speaking, folks don’t like taxes.
But North Carolinians seem divided on the question of tax fairness, according to a new poll by Elon University.
Almost half (48 percent) of North Carolina residents polled Nov. 16-19 say the current state tax system is either “not at all fair” or “not too fair.” But 43 percent said they considered state taxes to be fair or “very fair.”
Asked about local taxes, more than half (51 percent) said they consider them to be fair or “very fair.” Less than half (42 percent) said local taxes are “not too fair” or “not at all fair.”
As for the fairness of specific taxes, respondents overwhelmingly preferred alcohol taxes (24 percent consider them “not fair” or “not at all fair), retail sales tax (29 percent) and tobacco taxes (33 percent.)
The gas tax was considered “not fair” or “not at all fair” by 64 percent of those surveyed.
Elon surveyed 563 North Carolina residents, with a margin of error or plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.
Submitted by bkrueger on November 20, 2009 – 12:35pm.
Statewide Poll on Taxes and Government and Community Services (Elon Poll)
Friday, November 20th, 2009The Elon Poll asked respondents their opinions on the fairness of the current tax system as the local and state levels, as well as their measurements of community services.
How fair is our current tax system at the state level?
Not at all fair: 21 percent
Not too fair: 27 percent
Fair: 41 percent
Very fair: 2 percent
How fair is our current tax system at the local level?
Not at all fair: 18 percent
Not too fair: 24 percent
Fair: 48 percent
Very fair: 3 percent
On the fairness of specific taxes:
Gas tax: 64 percent say “not fair” or “not at all fair”
Tobacco tax: 33 percent say “not fair” or “not at all fair”
Retails sales tax: 29 percent say “not fair” or “not at all fair”
Alcoholic beverage tax: 24 percent say “not fair” or “not at all fair”
On government and community services:
Fire department: 81 percent report feeling “good” or “very good” about local services
Libraries: 74 percent report feeling “good” or “very good” about local services
Garbage collection: 64 percent report feeling “good” or “very good” about local services
Property tax rates: 47 percent report feeling “bad” or “very bad” about the rates
Economic health of community: 40 percent report feeling “bad” or “very bad” about economic health
Road maintenance and repair: 35 percent report feeling “bad” or “very bad” about local services
Lawmakers return to NC capital to talk sales tax (AP) (Presentations Attached)
Thursday, November 12th, 2009RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina lawmakers returned Tuesday to resume conversations on overhauling the state’s tax system as soon as next spring after House and Senate Democrats couldn’t agree on a plan before the Legislature adjourned in August.
A joint House-Senate finance committee held the first of at least four scheduled meetings that could ultimately lead to approval of a rewrite that’s been batted around in Raleigh since the 1950s.
“Today, we begin the process which is really unprecedented,” said Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, co-chairman of the House Finance Committee. “It’s unclear where we’ll end up at the end of the process,” he added, but meeting is “a sign of our commitment to address the issue.”
At least three state panels have considered these broader tax issues since 2000, which generally have centered on lowering tax rates in exchange for broadening the number of items and services subject to taxation.
The changes are designed to tap into transactions in an economy that have shifted toward services and technology and away from traditional manufacturing.
Bringing several dozen lawmakers together to listen to tax experts is a step forward in building the political will to approve the changes, a committee leader said.
“It’s a useful exercise for everybody to go through,” said Sen. Dan Clodfelter, D-Mecklenburg, one of the Senate’s key proponents of an overhaul.
Senate Democrats negotiated aggressively this year to lower the 6.75 percent overall sales tax rate most consumers pay and top individual income tax rate of 7.75 percent. Their plan also would have subjected building repairs, warranties and other services to the sales tax.
But Luebke and other House Democrats didn’t feel comfortable with the changes as revenues plummeted nearly 11 percent last fiscal year during the recession.
Instead, the two chambers and Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue agreed to raise an additional $1 billion this year to narrow a budget gap largely by raising temporarily the overall sales tax rate to 7.75 percent and placing an income tax surcharge on the highest wage earners.
Raising rates is a common response by North Carolina and others states during a recession, said Bill Fox, director of the University of Tennessee Center for Economic Research, who spoke to the committee.
“Keep your bases really broad and your rates really low and you’ll have the best policy,” Fox told lawmakers. “It’s high tax rates that cause most of the mischief in taxation and change our behavior.”
Senate Democrats would prefer to approve changes when the General Assembly reconvenes in May with a new plan, but it could get pushed back until 2011, after the November 2010 legislative elections.
“I don’t know what the timeline will be but I think it’s imperative that we start working toward an ultimate tax reform process in North Carolina,” Perdue told reporters after a Council of State meeting. Perdue would be asked to sign any changes into law.
Republicans, the minority party in both chambers, sound suspicious about supporting an overhaul three months after they opposed a new state budget that raised taxes.
“Tax reform cannot be just another public relations strategy to justify a tax hike,” said Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham.
By GARY D. ROBERTSON (AP) – 3 days ago
Handouts