Posts tagged as:

Philadelphia Inquirer

I’m in the Philadelphia Inquirer!

February 5, 2009 · 3 comments

In case you missed it, I was interviewed for today’s front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer. You can read the article, titled Tax Revelations of Rich, Powerful Irk Honest Filers, here.

I was asked to comment about how everyday taxpayers were reacting to the scandals swirling around Obama nominees Geithner, Daschle and Killefer, each of whom I’ve tackled on the blog. And well, I pretty much told the Inky what you guys said (thanks!).

A couple of my quotes got garbled – “being forthright…” became “deep and forthright” but you can’t blame the reporter. Amy S. Rosenberg, who penned the article interviewed me by phone. Unfortunately for her, she picked a snow day (meaning all of the small children were home, clamoring for my attention) when I had a cold that makes me sound like Kathleen Turner as a chain smoker. And I’m not kidding.

Enjoy the article. I’d love to know what you think…

{ 3 comments }

Fix the Tax Code Friday: Property tax abatement

December 19, 2008 · 0 comments

It’s Fix the Tax Code Friday!

Earlier this week, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article about an issue that has been on the minds of many local taxpayers as the city prepares for major cuts in services: real estate tax abatement. Many municipalities – from major metropolitan areas like Philly and NYC to smaller towns like Oskaloosa, IA and Shaker City, OH – offer temporary property tax breaks to developers or homeowners who buy new construction or significantly improve existing construction. The tax breaks range from as short as one tax year to as many as ten tax years.

Opponents of property tax abatements argue that such measures disproportionately favor the wealthy. The Philadelphia Inquirer notes, for example, that Phillies hottie outfielder Pat Burrell benefits from a tax abatement to the tune of about $25,000 per year. Opponents also claim that developers and homeowners already have plenty of incentives to pursue projects in most municipalities. At a time when cities like Philadelphia and New York City are facing huge losses, these opponents believe that the property tax abatements should end and that property owners should pay up.

In contrast, those in favor of property tax abatements consistently cite the tax break as a major incentive for taxpayers to choose to live within the boundaries of the city or town. That choice, the argument goes, brings increased revenue in terms of patronizing existing businesses like retail stores and restaurants. Additionally, proponents note that property tax abatements may be offset by other expenditures, including local income taxes, associated with living in a certain municipality. Burrell, for example, is one of a handful of sports super stars who chooses to live within the city limits – and pay an increased city wage tax as result. Burrell pays an estimated $500,000 more to City Hall as a city resident than he would as a resident of the suburbs.

So today’s Fix the Tax Code question is:

Are property tax abatements, like the one in Philadelphia, a good investment? Or a drain on already taxed resources?

{ 0 comments }

Fat? TV Addict? Should You Be Taxed on Your Lifestyle?

June 7, 2008 · 12 comments

This week, I happened to notice a series of ads running in my local paper (The Philadelphia Inquirer) for Derrie-Air airlines. There were two features that distinguished Derrie-Air from, say, USAirways and United. One was the method of determining fare:

The magic comes from our one of a kind “Sliding Scale”—the more you weigh, the more you’ll pay. After all, it takes more fuel—more energy—to get more weight from point A to point B. So we will charge passengers based on how much mass they add to the plane. The heavier you and your luggage are, the more trees we’ll plant to make up for the trouble of flying you from place to place.

The other is that the airline is fake:

The Derrie-Air campaign is a fictitious advertising campaign created by Philadelphia Media Holdings to test the results of advertising in our print and online products and to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens. All names, identities, characters, persons, whether living or dead, companies, situations, offers, products, services, and other information appearing in this campaign and the associated website are fictitious. Any resemblance to real or fictitious names, identities, characters, persons, whether living or dead, companies, situations, offers, products, services, or other information, is purely coincidental and unintentional. In other words, smile, we’re pulling your leg.

Funny? I don’t know.

Ethical? Meh. I think it’s in poor taste to track advertising with fake ads but I’m not sure it’s unethical.

But what really struck me was this notion of linking costs (both environmental and actual) to behavior. Merchants rarely do this. With few exceptions, you don’t pay more for a size 2 dress as you do a size 14. You don’t pay more for a car (gas and maintenance excepted) that you’re going to drive 20 miles as 200,000 miles. It’s an interesting concept.

I was wondering how this might translate to tariffs and taxes in the real world. It seems that every society that has a tax system has some kind of sin tax – Australia taxes alcopops, the UK taxes snack foods and here in the US we keep trying (and trying) to tax porn.

But what about instead of a sin tax, we called it a “consumption tax” and taxed and tariffed folks on their lifestyles?

It’s an interesting idea from a tax policy perspective and we do it in other capacities (sales tax, for example).

Why not tie more behaviors to tax based on usage? Why not base your cable tax on how much cable TV you actually watch (I think Time Warner wants to meter this anyway) or the tax on internet by how much you actually use the web (as opposed to the “package” you select from your provider)?

Why not base tariffs and taxes associated with cab fare, airline fare, train fare and public transit on weight – as suggested in the fake ads?

Why not take it a step further and pay on a “per use” basis for public services like fire and police – in Philadelphia, I pay a tax for the privilege of having an alarm system in my building and if I have a certain number of false triggers on the alarm, I’m fined – why not do that for individuals?

It may seem far-fetched but perhaps it’s not. In theory, while taxing behavior (which we already do in limited amounts in the form of sin taxes) feels wrong, most opponents of various taxes (as documented on this site) tend to have a beef with the idea that they don’t use services that require tax dollars. While I don’t think this is true across the board (infrastructure, military, individual usage of those things can’t be easily measured), there are certain behaviors that we can pinpoint and tax based on usage. Weight was an easy one for Philadelphia Media Holdings, LLC to target because it’s not subjective and it’s easily linked to costs – it is true that increased weight adds to the cost of air travel.

I’m not a skinny girl despite all of my activity (thanks, genetics and cheese, I really appreciate it) and I will say that I loathe the idea of stepping on a scale to determine how much I need to pay the bus driver. But I do *get* the idea behind it – it’s part of the equation that determines that kids ride for free. That doesn’t mean that I like it.

What about you? Would you be interested in being taxed on your lifestyle? Should things like weight, TV watching patterns and internet usage be determinative of how much tax you pay? What about the usage of public services? I’d love to hear your input!

{ 12 comments }