My town is up for income tax increase vote next week

[kitkat65]

Yes, I want to make sure we keep our services running, etc.

But what gets me is, would this even be necessary if wages haven't become so stagnant in the last thirty years? Or if unemployment wasn't so bad?

I don't think this increase will get to the bottom of, nor force leaders to examine or resolve why we have gotten to this point. Are they going to address the issue of jobs being lost to manufacturing going overseas, healthcare costs, bank industry practices, etc? I know most of these issues need to be addressed at the federal government level, but will saying no to an increase on the local level somehow trickle up? Am I being naive?

If they don't resolve these issues, then isn't there just going to be another income tax increase down the road? Where does it end?

The median income for a household in the city was $37,897, and the median income for a family was $47,391.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus,_Ohio

It's a .5% increase, so an average of about $200-ish per household.

On a side note, the mayor who is pushing this is saying it's a police/firefighter services issue, but our neighbors - who are firefighters - say it's bullshit since the money is not guaranteed to go there.

[Wickerman]

1. I gotta side with your mayor

At this point and time local govts are strapped because for the last 8 years the Fed has reneged on it's commitments and put the burden on the state and the local units. The State unit has most often passed the burden on to the local unit. Couple that with declining employment in the locale, a reduced tax base, etc., things is getting tough.

Your neighbors are right, sadly. The new money most likely won't go to services, but it WILL allow those services to remain intact. Hard decisions are being made at the local level and EMS services are being put on the table in many local governemnts. New cash would allow the City to keep EMS intact and still fund other priority programs.

At this point our emergency services are close to being gutted when, with increased populations and aging infrastructure they should be expanded.

[Romulox]

2. I think property owners should pay for city services.

I oppose city income taxes primarily because they are generally a substitute for a fair distribution of the tax burden among property owners. Here in Michigan (like California) we have a property tax structure that protects long-time owners from property tax increases while the full force of current tax rates is paid by new tax payers.

This has two results:

a) young people pay a far higher tax rate that older people
b) there is a huge and politically active portion of the electorate which can direct city spending without being subject to paying for any of it.

I wonder if Ohio has some similar "grandfather" clause (which works to the benefit of commercial real estate holders, too!)