Category Archives: taxes

Small Business Outlook on the Economy

The latest Discover Financial Services “Small Business Watch” survey was released on Monday, August 31. The best that can be said seems to be that small business owners’ lack of confidence in the economy may have bottomed. Clearly, the readings from small businesses are still anything but rosy.

A few key findings on the August survey:

• 43% of small business owners believe the economy is getting worse – the lowest level in the survey’s three-year history – while 38% see it getting better. Meanwhile, 15% see it staying the same.

• 48% of small business owners ranked the economy as poor, 41% fair, and only 9% as good or excellent.

• As for their own firms, 30% saw economic conditions improving, 43% getting worse, and 23% unchanged.

• In addition, 27% of small business owners said they were going to boost spending on business development, 43% said reduce, and 25% no changes.

The only real positive that can be pulled from this survey is that the negatives were a bit less negative than in recent months. According to this poll, most small business owners clearly are still quite sour on the economy.

Considering the importance of small business to economic growth, innovation and job creation, perhaps our elected officials at the federal, state and local levels should take note. Rather than focusing on big spending programs, a pro-growth course includes tax and regulatory relief to help reinvigorate confidence and investment among our nation’s entrepreneurs.

That, however, would require a major shift in thinking among many in power right now. For example, the current plan is to sock America’s entrepreneurs and investors with higher personal income, capital gains, dividend and death taxes over the coming 16 months, while also increasing energy and health care costs in the future. That is anything but pro-small business, and therefore is bad for the economy.

Source: Raymond J, Keating, Small Business & Entreprenurial Council News, September 3, 2009

Grassroots Economic Development

By Marc Kilmer

It’s probably not news to you that Ohio is not the easiest state in which to operate a business. This isn’t just a hunch business owners have, though. There is empirical evidence to support it. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization, rates Ohio’s business tax climate worse than forty-six other states. In 2008, Ohio’s economic growth ranked behind forty-four other states. Unfortunately, there is little appetite in Columbus to address the fundamental problems facing Ohio businesses.

Ohio policymakers are enamored with top-down initiatives that seek to create economic growth. Tax credits and subsidies for certain kinds of businesses currently in favor with the political class seem to be the extent of policymakers’ ideas. As we saw with the demise of Skybus and DHL and ethanol plants throughout the state, though, this type of politically-driven economic development often ends up being a costly burden to taxpayers with few or no jobs created.

While it is difficult for politicians to contemplate, economic growth is not created through government agencies. Instead, it comes from the efforts of business owners, their employees, and their customers. It can’t be directed from above but it certainly can be stifled. When a state has a high tax burden or imposes onerous regulations, no bureaucrat from the Department of Development can fix things.

Instead of looking to direct economic development, Ohio policymakers need to create a climate where business owners can thrive. A reduced tax burden, a simplified tax code, fewer and more reasonable regulations — all these things will do much more for the state’s economy than another tax credit or low-interest loan program.

Unfortunately, creating an economic climate where economic growth is stimulated doesn’t provide as good a photo op as handing a Department of Development check to a business owner. Hopefully Ohio politicians will realize their top-down growth strategy hasn’t produced much growth and will instead decide that creating jobs is more important than taking credit for a special interest tax break.

Source: Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, August 24, 2009.

Ohio officials reject vote on slots for 2010

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s office rejected a petition with more than 3,000 signatures that attempted to place Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan for video slot machines on the 2010 ballot. According to the finalized state budget agreement the governor is expected to issue an executive order to authorize the video slot machines at Ohio racetracks. The plan includes a total of 2,500 video slot machines at 7 race tracks. However, the plan which was added to the state budget is exempted from the referendum process. The final state budget was signed July 17, 2009.

On July 20, the group LetOhioVote.org filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court in an effort to block the slots plan from going into effect. “There is an argument to be made, and the Supreme Court will evaluate whether or not this is subject to a referendum,” said Carlo LoParo, spokesperson for the group.

Ballot initiatives for gambling were turned down in 1990, 1996, 2006 and in 2008.

In all of our politicians efforts to use vice to pay for government, this blogger sees a potential pro-citizen plan that would save taxpayers billions of dollars. Let Gov. Strickland, the high court, and the legislators pay ALL state government expenditures gambling dollars. Seeing that Ohio officials defy the will of Ohio citizens concerning gambling, then all citizen taxpayers and voters should not have to pay any taxes. See that Ohio public officials produce services for themselves and their special interests and not the voting public, let them do it all without the tax dollars of Ohio citizens.

Of course those citizens who like the ideas of their corrupt politicians could always donate their money.

Source: Ballotpedia

Rehabilitation of our city streets

The city placed the following announcement of the front page of its website:

The Engineering Department has announced plans for the City’s annual street rehabilitation program. The Xenia City Council awarded a contract to Strawser Construction Inc. of Columbus, Ohio to rehabilitate four (4) deteriorated streets. The four streets include June Drive (Tackett Dr. to W. Second St.), Rockwell Drive (Cato Dr. to Kylemore Dr.), Kylemore Drive (June Dr. to Massie Dr.) and Wimbledon Drive (Bellbrook Ave. to Commonwealth Dr.). Work is scheduled to begin during the week of August 10, 2009 and expected to last through September 2009.

It is wonderful that some of our neighborhood streets are going to receive some tender loving care.

I’m wondering, however, if it is the streets that need rehabilitation. Is the troubled economy giving our streets rather than city officials or laid off taxpayers the need for some rehabilitation? I’m not sure it is our streets that are capable of straying from the moral path of lawful behavior. Can pavement commit crimes? Do thoroughfares become delinquent? Do street attempt to get our money based of bogus arguments?

God help the employees of the Strawer Construction company if our streets decide to assault them for violating their privacy or profiting from their pain. After all, up and down our street there are those who are not making enough even to pay for Simon Kenton’s underground troubles.

Maybe Simon Kenton troubles it’s really just passing gas. It could be just a lot of hot air trapped below. I think I heard some complaining of a foul odor. At least our streets are not having that kind of problem that needs rehabilitated.

Can paying taxes be rehabilitated?

Xenia City “No New Taxes” Levy Passes … Ha! Ha!

While discussing the levy yesterday, a fellow Xenian informed me that the operating levy was originally supposed to be temporary. You know he was 100 percent correct. The temporary operating levy lasted 5 years; and, like Arby’s 5-for-$5 deal, Xenia voters renewed the temporary levy for another five.

The 490,000 dollar question is this: Does the definition for temporary in tax levy terminology every mean permanently ended–as in no more? The traditional answer seems to be not on your life. In tax jargon, a temporary tax is synonymous for a permanent tradition. The federal goverment’s temporary wartime welfare program, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA and now “No Child Left Behind”), and similar tax and spend programs are prime examples of permanently temporary tax programs. it was one of of those life-long career goals of politicians like Senator Edward Kennedy.

Anyway, as reported by Greene County Board of Election, 72 percent of Xenia voters said YES to a renewal of the city’s operating levy and 23 percent said NO way.

My vote counted for 5/100 of a percent, which means almost nothing.
The real troubling statistics is that only 7.4 percent of voters showed up at the polls. Out of 28,349 registered voters, only 2,103 voted. It is no wonder why the proponents of the levy–city and school employees and dummies like me–won by such a huge margin. Maybe, the other 92.6 thought it was not worth risking the possibility of being drowned or struck by lightening or some similar hazard. Or, maybe their fear or lackadaisical outlook was really just a silent way of supporting the levy. Some might even in a nose thumbing kind of way have been exclaiming who cares!

Well, I care because the good news for me is that the crappy turn out increased the political significance of my vote. Instead of my vote being of only 5/100 percent relevance, it rose to a statically significant 67/100 of a percent.

As you can see, my political ego has been boosted to a level of almost being significant in the bigger off-season special election scheme of things. But, at least, it was good for a few laughs…well, maybe, but you should have been there.

Signs of the Times : Why Support No New Taxes on August 4

By Daniel Downs

The signs are all around. Like flashing yellow and red stoplights, they remind us of the potential danger that lies ahead.

What danger?

In a popular Republic such as ours, participation in politics is a requirement. The continuation of our freedom and prosperity depends on it. The maintenance of those common benefits provided by elected government requires our time and consideration, and so do our local services like police and fire.

The yellow signs present us with the need to be cautious. On one hand, a danger exists that Xenia residents may loose quality of police, fire, or other tax funded services. The reduction of police, fire, or other personnel is an issue the current recession has forced upon the city. This threat is more likely to become reality if the proposed operating levy renewal is rejected.

On a national scale, signs of our times speak of big socialistic government, increasingly huge federal debt, and subsequently more taxes. These trends signal a negative economic future for us all. This alone should cause us to give greater consideration to best methods of dealing with local effects.

To some, those yellow and red signs sprouting up everywhere also portend more taxes. Unlike the new taxes proposed by liberals on Capitol Hill and the last proposed operating levy, this operating levy renewal is reasonable. No New Taxes is the big red promise of city officials and their yellow signs.

While liberals are burying the national economy with debt, our local economy is depressed along with the state coffers. As amazing as it may seem, our elected city officials do get it. That is why all of them just want the operating levy renewed.

According to City Manager Jim Percival, the levy renewal will only generate $409,000 in revenue. If we look at the big picture, we will see the operating levy generating a mere 2.3 percent of the total general fund revenue, which was $14.5 million in 2007. General fund revenue includes the municipal income tax (56.6%), other local taxes (9.6%), taxes shared by other county and state government (13.2%), charges for services not considered as enterprise (water and trash) (10.1%), fines, licenses, and permits (6.6%), intergovernmental grants (1.3%), and miscellaneous receipts (2.7%). If we consider just direct taxes, we will see the operating levy only generating a meager 3.3 percent. In 2007, direct taxes were $12.3 million.

Another important figure to keep in mind on August 4 is the year-end general fund balance. At the end of 2007, it was over $1 million. This substantial sum probably is included in the $3 million reserve fund that is required by Ohio law. I suspect the reserve exists to cover unexpected situations like major infrastructure failure, recessions, failed tax levies, and the like.

A legitimate question bouncing around in my cranium is this: If there is so much excess revenue, why should I support the levy? I can think of several reasons:

One very important reason is that the operation levy renewal will not increase current taxes. Another is a decrease in tax revenues. This decrease in city tax revenue is the glorious result of the engineered recession by liberal bureaucrats. The decrease is the outcome of increased unemployment among Xenia residents. As a result, city income tax revenue is down 5.6 percent or $204,000, according to Finance Director Mark Bazelak. It is also likely to cause a decrease in shared tax revenues as indicated by decreases in County property and income tax revenues and personnel reductions. All of which illustrates the city’s need for the operating levy revenue.

During a recent city council meeting, one elected official said the city would not have enough money to cover all operating expenses even with the operating levy renewal. Although she didn’t elaborate on the issue, I suspect planned increases in union wages and benefits accounts for the anticipate lack. While government union employee pay may be increasing above inflation, the income of many non-union employees in private industry is not. To the degree this remains the case, a proper response of affected taxpayers should be who cares. Why should we care about government salary increases or about the union contract law? Increases in government employee pay means more new taxes. If the city can attract more new residents and profitable businesses, more new tax revenues will flow into the city’s coffers eliminating the need for more new taxes. Besides, citizens do not exist either for the high cost of government programs or for the profits of low paying corporate millionaires or billionaires.

Like all Americans, what Xenia taxpayers need is real change. If it ever happens, the addition of new taxes for improved services and/or infrastructure will be a non-issue. Until then, I still think maintaining the city’s operating levy revenue will benefit us all.

Alternative to Fair Tax

By Andy Myers

I’m not a proponent of the fair tax, and yes that makes me a target as was the case this past weekend at the gun and knife show. Our state sovereignty and audit the Federal Reserve booth was very well received by those who understand that our 2nd amendment rights come from a power higher than government, and we had well over 500 people sign our petitions. The NRA booth was next to ours and along with plugging the NRA to which I’d rather support GOA and the Buckeye Firearms Institute, he was plugging the Fair Tax. Most people familiar with the fair tax already know the details, so I would like to offer a “constitutional” alternative to the debate.

How about something that goes back beyond the fair tax all the way to June 2, 1944. The Liberty Amendment is an idea of Willis E. Stone, an industrial engineer. Born in Denver Colorado, who was a descendant of Ralph Waldo Emerson, the philosopher, and of Thomas Stone, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. As space in this letter is limited, I will paraphrase in the hopes that those who “understand the root of the problem is a federal government that has thrown aside the rules in which it was delegated.” will understand what the Liberty Amendment is about.

The Constitution is very specific in what powers the “sovereign states” granted it. And, there is a “proper and legal” way of changing it if need be. But our government disregards this process, for which they “swore an oath to” and continues to chain the people to a certain future of despotism. Stone’s Liberty Amendment on the other hand has been designed to fight all the multitude of apparently different battles at once, and win by “restoring the Constitution to full force and effect.” Once the Amendment is applied, a multitude of diversified battles will be won. The one thing about this proposal I disagree with is calling for a constitutional convention as this could likely lead to something far worse than what we could imagine. That is another subject that can not be adequately address in this letter.

The 4 sections of the Liberty Amendment are as follows:

Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts. Henry David Thoreau once said, “There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

Please go to www.libertyamendment.com and let us strike at the root of the problems being created by an out-of-control federal government.

Voters’ Voices Are Silenced By The Ohio General Assembly

By The Ohio Council of Churches

For the past 20 years, Ohio voters have repeatedly said NO to expanding gambling. Two out of the past three years despite millions of dollars spent on advertising by gambling corporations, the voters have overwhelmingly voted No. Therefore, one has to ask the question why would a Governor, who has repeatedly spoken about the dangers of gambling, suddenly announce that he was supporting slot machines at Ohio’s seven horse racing tracks? Searching for new revenues to help fill a $3.2 billion hole in the 2010-11 biennial budget Strickland believes that this decision will create $933 million in the next two years.

If we step back from the rising pressure of falling Ohio tax revenues and rising unemployment, what are the probably impacts of such a decision? The seven racetracks are only required to pay $13 million of their $65 million license fee in the initial year. Therefore, they won’t have to begin any construction or expend any major funding until the November election when voters will decide the fate of Penn National’s casino proposal. The racetrack slots are not scheduled to begin until May 2010 with only two months remaining in the fiscal year. If the owners of the seven tracks decide that competition with the casinos will reduce the profitability outcome for them, they can withdraw from any further payments to the state and discontinue their plans to install slots at their tracks. Robert Griffin, owner of Scioto Downs racetrack, said they are willing to pay the initial $13 million, but questions if they will go ahead and put something in the ground if the casinos ballot issue passes in November.

Half of the total is based upon a $65 million license fee from each of the seven racetracks creating a total of $455 million. However, they are not required to pay the total up front. The racetracks originally asked for a claw-back provision that would allow them to get any license fees that they have paid back if the casino ballot issue passes in November. The legislature has since removed this option. This indicates that the horse tracks may not be in this agreement beyond November and all the $933 million may not materialize.

Warren county commissioners have remarked that they are opposed to gambling on the fairgrounds and it is very unlikely that the Lebanon racetrack there will participate in the slot machine opportunity. This reduces the $933 million estimate by at least $100 million.

The Governor’s decision seems to have been born out of the pressure to fill a $3.2 billion hole in Ohio’s biennial budget. But as is often the case in most decisions made in haste, this one is based on faulty suppositions. Another potential problem is that the compromise reached by the Governor must provide authorization for the slot machines at the racetracks by Executive Order with the House and Senate providing some enabling legislation. The American Policy Roundtable in Cleveland, an anti-gambling organization, has announced their intentions to challenge the action in the Ohio Supreme Court as violating Ohio’s Constitution by allowing casino –style gambling without a statewide vote of the people. They will seek an injunction to prevent the gambling of slots until a ruling by the court. At the very least, this could markedly reduce the revenue for this biennium. It took Pennsylvania three years to handle political hearings and court cases before they could get their first dime from the slots.

I haven’t even mentioned the fact that the economy has severely reduced the revenues in gambling establishments across the country and the Midwest is now exception. The Governor’s budget representatives provided information to legislative committees that each slot machine could deliver over $200 per machine each day. However, the representative from coin industry advocating for the bars and taverns said that the University of Cincinnati study indicated that each slot machine could anticipate $76 per machine. Obviously the large difference in potential funding could drastically reduce the total amount that the racetrack slots could provide the lottery and Ohio’s budget shortfall.

Finally, Ohio law requires that profits from the lottery must be utilized only by Ohio’s primary and secondary education directly and cannot be supplanted for other purposes. Therefore, court action could be initiated if the Lottery Commission tries to transfer profits to the general fund to cover some portion of the state’s financial budget hole.

The Ohio Council of Churches joins with the large majority of faith-based organizations including mainline, conservative and independent churches in strongly opposing the expansion of gambling because of the many negative impacts on communities, families and individuals. But even among those who favor gambling, many can’t support a monopoly for one business or gambling company. The majority of Ohioans oppose putting them into Ohio’s Constitution as the only ones allowed. This is all done without a competitive bid to give Ohio taxpayers a fair share of the profits. Voters remember that only last year, the Governor authorized a Keno game projected to raise $73 million a year. Eleven months later, Keno has produced just $30 million according to Ohio Lottery officials.

The Columbus Dispatch makes the most salient point in an editorial calling the slots a bad deal for Ohio. Because Ohio’s current budget contains $5 billion in stimulus one-time monies, they point out that even if the slots perform as suggested the next biennium will be $4 billion short in the 2012-13 budget. The editorial says, “In the name of balancing the budget, Strickland is asking Ohioans to subject themselves to a parasitic industry, knowing full-well that it will not begin to solve the state’s long-term fiscal problems. Most of the devastating cuts to Ohio’s safety net will still not be funded in this biennium budget and the next without the $5 billion stimulus funds the outlook is even bleaker.

If Democrat’s Health Surtax Is 5.4 Percent, Taxpayers in Ohio would be among 39 States That Would Pay a Top Tax Rate Over 50%

By TF Staff

New taxes to fund the federal government’s plan for higher health insurance spending continue to be debated in Washington. According to a new Bloomberg report, the top surtax rate will be 5.4 percent in the House plan. That will be the top rate in a three-tiered surtax aimed at high-income tax returns:

1 percent surtax on AGI between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000)

1.5 percent surtax on AGI between $500,000 and $1,000,000 (singles between $400,000 and $800,000)

5.4 percent surtax on AGI beyond $1,000,000 (singles beyond $800,000)

States have been raising taxes on this same group, leading to concern over how high the combined tax rates would be in each state, especially in the growing number of states with double-digit tax rates. Some commentators merely sum the rates at the federal, state and local level to give a statutory total tax rate. A more accurate method is to calculate the effective marginal tax rate, which takes into consideration deductions and adjustments. For a description of the difference between effective marginal tax rates and effective average tax rates, see Average vs. Marginal Tax Rates Revisited.

In Table 1 below we present calculations of the effective marginal tax rate on top earners. We use assume that the 2008 weighted local average for each state applies to 2011, the top federal taxable income rate will rise as scheduled to 39.6 percent, the top state tax rate in each state will follow current 2011 scheduled law, and a new House plan for 5.4 percent surtax on AGI earned at very high-income levels will become law.

Table 1 (Ohio)

Top Effective Marginal Rates under Proposed Health Care Surtax by State

Sorted by Combined Top Tax Rate in 2011

State

Avg. Local Rate

Top
State Rate (2011)

Top Federal Ordinary Rate

New
Surtax

Medicare
Tax

Combined
Top Rate

Rank

Ohio

1.82%

5.93%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

54.27%

13

To see rankings of other states, go to the Tax Foundation website.

Commentary

Taxing the rich to pay for free health care is an ploy of the rich and powerful to rob the non-rich of both their freedom and their income. Anyone familiar with Roman history will recognized the strategy. The Roman imperialists tax the nations of the world to pay for their big agendas. Caesar and the Roman Senate taxed the wealthy elites of the respective states. In turn, leaders like Herod increased local taxes on productive peasants. In order to pay, many had to borrow money. When misfortune rendered them unable to pay it back, their land was confiscated. Most were allowed to continue farming the same land as long as they gave Rome via Herod or some other member of the rich elite the required amount, usually over 50 percent.

What this means under the Democrats’ taxing scheme is this: we peasants will end up paying for the huge tax increases of the rich in inflationary costs for products and services. In fact, I recently listened to what Canadians and British people have experienced under universal health care. They have had to endure long waiting lists for care and large increases in overall cost for their health care.

In every respect, universal health care is much more costly than market based care. The highest price for socialist medicine is dying while waiting to receive the promised health care.

One woman with brain cancer was able to come to the Mayo Clinic in America to get the necessary cancer treatment. That is she is suing her government. Had she waited she certainly would have died.

Americans who love the right to life as well as true liberty does not need Democrats’ impoverishing programs or their deadly health care.

Congressman Steve Austria on Cap and Trade

On June 26, the House of Representatives approved an unprecedented climate change bill, also referred to as “cap and trade”, by a vote of 219 to 212. While we all want clean air and policies that promote cleaner, more efficient energy sources, I voted against this bill due to my concerns surrounding the negative impact this legislation could have, particularly on the state of Ohio.

If enacted into law, this bill would have major implications for almost every sector of our nation’s economy. The bill places a “cap” on U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and ultimately amounts to a new energy tax on everything we consume from gasoline to electricity. As may you know, Ohio derives almost 90 percent of its energy production from coal, which will be heavily taxed under this proposal. This energy tax will be passed along to families and small businesses already struggling in the midst of the harsh economic climate. Anyone who turns on the lights and uses electricity, heats their homes with natural gas or puts gasoline in their car will see an increase in the cost of energy.

In addition, this bill will make U.S. businesses less competitive globally as they are forced to compete with businesses in countries, which do not have similar restrictions, such as China and India. Ohio’s economy relies heavily on manufacturing and this new tax could result in signficant job losses as businesses, which can not afford to meet the cap, will be forced to shut down or move operations overseas.

I was also disappointed with the process by which this legislation was considered. The bill was changed significantly at 3 a.m. the day of the vote, which I believe gave members insufficient time to read its 1,400 pages. Additionally, few amendments were permitted to be considered – amendments that may have improved the bill. In my view, when Congress is considering an issue as important as fundamentally changing out nation’s energy policy, we need to do it thoughtfully and correctly. I hope that when the Senate considers the bill, it is given the time and diligent attention it deserves.