A Sea Of Red

Is it just me or is there a lot of whining going on? Recently there has been complaints about local government making requirements on Liberty for future growth. Why is this bad? I understand that the Chancellor is concerned about student costs rising, but that is the nature of the beast when you are a fast growing school. Perhaps I have missed something. Help me understand!

It has been said that the CUPS requirements help meet Lynchburg’s needs and “not necessarily” the university’s. How is building tunnels to wards road not in the universities interest? Is the issue that LU thinks Lynchburg should chip in? I can agree with that, but many of the things we have heard about the city requiring are things that should be done before the school grows much more.

I am also sick and tired of hearing people complain about local food tax. Taxes need to be levied some way. It is much more fair to levy taxes on prepared food than to raise property tax. LU students need to pay their fair share of taxes. If LU students don’t like it - don’t eat out. It doesn’t seem to be hurting the local economy - parking lots are still full.

What is really not fair is taxes on groceries, but that is an argument for another day.

Good talk, Russ.

Not sure why this came up, but the food tax sucks. I eat outside of the city limits as much as possible because of it. How is it a more fair way of levying taxes than property tax? What does prepared food have to do with taxes?

LUconn -

Like I said, you don't have to eat out. If I were to decide to live in the burg long term and buy a house, why would it be better for me to have higher property taxes? More businesses (like restaurants) means more traffic. More traffic means more repairs on roads, more officers needed, etc. Schools (like liberty) artificially inflate the population. These are not bad things, just the way they are.

Liberty students add cost to the city of Lynchburg. This is offset to some degree by taxes on the sale of goods (i.e. prepared food or sales tax on shoes). This is fair. Actually, students can avoid taxes altogether by not buying anything or eating out. That is fair.

Taxes on property like cars is fair, because you don’t have to own one. You can choose to walk. My view on taxes is that we should be taxed on the consumption of non-necessary items. Taxes on groceries are inherently less fair than taxes on prepared food.

Only tax wants instead of needs? Okay, and who makes that call? I guess we'd have to throw out the income tax, because I consider my income a need. And what makes owning a house any more of a need than owning a car? You can always rent an apartment. I also consider shoes a need, so why are they taxed but not groceries?

You're so silly.

Yes, throw out the income tax! Any primary residence should not be taxed below a certain amount. Clothing under a certain cost should not be taxed... That’s the idea. Progressive, but fair.

Why don’t I like taxes on primary residences? Imagine you buy a house and then property taxes rise so high that you must sell your home. What is fair about being forced to sell your home? Housing is a need.

Here is how I think taxes should work: For the sake of argument, let’s agree to a $50 threshold for shoes. No one pays taxes on the first $50 for a pair of shoes. If you buy shoes for $75, then you pay taxes on the $25 above the $50 threshold. That is fair. It would not be fair, however, to tax shoes above $50 for the total cost.

1st, I don't understand why taxing things that people need is such a faux pas. You still need to earn enough money to purchase it. And you're not buying it at cost. Profit is being made and people NEED it. So I think a flat sales tax on everything would be the most fair. But since that will never happen the next step would be a gas tax. I don't how county residents buying stuff in the city therefore paying for Lynchburg schools is fair. But they are driving around tearing up the streets, enjoying the benefits of (theoretically) plowed roads, etc. It certainly wouldn't be popular. Gas taxes anger people.

And then on the flip side, why am I as a county resident subsidizing ridiculous rotaries and whatever other idiot traffic ideas they've been coming up with lately. How about you stop spending money doing dumb things and you wouldn't have to tax so much.

LUconn -

What you are saying is that you want the advantages of the city (store, restaurants, etc.) without any of the disadvantages (taxes). I don't live in the city either. But I don't mind paying taxes on prepared food when I visit. Why is it fair for those who live outside the city to get away with getting the perks without the dues?

I would be fine with a flat tax - my proposal is similar in many ways, just a little more on the progressive side.

What is it with prepared food that makes it such a luxury? That is how some people eat. Not everyone has the abilities or even the means to prepare all their food, and sometimes eating out is actually more economical. So in this case, you're hurting the extremely poor, and especially the homeless, something you like to call unfair.

You basically want to be the tax-god and use it for your social engineering kicks. I call that "Democrat".

Wow -

I've never been called the "D" word before. I would gladly become a democrat if they would abolish income and proterty taxes.

By the way - eating out is a leading cause of obesity among the disadvantaged.

ALUmnus wrote:What is it with prepared food that makes it such a luxury? That is how some people eat. Not everyone has the abilities or even the means to prepare all their food, and sometimes eating out is actually more economical. So in this case, you're hurting the extremely poor, and especially the homeless, something you like to call unfair.

You basically want to be the tax-god and use it for your social engineering kicks. I call that "Democrat".

I can see your point if you're referring to people eating off the dollar menu at McDonald's, or the 79/89/99 cent items at Taco Bell, but is it really unfair if there is a tax on that steak at Outback?

However, even those needing to eat at those low prices still require services from the city in some way, shape, or form so they should still carry part of the burden (except for the fact that a lot of Lynchburg's homeless get shipped to Roanoke). And also, eveyone may not be a gourmet chef, but I'm pretty sure 99% of people can open a can of soup and heat it up in a microwave without problems.

I'm not saying that these things shouldn't be taxed, but it's the logic being used at how you're picking and choosing what should be taxed and what shouldn't. That's all.

alabama24 wrote:LUconn -

What you are saying is that you want the advantages of the city (store, restaurants, etc.) without any of the disadvantages (taxes). I don't live in the city either. But I don't mind paying taxes on prepared food when I visit. Why is it fair for those who live outside the city to get away with getting the perks without the dues?

I guess I just don't see where I or my fellow county-folk are burdening the city in such a way that requires extra taxation. Roads more heavily used? I guess so. So why is the plump chick who drives in from Bedford to buy some unmentionables at Lane Bryant 6% less responsible than me who stops off at Taco Bell for new pacific shrimp taco?

LUconn wrote:

alabama24 wrote:LUconn -

What you are saying is that you want the advantages of the city (store, restaurants, etc.) without any of the disadvantages (taxes). I don't live in the city either. But I don't mind paying taxes on prepared food when I visit. Why is it fair for those who live outside the city to get away with getting the perks without the dues?

I guess I just don't see where I or my fellow county-folk are burdening the city in such a way that requires extra taxation. Roads more heavily used? I guess so. So why is the plump chick who drives in from Bedford to buy some unmentionables at Lane Bryant 6% less responsible than me who stops off at Taco Bell for new pacific shrimp taco?

Well, if Virginia were a self-rule state, Lynchburg could have a general sales tax and no meals tax. However, because Virginia is a Dillon rule state (which is one of the things Mark Warner wanted to change but the Repubs blocked), they're going to hit you and possibly that plump chick who will stop at some fast food place in the city while buying whatever it is she's buying at Lane Bryant.

Just glad I'm in a no state income tax state where all state revenues are generated by sales tax.

Sly Fox wrote:Just glad I'm in a no state income tax state where all state revenues are generated by sales tax.

amen!

ATrain wrote:
Well, if Virginia were a self-rule state, Lynchburg could have a general sales tax and no meals tax. However, because Virginia is a Dillon rule state

What are these things you speak of.

LUconn wrote:

ATrain wrote:
Well, if Virginia were a self-rule state, Lynchburg could have a general sales tax and no meals tax. However, because Virginia is a Dillon rule state

What are these things you speak of.

A locality must ask permission from the General Assembly before its citizens can vote on whether or not they want to raise a sales tax within the limits of their jurisdictions.

In North Carolina, which is a Home Rule state, a locality can do it without permission from their legislative body in Raleigh.

We are living in an unprecedented time of economic crisis. Too many of Roanoke's citizens and those in the entire state of Virginia are not aware of what's happening at the state level that is severely impacting us at the local level. I have consistently expressed confidence in city staff in managing the local situation. If we as a locality had more control of our destiny and had more options as it pertains to financing our operations, we would be in far better shape.

Recently, I received an e-mail from a concerned citizen who suggested that rather than a meal tax increase, we should invoke a half percent increase on the sales tax. That constituent, whose family has been in Roanoke for more than a hundred years, was shocked when I informed him that we don't have that option. That is an option reserved at the state level. Many localities, including our own, in the past have lobbied the General Assembly for the opportunity to have a local sales tax option. We and others have been resoundingly defeated each and every time.

It is unfortunate that we have arrived at the economic crisis that we're in and so many people have yet to understand what few options city council, as a local governing body, has and how much is controlled by the state. Many people do not understand the kind of government we have in Virginia -- the fact that we are a Dillon Rule state. This means we can do only what state law expressly says we can, as compared to a state like North Carolina that is a Home Rule state by virtue of legislative action, where you can do anything unless it is expressly prohibited by the state.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/238028