|
Contributors
Jon Coupal- Columnist
Jon Coupal
is an attorney and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association -- California's largest taxpayer organization with
offices in Los Angeles and Sacramento. [go to website] [go
to Coupal index]
 Los
Angeles County Piles on the Taxes
Sheriff Lee Baca - tax collector...
[Jon Coupal] 8/6/04
In a high tax state, Los Angeles County stands out as a high
tax county. And if four members of the board of supervisors get
their way taxes will go even higher.
Residents already pay an extra penny in sales tax for a wretched
transportation system that has benefited few beyond the contractors
who were employed to build a subway that proved so costly and
inefficient that the voters brought construction to a halt.
County property owners pay several county-wide park assessments
along with a parcel tax to support a trauma care system that
is sagging under the weight of illegal immigrants, who often
use it as a source of primary care. The county also imposes a
hefty utility user tax on those residing in unincorporated areas.
Although county residents pay more in sales taxes than their
neighbors, county supervisors have placed on the ballot another
half-cent sales tax -- the brainchild of Sheriff Lee Baca --
to be dedicated for law enforcement. This is in spite of the
fact that in 1993 voters approved Proposition 172 which increased
the sales tax throughout the state by a half-cent for the same
purpose.
The majority on the board of supervisors ignores the fact that
Los Angeles is already at a competitive disadvantage with surrounding
counties because of its high sales tax. Los Angeles is at 8.25%
while Orange County is at 7.75% and Ventura County is at 7.25%.
An increase makes a bad situation worse by discouraging business
activity with the result that Los Angeles County could end up
with less money. Those living close to the county line will be
tempted to cross it to make major purchases, and buying over
the internet will become more attractive as the county tax rate
increases.
By placing a tax increase measure on the ballot, the supervisors
have abdicated their responsibility to make protecting the public
the highest priority for existing revenue. They have ignored
obvious alternatives to raising taxes to support the sheriff's
department. A county audit released in May showed that the sheriff
has been undercharging cities that contract for services. It
is hard to argue that these cities should not pay the entire
cost of the services they receive.
An almost immediate cost saving could be achieved if the supervisors
were to adopt a recommendation, issued in June by the Los Angeles
County Grand Jury, that the county save $18 million annually
by staffing jails with more civilian employees.
The sheriff is proposing to be more thorough in identifying
illegal immigrants in the jail population so that the county
can be reimbursed by the federal government for the incarceration.
Estimates are this could raise an additional $150 million. This
is a good first step and this revenue source should be tapped
before asking taxpayers for more.
The board needs to examine its priorities using existing money.
If more money is needed for public safety, than public safety
should have first call on available dollars. Supervisor Antonovich
agrees, but his colleagues fear that if they fully fund law enforcement
they may come up short in other areas and the public is much
less likely to approve a new tax for a spending category like
tree trimming or cleaning the sidewalks. So they play on everyone's
fears and they push the public safety angle.
The sheriff has announced his intention to raise several million
dollars to make sure his tax increase passes. Is there any doubt
that most of this money will come from the providers of public
safety services -- who will expect big raises and increased pension
benefits when more money is available -- not the recipients of
those services who will be paying the higher taxes?
When the parcel tax for trauma centers was on the ballot in
2002, backers lucked out. A few days before the election, there
was a 19 car pileup on a local freeway. Fortunately, there were
no fatalities, but the incident was seized on by the tax backers
to put fear into the hearts of voters. After all, voters were
reminded, if they did not approve the tax they might not receive
emergency care if they were involved in a traffic accident. The
ploy worked, and the tax received 73 percent of the vote.
Expect any high profile crime taking place during the next three-and-a-half
months to be used in the same manner. By playing on the public's
concerns about crime and terrorism, tax backers hope they can
persuade voters to open their wallets. CRO
copyright
2004 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers association
§
|
