County`s Logic Fails the `Angry Taxpayer` Test
Visited 555 times, 1 so far today Print This! | Twitter This!
The battle centers, of course, around tax revenue… who gets your tax dollars if you live within a city’s limits, the county or the city. If the county’s position in the ongoing dispute over service delivery and tax rates doesn’t make sense to you, join the crowd.
If you start a business or apply for a rezoning within a city, you pay the related fees to the municipality instead of to the county. It is, of course, the city that regulates the activity and not the county, so it makes sense that the fees paid to finance the service should go to the agency that provides the service.
Mike Comer, Gwinnett County deputy administrator, said the impasse centers around money — about $50 million.
Unincorporated residents, he said, pay certain fees, such as insurance premium taxes, liquor licenses and business permits, to the county that help cover the cost of services. City residents, he said, pay the same fees, but they go into city coffers.
Because of this, the county argues, city residents must make up the difference through a higher county property tax rate.
“It’s not a lot of money,” Comer said, “but apparently it’s enough to fuss about.”
The county argues that it “loses” approximately $50 million a year in fees and tax revenue to the cities. It proposes to make up the “loss” by charging city residents a higher property tax rate.
Yeah, now you’re scratching your head, aren’t you?
The “lost revenue” argument only flies if the county doesn’t receive revenue for services that it provides. Fees and such are supposed to be payment for services rendered; no more and no less. The county government has no right to tax revenue for services provided by other government entities.
In essence, the county’s position is that you should pay county property taxes for services that you do not receive, simply because county government “expects” a certain revenue level.
The county’s logic flies in the face of the primary purpose of the service delivery law… that double taxation should be eliminated wherever possible. In the example of a business license provided by the city, you can bet that the municipality will continue to (rightfully) charge a fee to cover the expense of regulating businesses. The county proposes that you should also pay county taxes to match the money paid to the city.
Even worse, the plan to increase property tax rates to make up for the “loss” would force all property owners within cities to pay more, even if they never applied for a business license, a liquor license or other permit provided by the city.
Government should cost the people no more than the actual cost to provide the service. There should be no double payment for government services and there should certainly be no cost for services not provided.
It should alarm you that county leaders believe that they have a right to a certain revenue level; a certain amount of your money, regardless of the actual cost of government. The position completely contradicts what are commonly considered “conservative principles” of smaller government, lower taxes, etc.
But, then, in recent days we have been sorely disappointed by politicians from both sides of the aisle at all levels of government.
I challenge county leaders to explain why they have a right to more of your money.
Time to settle tax fight, judge tells Gwinnett, cities | ajc.com
