Consultants: Tax Measures Could Have Passed, SF Coulda Had $$
Remember when the news cycle contained something other than dire budget forecasts and debate over budget cuts? Faithful readers may recall a slight-ado over a...
These are the comments for Consultants: Tax Measures Could Have Passed, SF Coulda Had $$
(2)
News Headlines
- Great Highway Closed Due To Sand Incursion
- San Francisco Prepares For Recology To Raise Garbage Rates
- Shooting In Public Housing Complex Leaves Teen Injured
- SFPD Chases Two Financial District Carjacking Suspects To Oakland
- SFMTA Officials Soliciting Public Comment On New Muni Metro Signs
- Woman Sentenced In Disaster-Relief Charity Fraud
- Police Seeking Man Who Tried To Lure Teen Into Van
- New Earthquake Exhibit To Open This Weekend At Academy Of Sciences
bloomsm said:
November 23, 2009 7:59 PM
Reply
It is poor fiscal policy to ask people to voluntarily tax themselves further, during a recession, in a city with a $6 billion budget (07-08), which spends three times more per capita on social services (per the SF Controller) than other comparable cities in the state. When prices rise and taxes increase simultaneously (which is occurring in our economy) it tends to have a negative affect on growth, which exacerbates the yo-yo affect of falling revenue, budget cuts, and tax increases. There is a reason economics is referred to as the "dismal science."
Pat said:
November 24, 2009 7:52 AM
Reply
Let's look at these proposals:
Alcohol fee would require a nexus study which is on-going and can only be equal to costs to the City of alcohol. This study was not completed for November.
Vehicle license fee would require state legislation.
And perhaps we did not put additional taxes on hotel stays because it might scare away tourists and adversely impact the City's visitor based economy. Also the City already has the highest hotel occupancy tax on the west coast and is second only to NYC.
So no we could not have had these revenue sources...