Now
Fair
79.0°
High
82°
Low
62°

State should allow city income tax

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY STUART LONG

Saturday, Jan 03, 2009 - 12:17:01 am CST

Nebraska state government for its first century was funded by the property tax. Historically, tax collectors have liked this tax because it’s impossible to hide real estate. In 1966, however, dissatisfaction became wide enough to elect Republican banker Norbert Tiemann governor on his promise of tax reform.

The state began the sales tax in June 1967 and the income tax in January 1968. About a 1 percent state property tax vanished forever from taxpayers’ bills.

From the outset, state legislators granted Nebraska municipalities a local option sales tax if voters approved. Omaha was first to add a city sales tax in 1969; Lincoln followed in 1970.

Story Photo
Stuart Long

Now, 173 municipalities and one county have adopted a local sales tax. The sales tax is widely regarded as fair although disproportionately heavier on the poor. Groceries are not taxed in Nebraska to remedy this.

My question for the 2009 Legislature is this: Why not grant the same local option on the income tax? The state already shares this tax base with the federal government; why not share it with Nebraska cities and towns, too?

Taxpayers are fed up with high property taxes. Local mill levies are under attack everywhere.

Lincoln, for example, has experienced three successive budget emergencies in which every device but a mill levy increase has been used to balance the city budget. The City Council has reduced city services, jacked up fees, cut 134 city employees and drained various funds rather than raise taxes.

Partly this is because of the way taxes are paid. No one knows how much sales tax they pay in a year because it is paid a few cents at a time. For most people, income taxes are withheld every pay period and when they prepare their return, all they focus on is whether they still owe money or get a refund.

Real estate taxes are different. Only those whose lender is paying the tax from an escrow account fail to feel the bite. Everyone else has to write two checks to the county treasurer. These are large checks, in many cases the biggest checks a person will write all year.

The property tax checks are also large because so many jurisdictions rely on the property tax: county, city, school district, community college, natural resource district, etc. Some taxpayers apparently fail to understand that close to two-thirds of their property taxes go to schools. Almost no one appears at budget hearings to protest school or county spending, yet city spending is under intense scrutiny.

Administratively, a local income tax would operate the same as the sales tax. The state Revenue Department would collect the taxes and reimburse the cities. This would add little to the cost of government. W-2 statements already include the city page.

An income tax is widely accepted as the fairest of all taxes. Tax bills are based on financial success — those who lack the ability to pay don’t, those who enjoy the ability to pay do. Income taxes follow the normal graph of an individual’s earnings; that is, they are modest when a person is starting in the work force, increase gradually as job experience leads to greater income, then generally cease on retirement.

Some will say now is not the time for tax reform. But the housing loan crisis, the stock market meltdown and the general recession are all good reasons for shifting taxes from property to income. Otherwise, more unemployed, underemployed or retired Nebraskans might be forced out of their homes, adding to personal misery and slowing economic recovery for all.

What might be the result in Lincoln’s case? State revenue statistics from 2006 show the Lincoln School District (same boundaries as city) had about 114,000 income tax returns with federal adjusted gross income totaling nearly $6 billion.

If the city had collected 1 percent of that income, it would have had $60 million to replace the $41 million it levied in property taxes. If the city had collected 0.5 percent, or $30 million, it could have cut its property tax levy in half and still had money left over.

Imagine the past three years under this scenario. No painful budget cuts, no emptied funds, no fees increased, no one laid off, full city services, streets maintained and extended, extra money for new projects — in sum, a city able to pay its way as it goes. Perhaps the city’s net debt per capita would not have doubled in the past decade, but that’s probably a complex enough subject for another column.

All I’m suggesting here is that state senators empower local voters to choose which forms of taxation they prefer.

Stuart Long is a retired newspaperman, citizen volunteer and serious library patron.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Columns > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Matthew wrote on January 3, 2009 8:56 am:
" Really nice concept, but people would just move out of Lincoln for towns without the tax. There would be a huge increase in population growth in bennet, panama, hickman, waverly, etc. And these small towns wouldn't want to have a income tax, because their property tax rolls just increased substantially, and they're happy that they're no longer dying. "

Income tax fair wrote on January 3, 2009 9:20 am:
" I beg to differ that the income tax is the fair tax. Reportable IRS income is the only income taxed. It is not the only source of income. Large segments of our society have learned to avoid income taxes through an underground economy, which includes those being paid in total or partly in cash, dealers of illegal commodities (i.e., drugs), those who have good accountants who hide their income, and those who have learned to be supported by various subsidies. Tax their purchases and you will have a fairer tax. My income is all taxed more than once. I don't need another income tax. I also pay property tax, sales tax (including the ridiculous service taxes), vehicle taxes, etc. If the government doesn't have enough money, let scale back and just provide the essential services that our society needs instead of the frills that some want. "

Randy wrote on January 3, 2009 12:56 pm:
" I have an idea. How about the government spending less? Look at the growth of all government, from local to federal, and the growth is unbelievable. Everyone wants a bailout and the taxpayers can't afford it. Government should be afraid of the people not the people afraid of the government. "

Well wrote on January 3, 2009 1:37 pm:
" I agree that a tax reform is long, long overdue. I forsee if something is not done that people will start asking for a Jarvis(Circa 1979) type of reform. I've seen it in several blogs. Most who are not from CA perhaps are not familiar with it. Jarvis wrote California's Prop 13, which limited the amount of increases that could be assessed against houses or increases in Property taxes.
Cities then started to raise the sales taxes to offset this. In the long run I believe that folks made more money off of the sales taxes. It also effectivly puts schools on a budget. Could Nebraska have some similar revolution? I believe it is comming more people from other states have moved in here and are more vocal about the high costs of Property and other taxes. I personaly would like to see a reduction property taxes, in the many states I have lived in, Nebraska is one of the higher ones. "

The thing wrote on January 3, 2009 3:23 pm:
" I don't understand is how nebraska and or lincoln could ever forsee another tax. What does nebraska have to offer for the high taxes? I left because the only thing offered was lots of space in the country. I lived in lincoln on a 40x120 lot with a 1300 sq ft house that cost 2400 a year property tax when I left six years ago. I can't even imagine what it cost now. My 4 year and 8 year old car cost around 500 dollars to drive. What did I get for my money? A good neighborhood gone bad because of gangs and drugs, while driving a lot of people with road rage as everyone is in more of a hurry than in nyc, schools with overworked teachers and overpaid administrators, bad climate, high utilitys. I can't say I had a lot of good things. If more people would go on vacations and ask about the areas they visit I doubt that many would state in lincoln or the good life state. "

Probably not wrote on January 3, 2009 4:06 pm:
" The savings realized by moving to "bennet, panama, hickman, waverly,etc." would most likely be offset by the increased cost of gas and vehicle maintenance.

It'd cost me over 500 bucks addition cost in gas alone if I moved to Hickman from where I live now. A half percent tax on my income is only 275 dollars. "

Peabody wrote on January 3, 2009 5:29 pm:
" The City would just add an income tax to the existing taxes that is collected. It is naive to assume that if a new tax is assessed an existing tax would decrease or be eliminated. "

I just wrote on January 3, 2009 7:45 pm:
" visited with a couple from missouri yesterday. They have a law in that state that has teeth about taxes. They cannot, I repeat CANNOT pass anything that raises the taxes without a VOTE of THE PEOPLE. How can they expect to have people blindly follow whatever the fools in the state house, or city and county chambers do? "

Eric wrote on January 3, 2009 8:54 pm:
" smaller, smaller, smaller government. The only thing the government should provide is police, fire and roads. Schools are obviousy necessary yes, but paying teachers is more important than new buildings and upkeep. Schools should use volunteer cleanups and student clubs to help offset cuts in grounds upkeep. Everyone has to do there part. Parks improvements and upkeep on libraries and other such things should only take place during good years on a project by project basis. When the peoples money goes down, the governments does too. How dare anyone suggest that we should keep the money flowing into the government during a recession. Belt tightening is the same for them as everyone else. "

Greg wrote on January 3, 2009 10:35 pm:
" A new tax? That's like giving a child a shopping bag full of candy. Does the author actually think politicians would reduce property or sales tax? I vote for painful budget cuts. Painful budget cuts every year if necessary. We already work almost half the year for government administered by self serving politicians. This man wants even more dollars for them to waste. No way! "

Alan wrote on January 4, 2009 9:50 am:
" Nebraskan's have had two good chances to limit the growth of taxes and government in this state and have voted both down. I'm all for the underground economy, how else is the little guy going to get a break? I always pay my contractors in cash. What they do after that is their own business. "

no thanks wrote on January 4, 2009 10:43 am:
" No thanks, Stuart .Maybe I missed something but it seems like the author hasn't been paying attention. The city has come up short on the budget due to a short fall in SALES TAX REVENUE. Yet his proposal implies that the city shortfall is due to lack of property tax revenue. He wants to swap property tax for a new income tax. This makes no sense. Maybe someone can explain what I'm missing, or maybe explain to Stuart that it's the Sales Tax revenue that has been causing budget problems. "

whatever wrote on January 4, 2009 11:41 am:
" An interesting thought. What's even more interesting is the lack of comment on this post. A local income tax would is just another form of revenue abuse and doesn't address the serious problem Nebraska has with it's tax system and thus is not "reform". What's in order is to repeal every tax law on the books and then a "rebuild" and "rewrite" of all of Nebraska's tax code. I tend to agree that giving local governments this option will lead to abuse and particularly in Lincoln a further decline in the standard of living. "

Enough is enough wrote on January 4, 2009 10:33 pm:
" How much taxes are enough? I agree with the post from 'Income tax fair' that raising taxes only hurts those that pay them. There are many loopholes in the tax code that will never be fixed so the elite will never pay much for taxes. Raising the taxes only puts more burden on the working class not those that have the ability to shelter their money. If you don't believe it, take a little time and do some research. "

That is the problem right there wrote on January 5, 2009 8:37 am:
" Those who think the middle and lower class is providing all the tax dollars. A comment such as "the elite will never pay much for taxes" is so far from accurate it's not even funny. I thought it was common knowledge that the upper tier income earners pay for most taxes in this country already.

Get your facts straight before spewing too much inaccuracies. An income tax would benefit you lower class taxpayers more than anything compared to property taxes. "

Old old timer wrote on January 6, 2009 8:37 pm:
" Stuart was an exceptional editor, but never reported on government. His perception is skewed because it fails to acknowledge at least two realities. Lawmakers from agricultural districts used to push the idea of a local income tax. Why? Because so many farmers zero-out when it comes to income tax, thanks to the tax writeoffs provided for that industry. The income tax is progressive, while allowing all manner of credits and deductions for purposes deemed appropriate by the Legislature. Remember: the guy with the biggest agricultural operation is the one least likely to pay any income tax - not a cent. The second thing: Government at virtually every level would argue that it needs authority to tax income, but must also keep all or a portion of its authority to tax property. The late Sen. Jerome Warner of Waverly was a constant advocate for the most reasonable tax policy: Tax everything at low rates. Such a policy never stood a chance. The Legislature granted, and still grants, exemption after exemption after exemption to business interests - which the business community legitimately and understandably seeks. We don't need to give local governments authority to tax income. "

Me wrote on January 14, 2009 7:40 pm:
" I would take it a step further and have the city where the person works receive the money. As someone who lives in Omaha, pays Omaha sales tax on everything, Omaha property tax, Omaha wheel tax, I get tired of seeing people from Washington, Dodge, Saunders, Cass, and Sarpy counties driving on Omaha roads and paying little, if any, towards them. The kicker is when they complain about traffic. "