tink

Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 9:49 p.m.

I work at UM Hospital and live in Ypsi Township. I pay hefty taxes on my home and pay monthly for the luxury of parking near the hospital. It is not unusual for me to shop or dine or partake in activities in Ann Arbor, as do most of my colleagues. If this tax is implemented, I will never spend another dime in A2. It is equidistant for me to go from my home to Canton. I think I'll let that area have my business. I have to wonder, who keeps electing these people? What strange senses of priority they seem to have.

John Q

Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 8:12 p.m.

My comment wasn't directed at you. It was at the person comparing their salary towards city workers total compensation. Those are two different things.

AlphaAlpha

Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 6:17 p.m.

Total average compensation was clearly defined. Total compensation = total earnings = salaries plus benefits. I calculated average total compensation because the data available supports that calculation. Of course some earn more and some earn less. As I've suggested, if you can do a better calculation, please do. I think we'd all like to see your numbers.

John Q

Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 3:32 p.m.

"I earn less than all of the following noted below, even with my fancy UM degree" That's not what Ann Arbor city employees earn. It's a combination of the salaries plus benefits. Many employees combined salary and benefits does not equal that amount. But Alpha refuses to acknowledge that fact. Nor is he/she willing to account for education, years of service, professional requirements, etc. Many of Ann Arbor's employees earn more than the average worker because they've put the time in with the city to earn a higher wage.

samshoe

Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 1:38 p.m.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. I live outside of Ann Arbor because I cannot afford to buy a home in Ann Arbor. I work downtown because my employer is located downtown (and I get the added bonus of a hour commute daily). I earn less than all of the following noted below, even with my fancy UM degree: All government workers average: $82,846.40 All civilian workers average: $57,179.20 Ann Arbor workers average: $116,858.34 Yes, I will lobby my employer to move out of Ann Arbor proper if they impose a city income tax. And if they don't move, I will look for a job in a city and state that is more affordable than this one.

AlphaAlpha

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 11:53 p.m.

Summary: Ann Arbor City Workers Average Earnings Are Twice The U.S. Average The 2010 Budget Book, page 105 (p. 117 of.pdf), lines 1 and 2, FY2010 column, shows: requested pay of $55,519,965, and requested benefits of $59,426,234; those lines total $114,946,199. From that, subtract the $25,432,710 for retirees shown on page 354 (page 375.pdf), line 2, column FY2010: $114,946,199 - $25,432,710 = $89,513,489 total 2010 compensation for current city employees. When that amount is shared by 766 city employees (per page 62/page 72.pdf), it provides $116,858.34 for each employee for 2010. Now, as the BLS data below is expressed in dollars per hour, we'll divide our $116,858.34 by 2080 hours per year to find that Ann Arbor city workers are paid an average of $56.18 per hour in total compensation. From the BLS: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm Employer Costs for Employee Compensation September 2009 "State and local government employers spent an average of $39.83 per hour worked for total employee compensation in September 2009. Wages and salaries averaged $26.24 per hour worked and accounted for 65.9 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged $13.60 and accounted for the remaining 34.1 percent. Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.49 per hour worked in September 2009. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC), a product of the National Compensation Survey, measures employer costs for wages, salaries, and employee benefits for non farm private and state and local government workers." So, state and local government average total worker compensation in the U.S. in September 2009 was $39.83 per hour, and $39.83 times 2080 hours = $82,846.40 per year. (The civilian workers earn $27.49 per hour total compensation; that amount times 2080 = $57,179.20 per year.) So now we know the average compensation for three groups: our city workers, their governmental peers nationwide, and the majority group, the civilian workers. Recap: All government workers: $82,846.40 per year All of the civilian workers: $57,179.20 per year Ann Arbor city workers: $116,858.34 per year Our city employees earn 141% of the national average for government employees, and they earn an astounding 204% of the average for the far larger civilian work force. Aligning city employee average pay to the average all-government pay would save us ($116,858.34 - $82,846.40) = $34,011.94 per worker per year; that amount times 766 workers = $26,053,146.04 per year. This 29.1% reduction would align us with national averages. Thankfully, our budget situation is not nearly so serious that the 29.1% reduction would require immediate implementation. A pay reduction of only 5.8% would eliminate the entire current deficit. The 29.1% reduction could easily be instituted over several years, providing ample time for all to adjust. And, it would provide city workers an excellent alternative to having city worker pay reduced all the way down to the level of civilian pay.

AlphaAlpha

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 11:37 p.m.

Thanks Awakened, very much. Excellent synopsis. All- I have summarized the labor cost issue, and will post that shortly. Thanks to all the folks who gave input on this key issue. Most agree the budget is less than crystal clear; hopefully having these costs made understandable will allow the debate to move to a new level, hopefully based more on facts than rhetoric.

Lokalisierung

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 2:16 p.m.

"Do you have any knowledge of "labor markets" or markets in general?" Yes; Next question.

Awakened

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 6:04 a.m.

@AlphaAlpha. My understanding is that the City did not contribute during the 90's to... They did an earlier 'buy out' of employees under the prior administrator. This took the fund below 100%. When Tom Crawford became CFO he recognized the unfunded liability and pushed to have it funded. Sadly they reached 100% again just before the stock market crash in 2008. Crawford pushed to fund this, create an emergency fund, straighten out the golf courses and bring benefits under control. Too bad A2 didn't have him earlier. All this was under Fraser's watch. I think that both of them get bad mouthed for dealing with bad decisions made before they arrived. That includes, in my opinion, the Police/Courts building. The police facilities in the Larcom Building were inadequate and polluted with Radon and Asbestos. We were renting court space. It was smart to buy rather than rent. The same goes for building a new facility to replace the inadequate and disasterously polluted N Main and W Washington facilities. If it seems like they are building alot it is because their predecessors did nothing to address the state of the City's infrastructure and finances for decades.

voiceofreason

Fri, Feb 12, 2010 : 12:12 a.m.

I'd be interested to see the amount of savings just by changing to competitive benefit packages.

AlphaAlpha

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 11:46 p.m.

Corrected values (thanks to JohnQ for helping with the facts): Recap: All government workers average: $82,846.40 All civilian workers average: $57,179.20 Ann Arbor workers average: $116,858.34 $26 million per year can be saved via competitive city wages.

voiceofreason

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 10:22 p.m.

Lokal, Do you have any knowledge of "labor markets" or markets in general?

AlphaAlpha

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 9:20 p.m.

Key data from the other post on average total annual compensation: All government workers: $82,846.40 All civilian workers: $57,179.20 Ann Arbor workers: $150,060.31

AlphaAlpha

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 9:13 p.m.

Hello Awakened - Thank you for the info regarding retirement contributions in prior years. I am curious: just when was that? The 2010 Budget Book page 117, shows very large contributions ($49,000,000 to $58,000,000!) for prior years, but only back to FY 2007. Just curious, not contentious. Net-net though, yes, all compensation must be factored in to derive total compensation. Mismanagement of city finances appears to have been common; in fact it appears to be happening now, as well. I agree, government workers should earn wages comparable to their private market counterparts. Somebody asked the specious question, "Why?" No bait taken... I posted BLS numbers over on the income-tax story comment section which clearly show our city workers appear to be earning not only much more than most government workers, but way more than private industry counterparts as well. Is it time for city wages to regress to the mean? This would save on the order of $25,000,000 to $50,000,000 each year. Think about that! A budget surplus...

Lokalisierung

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 6:48 p.m.

Well yes I would have to disagree with you there. Does anyone know the averge income of an A2 resident? Personally I don't, but I think some jobs easily deserve a higher wage than your average employee. Take a police officer or fire fighter (and yes this isn't a rough part of the state/country to work in that's for sure) probably deserve more than your average...well whatever the average worker is in A2. I think people ethat are in charge of running the funding for a city like Ann Arbor cartainly deserve more than an average employee working here. What is the median income here? 45-50K a year? Do you really want to hire a number cruncher on a budget wage? Now elected office I completely agree with your statement.

Awakened

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 6:21 p.m.

It is just my opinion that if the average income for a city is (say) $100,000; the people they employ shouldn't average any higher. If the citizens can fund the city on such an average then surely the government employees of that city can live on the same average.

Lokalisierung

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 6:08 p.m.

"Government workers should not be paid more than the citizens that pay their salaries." Why not?

Awakened

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 6:02 p.m.

@AlphaAlpha. If you are factoring in the retirement money the city is contributing you are skewing the figures. First, City workers pay 5% of their pay into retirement (6% now for Fire.) But more importantly when the market was doing well the City contributed nothing allowing the earnings to pay the City's share. They spent the extra money. When the market tanked they had to start playing catch up. They are up to 20% of employee salary now (or more.) Had they contributed their matching 5% all along they would only be paying 5 million or so a year. The big number now is mismanagement and poor investing. Never-the-less.... Public workers are paid equal or higher wages and much better benefits than civilian workers. And A2 is definately on the high end of that scale. Government workers should not be paid more than the citizens that pay their salaries. How did we ever allow that to happen??

Bridget Bly

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 12:10 p.m.

As a business owner who lives in town, I guess I shouldn't care about the city income tax because I'll get a property tax cut. BUT... Any tax changes we make should further the goals of the city, not just indiscriminantly raise money. We want people to live in Ann Arbor, to contribute to this community, to send their kids to AAPS schools, and to spend their money here rather than somewhere else. So how about a commuter tax pure and simple -- maybe one that is waived if you move into town? Changing tax structure impacts the actions of families and businesses, so let's use this power in a smart way rather than a self-defeating way.

Nerak

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 9:17 a.m.

Broadening the tax base is essential. It's no big deal if businesses "re-adjust" their locations in the short-term. In the long-term, Ann Arbor will remain as an attractive magnet to both residents and businesses, and it's just plain foolish not to tap the U of M juggernaut.

Theseus

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 9:14 a.m.

Desperate people make stupid decisions. For years now the social-minded city council has been steering our city towards lofty if impractical goals in a continuously receding horizon. Thus, we arrive at the moment of truth and yet with all the evidence of fiscal irresponsibility clearly in front of us, no one points out that the EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. Ann Arbor is decaying as a city. When finally faced with an impossible situation in which additional cuts are almost impossible; when it is obvious that the only possible solution is to increase revenues, the city council targets non-residents in the hope that they can pass some version of an income tax that will not cost them their adored positions at the polls. What it will cost Ann Arbor is the many businesses that can and will move into abundant vacant commercial real estate in the townships where their contributions will be highly valued. In the meantime, the City Council continues their lemming like march towards disaster contemplating projects such as a park-skating rink in downtown Ann Arbor or spending their limited capital in long term projects such as the green zone. Such projects while commendable are costly and not whithin our budgetary reality. Rather than increase taxes the council should look at projects that expand their tax base. A river front would be an example. Oops, sorry! I forgot about the greenies, tree huggers, Sierra Club, etc. The only solution is to increase the tax base and we can accomplish this by becoming an attractive home for a myriad of companies unsatisfied with their current abodes. We can increase the tax base by building on empty or underutilized lots; by developing our riverfront; by growing horizontally, etc. However, we must demand that our legislators in Lansing look after the interests of our cities. It is ludicrous that our universities chartered to educate Michigan young men and women contribute naught when it comes to paying for services such as police and fire protection, while at the same time they spend millions in bloated bureaucracies and over funded sports programs. No one would be so dense as to not think that the University of Michigan has been and continues to be the greatest contributor to the growth and prestige of Ann Arbor. The world around us has changed since the days when our premier educational institution was chartered. The rationale for the tax break granted back then to allow the fledging institution enough time to become economically viable certainly does not apply to todays behemoth. The dream of those long gone Michiganders has become a reality which we can all be proud of. It is time to change that charter so that the Go Blue does not become Go Broke for the city that cradles it. It is time for the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor to step up and assume civic responsibilities towards its hometown in proportion to the enormous footprint it occupies.

John Q

Thu, Feb 11, 2010 : 5:52 a.m.

Thanks for misdirecting the discussion with your phony numbers. Go back and fix your math.

AlphaAlpha

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 10:01 p.m.

From the BLS: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm Employer Costs for Employee Compensation September 2009 "State and local government employers spent an average of $39.83 per hour worked for total employee compensation in September 2009, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries averaged $26.24 per hour worked and accounted for 65.9 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged $13.60 and accounted for the remaining 34.1 percent. Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.49 per hour worked in September 2009. Total employer compensation costs for civilian workers, which include private industry and state and local government workers, averaged $29.40 per hour worked in September 2009. (See chart 1.) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC), a product of the National Compensation Survey, measures employer costs for wages, salaries, and employee benefits for nonfarm private and state and local government workers." So, total annual government worker compensation in the U.S. is $39.83 / hour, times 2080 hours = $82,846.40/year. Reasonable? The civilian workers earn $27.49 total times 2080 = 57,179.20 / year. Average Ann Arbor city employee total compensation is $150,060.31, into 2080 hours = $72.14 / hour. Recap: All government workers: $82,846.40 All civilian workers: $57,179.20 Ann Arbor workers: $150,060.31 City employees earn 181% of the national average government employees, and earn an astounding 262% of the far larger civilian work force. Reducing city employee pay to the average government pay would save (150,060.31 - 82,846.40) = $67,213.91 times 766 workers = $51,485,855 per year. Thankfully, our budget situation is not nearly so serious that this reduction would require immediate implementation. It could easily be instituted over several years, providing ample time for all to adjust. And, it would provide an nice alternative to reducing city worker pay to the level of civilian pay.

YpsiLivin

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 10 p.m.

Find me a more manipulative group than business owners and I'll buy you a cheeseburger. City managers.

YpsiLivin

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 9:56 p.m.

I find it interesting that since the state law regarding income taxes was amended to require the approval of the voters, not one single Michigan city has successfully instituted an income tax.

a2huron

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 9:43 p.m.

What about those city residents like myself who are retired? We won't pay a city income tax but will gain from a property tax reduction. I have to figure a good number of people are in this situation. Frankly, getting the U of M employees to contribute to the wear and tear on our roads and infrastructure seems worth it. I bet most of those U employees are the ones posting in opposition to the tax.

BrianR

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 9:04 p.m.

Paula, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on the whys/wherefores of CompuWare's building its HQ in Detroit and moving in from the suburbs. How do you square that with your belief that city income taxes are detrimental to cities?

Gill

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 8:43 p.m.

Also, all the big box stores are already in townships...

Gill

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 8:31 p.m.

We are talking about 1/2 a percent to those that do not live in the City and 1 percent that do, and for those that own in the City a reduction in property tax. As American's pay very low taxes in comparison to other developed countries, all I can think of is: stop whining so much, people. Wahhh! In a real recession, people do not have the basic necessities, like shoes, food, etc. My dad went through a real recession, when there were more siblings than shoes. When did cell phones and cable tv become necessities? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP#cite_note-0

KJMClark

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:59 p.m.

Most Michigan cities have been dying a slow death since the 60s. Most northern US cities in general have been declining, income tax or no. I can't see a reason to be impressed with that comparison. And I can't see any reason to just look at Michigan cities. We should also look at our real competition - university towns across the country. I would also like to know what the business owners that Ms. Gardner talked to thought of reduced property taxes. I think it's funny how many people hear "income tax" and forget that the city charter requires a reduction in property taxes. And for anyone leasing property, if you can't negotiate a lower rent when you know the property taxes are dropping, you should shop around for another property. But isn't business in Ann Arbor at a disadvantage due to higher property taxes now? Haven't our property taxes been higher than other surrounding communities for decades? If an income tax on employees (and reduced property taxes) will really encourage businesses to leave, wouldn't they have left already due to the higher property taxes/rents? Really, this just sounds like people don't understand that property taxes are required to fall, and business owners are just generally against any tax at all.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:47 p.m.

"FANTASTIC, PAULA!! If my husband and I have to pay income taxes then I have NO IDEA what we are going to do. We barely had the money for our property taxes this year." Your property tax will go down with an income tax

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:35 p.m.

"Heck, and if the economic crisis doesn't abate soon next thing they know they'll be asking faculty and staff for wage cuts." haha...nice.

John Alan

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:34 p.m.

Paula, You are right on. This is very simple, the offices can (and will) easily move to townships and the employees can easily avoid paying city income tax. The distance is not issue since the townships are within 8 minutes of downtown. My take is that, there is and effort to turn Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti. This is exactly what the R4C/R2A committe is doing by downsizing the occupancy from 6 person/unit to 4 person/unit.... this alone will make a huge drop in the value of the properties around university which logically WILL translate to the reduced property tax..... I bet this drop in the tax revenue will make the loss of income for the city from the transfer of Pfizer property to UofM look like nothing....

Maple

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:29 p.m.

"But what would happen if the city approves an income tax? For more than 30,000 employees in Ann Arbor, the answer will be "nothing." They're the University of Michigan employees, who can be pretty confident that their employer won't be leaving Ann Arbor any time soon." Wrong. It's not that "nothing" happens. People may not lose their jobs or have their employer move, but the employees, the vast majority of whom do NOT make the stellar high salaries of the President and Company are going to be hit with a penalty for their employment. UM may lose many prospective and current scholars as a result. The cost of living is already an issue as it is. Heck, and if the economic crisis doesn't abate soon next thing they know they'll be asking faculty and staff for wage cuts.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:24 p.m.

WEll it should really be $72,480.00 per employeee since you're adding in the benifits there that I don't think are added into the 2005 census numbers (are they?). The census numbers I found for michigan were for 2005 3 year average was $45,793. Didn't say degree or not but that's aboot the medien of the 2 you gave.

voiceofreason

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:19 p.m.

AlphaAlpha, Didn't you know? $150,000 is the "fair living wage" in Ann Arbor. All those "Fat Cats" in the private sector are making at least triple that. Good thing there are public unions in Ann Arbor, because otherwise people would be living beneath the poverty line..........

Eric P

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 7:12 p.m.

I'm not sure about the whole income tax issue-- but the real story that no one seems to be talking about is that we have 75,000 people who work in Ann Arbor, but don't live here. Maybe asking that question will bring up to many scary answers that our city government isn't ready to deal with.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 6:56 p.m.

@ voreason I admit I didn't at first, which is why I flagged my first post but they left it there so that's cool.

voiceofreason

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 6:27 p.m.

John Q, Are you aware of what the word "Column" means in a newspaper sense?

John Q

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 6:17 p.m.

"there is a link in the story to the other cities in Michigan that levy the tax." Which makes your one-sided presentation of the list all the more baffling.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:58 p.m.

"In addition to UM we also have several million square feet of offices leased to businesses - and still more that are owner-occupied." Right, so owner occupied will end up playing less when there property Tax goes down (?) That is what I've heard no one has given any proof to the contarry. The renters will owe no more monies per year than they already do. Wow...a tragic tale indeed.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:50 p.m.

Alpha Alpha Sorry your post makes no sense to me. From what I can sort of gleen from it you think; White flight never occured in michigan/major cities all over the country. - that is of course fact...I didn't make this stuff up. Must not have grown up in the the times of the roaring Ann Arbor Auto factories. Sounds like a great time. But you're obviously a troll if you think Auto industry collapsing didn't kill Flint. Give me a break.

Paula Gardner

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:45 p.m.

In addition to UM we also have several million square feet of offices leased to businesses - and still more that are owner-occupied. Ann Arbor's economic activity is more than UM. And any decision this city makes on an income tax needs to result in keeping as much of that activity as possible - and not prohibiting growth.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:38 p.m.

"despite decades of economic development activity." Whats decades would those be in flint? population has gone down roughly 50% since 1980. Ann Arbors pop has been holding at a slight increase for some time. "Those cities suffered from changes in the auto industry - we don't face that kind of instability, thanks to U-M. " Yes that was my point...so what exactly is yours? If we have stability due to UofM that what is the connection between us and thsoe other ctites?

Paula Gardner

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:36 p.m.

John Q, there is a link in the story to the other cities in Michigan that levy the tax.

AlphaAlpha

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:30 p.m.

"But Paula, you know that Detroit and Flint were killed by White Flight & the auto industry leaving. How can you compare that to Ann Arbor?" Um, no. Lot of assumptions there... Racism? No. Please don't let race in to this issue; it's not relevant. People the world over tend to avoid paying taxes when they have free will. And here in the states, it's easier than ever to change jurisdictions today. Flight? Yes. Citizens acting in their own self interest? Yes. Auto industry downsizing has significantly affected this area as well; many folks in this area used to work for suppliers and carmakers. As Lokal-ly as downtown. Very good jobs. Gone. That trend will most assuredly accelerate with an income tax. Look around folks. Show me one city which has, on net, benefited from an income tax.

Paula Gardner

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:08 p.m.

Those cities suffered from changes in the auto industry - we don't face that kind of instability, thanks to U-M. But they also haven't been able to show significant rebound, despite decades of economic development activity. They've got an income tax propping up their budgets. But I believe the same taxes are a detriment to attempts to bring (or retain) businesses.

Theresa Taylor

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 5:03 p.m.

FANTASTIC, PAULA!! If my husband and I have to pay income taxes then I have NO IDEA what we are going to do. We barely had the money for our property taxes this year. I cannot even imagine the possibility of an income tax and what it would do to our struggling community.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 4:59 p.m.

"Flint, Pontiac or Detroit." Or yeah sorry I left out pontiac. hmmm...I wonder if Pontiac ever had negative things happen to it becasue of a car company going under? Hmmm...nope pontiac doesn't ring a bell.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 4:46 p.m.

"I want better for Ann Arbor than you can find today in Flint, Pontiac or Detroit." But Paula, you know that Detroit and Flint were killed by White Flight & the auto industry leaving. How can you compare that to Ann Arbor? Actually here's a good question cause I can't seem to find the answer to. Do you know by any chance when Detroit and Flint started their income taxes? been looking but can't find it.

John Galt

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 4:44 p.m.

An income tax is a bad idea. I have already been considering a move out of State. As an independant consultant, I can locate my business anywhere. I would not stay in Ann Arbor if an income tax were implemented. Many businesses that are looking for locations to base, take taxes into consideration as an aspect of the decision. Any who are drawn to Ann Arbor, would likely consider setting-up outside of town, as they would be close enough to the University and the amenities, but could avoid the cash drain on the employees, and the adminsitrative headaches of paperwork. The city needs to dramtically cut it's unrealistic budgets. For too long the "people's republic" of Ann Arbor has been able to extract excessive taxes from the population to fund all types of pie-in-the-sky projects. Enough is Enough.

Paula Gardner

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 4:34 p.m.

BrianR, This is definitely my opinion - and my opinion is that dying cities turn to income taxes to catch some revenue as companies are heading out of town. Grand Rapids is an exception. Many of the other towns are not. I want better for Ann Arbor than you can find today in Flint, Pontiac or Detroit. I also wish those towns well. But this city (if it moves forward) would be making this decision from a relatively stronger base of employment - and it has a lot to lose if it makes a mistake.

AlphaAlpha

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 4:31 p.m.

Can anyone name any community that has experienced a net improvement in the various life quality metrics in the years following the imposition of an income tax? Anyone? Anywhere?

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 3:57 p.m.

If there's one thing I Do not like is people posting on how an author writes a story. While I find it tacky 99.9% of the time I must admit this is an opinion piece. "If Ann Arbor gets serious about starting a city income tax, it could be the best thing that ever happened to Pittsfield Township. Or Scio Township. Or Ann Arbor Township." I mean that's pretty one sided.

BrianR

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 3:37 p.m.

"it's important to talk about the success of the tax in other communities. Grand Rapids has been cited as an example. But we also should talk more about the business development impact on some of the other cities in Michigan that turned to the income tax. Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, Hamtramck, Jackson, Lansing and Muskegon business leaders probably have a story to tell about the impact in those communities, too." So, Paula, did you talk to those other communities to hear the "story they have to tell"? Or have you already formed your own intractable opinion? Based on the tenor of this column, it seems that the latter's the case. Columns like this are why I'm still having a hard time taking Annarbor.com seriously as a "news" source. The reporting quality isn't there yet.

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.

I'm assuming most businesses rent (?), not own there properties? So in that case they wouldn't see a raise in there rent for any reason. If they in fact owned the building would they pay less in preoperty tax and pay the city income tax? possibly saving them money? If this is true, shouldn't they "pass it on" to the employees as everyone wants landlords to do for renters? I've always been confused about the businees aspect of this since I do not own one.

Jim Mulchay

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.

I don't dispute that an city income tax is not a good solution. However - like the debate on school funding - there seems to be a lot of things that "can't work" or untouchable - and very few suggestions other than "more efficiency" or "unions get paid too much". I surely don't have any good ideas, but I don't see any local political, social or business leaders with suggestions, either. I'd guess the one thing I'd like to see changed in A2 is to eliminate a special city "funds" or "buckets" so we can move money from place to place as we need it (assuming we have any money). The other thing I believe is that will be no bailout from state or federal sources - if we don't fix our finances, businesses will be leaving anyway.

Paula Gardner

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 3:32 p.m.

The business owners that I've talked to say that a city income tax gives them incentive to leave the city - because their employees will have to absorb the tax (and in some cases they worry that they'd be expected to pay them more to cover that cost.) Many of these companies or employees already are absorbing the cost of parking for their employees if they're working downtown.

clan

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 3:31 p.m.

Not long after Detroit imposed an income tax, the big law offices in downtown buildings began opening satellite offices in surrounding communities. A number of them opened offices in Ann Arbor. Many of the lawyers, secretaries and other help lived outside of the city anyway. The downtown operations took up much less room than before and office building occupancy declined, thus cutting the taxable value of the properties. A similar result is possible here if city council adopts the income tax proposal. Although the tax isn't enough to cause a lot of sudden moves, over time the downtown office buildings may find it harder to find tenants. We may see new office buildings in Pittsfield and Scio Townships. Further, the more expensive homes in Ann Arbor could become less desirable and decrease in taxable value. It seems questionable that the instant tax surge will last more than a few years. I suspect that the city may no longer be popular for retirement communities such as Glacier Hills. It seems that the income tax would promote more sprawl. Aren't we supposed to be against sprawl? -

Lokalisierung

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 3:29 p.m.

paula i'm still a alittle confused by this. bisnesses are hurt because it's going to be hard to find employees? is that the general jist of it? So with the unemployemnt rates higher than ever there are less people that want jobs? Is that correct? Casue to me that sounds a little strange. And while I'm not completely dismissing looking at other cities that use an income tax, becasue I'll be the first(out of few) on this site that doesn't actually understand everything in the world, but some of those towns are auto industry town that died that way. I mean you cannot compare A2 to Detroit or Flint unless you factor in what uofM moving would do...then that's a fair comparison. And it isn't going to happen.

DagnyJ

Wed, Feb 10, 2010 : 3:15 p.m.

Right on! Too bad the council only reads its own emails, and not AA.com.