Make sales tax easier to swallow

IT WAS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN who said the only things certain in life are death and taxes — and neither one is very pleasant.

The County Board is currently facing one of those unpleasantnesses — a proposal for a one-half percent county sales tax.

Those advocating the tax say it is the only means left for the county to continue balancing its budget without burdensome and excessive property tax increases in the face of increasing demand for government services and continuing steady or declining support from the state and federal governments for programs they mandate the county must provide. They point out that 63 other counties in the state (7 of every 8) have already adopted the county sales tax, authorized by the state in 1986 to provide property tax relief.

Opponents say it is an unnecessary additional tax in tough economic times when many are out of work, that the county has not done all it can to cut costs and programs, and that officials are basing their economic projections on a worst-case scenario.

Both sides have their points, but the bottom line may be that the county has little choice.

To begin with, county residents will continue to demand:

 Law enforcement and protection from the Sheriff’s Department in their homes and businesses and on the highways.

 Safe highways to drive on to work, shop, home and play; highways that are plowed of snow in a timely and efficient manner.

 Social services support when they or a neighbor are jobless, homeless, aged, infirm or otherwise unable to support themselves.

And that’s just a few of the services the county provides, services that cost money and that the county is not adequately compensated for in many cases.

The county has made an admirable effort to control costs and cut spending over the past decade — a much better and much more effective effort than probably any other county or local government in the state and certainly miles ahead of the state.

For instance, the number of county employees has been slashed nearly 30 percent over the past seven years — a greater reduction than in the private sector over the same period, even with the rough economy. The county has closed, consolidated or sold two of its three health care facilities, combined county departments and consolidated offices to reduce office space.

All of this has rebounded to the taxpayers’ benefit, with decreased spending in two of the last three years, a drop in the property tax levy the last three years and a lowered property tax rate in each of the last nine years.

County officials want to keep that streak going and see a half-percent sales tax — which adds one penny of tax to each $2 of taxable spending — as the least painful way to do that.

Roughly 20 percent of the sales tax revenue would come from visitors to the county, taking advantage of the growing tourism industry here. Based on projections, the burden for the rest of the sales tax would come to about $62.61 per capita — that is to say, each man, woman and child in the county would pay $62.61 a year in county sales tax, or a little more than $5 a month. That’s much less of a bite than a major property tax increase.

Opponents say the county could do more to control costs or cut programs. But the county has done the heavy lifting in that area already, and anything more would just be nibbling at the edges. To realize the $9 million in savings that would offset the potential revenue from a sales tax, the county would have to make significant cuts in vital programs and services that would prove to be more painful than the sales tax. The county is hamstrung in making wage and benefit cuts beyond what they have already achieved by the state-imposed arbitration system, so that is not a reasonable alternative for the near future either.

They also contend that sales tax advocates are utilizing a “worst-case scenario” in their fiscal projections. But isn’t that really what we want from government — conservative projections when utilizing our tax dollars? Too many of the fiscal problems governments at all levels find themselves in now are the result of too many years of making fiscal projections through rose-colored glasses?

With all that said, there is one concern with the current proposal for a county sales tax.

The ordinance spells out a list of goals for the sales tax — funds for economic development, paying off the county’s long-term debt, restoring funding to the Highway and other county departments, and financing capital projects from county funds instead of borrowing.

That’s an admirable list of goals, and they would help to stabilize the property tax rate in the future, but unfortunately there’s one thing missing from the list — direct, immediate property tax relief, which is what the county sales tax was originally intended to provide.

Perhaps the county needs to consider phasing in that shopping list of goals over a period of years and apply at least a part of the sales tax revenue directly to reducing the property tax levy and the property tax rate.

Putting dollars in the pockets of property taxpayers, many of whom are struggling to keep their homes and stay afloat in tough economic times, might well make the unpleasant medicine called a sales tax a little easier to swallow.

At issue: Something or other Bottom line: Do something about it