Your view: More tax talk

Dear Mike,

The Scott County Commission is attempting once again to prove the truth of the old adage that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program or a temporary tax. Several years ago the Commission decided to finance construction of a new jail with a county wide sales tax. A citizen's advisory committee was organized to help promote the tax. At its first meeting the advisory committee argued that the sales tax issue could not be passed without a "Sunset Provision." The Commission scoffed at that idea and pointed out that it would take only a few years to pay for the jail, and then the Commission would have the income from the sales tax to spend indiscriminately. As predicted, the voters soundly defeated the issue of a permanent sales tax. The Commission then relented and added a "Sunset Clause." With that revision, the sales tax was approved by the voters.

Now that the Sunset Provision will soon become effective, The Commission has reverted to its original position by asking that the voters again consider making the sales tax permanent. There is a dangerous tendency to rely on a sales tax to replace the traditional source of financing for local government, which is an ad valorem tax or a tax on property. In an article which appeared in the Southeast Missourian on March 20, 2007, the Commissioners are quoted as "not wanting to increase property taxes" followed by the incredible argument that a "sales tax is the fairest" tax of all. We are told that without the new tax "budget cuts will be required." The most obvious way to lower taxes is to implement budget cuts. I would like for the Commissioners to tell us what is wrong with that approach. When taxpayers experience a shortfall in their personal revenues, the first, best, and only solution is always to reduce spending. The County Commission should consider that same approach if it is concerned about revenue.

As for the argument that the sales tax is the fairest tax of all, how do the Commissioners explain the disproportionate impact which a sales tax has on people, and Scott County has many of them, who are living on a fixed income and basically spend all of their income from month to month just to have the necessities of life. There is certainly nothing fair about imposing a greater share of government spending on them. We have heard a lot in the last several years about the need to reduce taxes generally, and we have, in fact, had some reduction in the income tax. One of the arguments has always been the unfairness of double taxation. We are told that dividends from securities should be exempt from tax because we have already paid a tax on the money used to purchase the securities. A bill is currently pending in the Missouri General Assembly which would eliminate the state income tax on most forms of retirement benefits, also in reliance on the argument that it involves double taxation. There is no greater example of double taxation than the imposition of a tax on our money when we spend it when we have already paid a tax on it as we earned it.

The residents of the south end of the county would bear the greatest burden of the creation of a permanent county wide sales tax, because we have the largest portion of retail spending in the county. This permanent tax will fall most heavily on those for whom it is not convenient nor practical to drive to Cape Girardeau to make their retail purchases.

We have recently been told that the County Commission and the Sheriff have arranged to board county prisoners in jails in Chaffee and Scott City at a lower cost per day than is being expended in the county jail. At the same time we are paying board to Chaffee and Scott City, there are many empty beds in the county jail. The Commission ignores that most of the cost of operating a jail are fixed. The fact that we may be able to pay for daily meals at one of the city jails at a reduced rate does not eliminate the fixed costs of operating the jail. More than likely, the system of boarding prisoners in city jails increases the overall expense of the jail rather than decreasing it.

The argument of the Commission that more money is needed for county roads is also directly contrary to the interest of the residents of the south end of the county. This is so because the Commission long ago places us within the Sikeston Special Road District which imposes a tax of its own, and receives essentially no revenue from the county for road purposes. Consequently, the new tax, to the extent it is spent on roads, will be paid in the south end of the county and spent in other parts of the county. Sikeston residents already finance a disproportionate share of the expense of law enforcement in Scott County through municipal taxes, including a sales tax, to fund our Department of Public Safety.

Unless you are convinced that the County Commission is better able to spend your money than you can spend it yourself, you should oppose this effort to convert the special tax voted to pay for the construction of a new jail into a permanent tax to be spent or misspent at the discretion of the three Commissioners.

Yours very truly,

James R. Robison