Let's take a look at what our Lake Worth candidates had to say.
PAM TRIOLO: FOR
GARY ANTIEAU: AGAINST. His argument? It has not been said what or where the money will go.
DIANE JACQUES: AGAINST. Her argument? I don’t favor a sales tax increase, because low income and middle class families shoulder the greatest sales tax burden. Decreasing property taxes by increasing sales tax favors upper income families who traditionally pay a higher rate of real estate taxes. First and foremost, taxes must be fair and sales tax increases invariably have the greatest impact on low income and middle class families.
ANDY AMOROSO: FOR. His argument? Tax increase would help fund a much needed infrastructure.
FRANK McALONAN: AGAINST. His argument? I would need to learn more about the allocation of those proceeds between the municipalities. At this time I would not support a sales tax increase.
SCOTT MAXWELL: FOR. His argument: The proposed local sales increase speaks directly to funding infrastructure projects
RYAN HARTMAN: FOR: His argument? I support a tax increase if the voters choose a tax increase. My job would be to do what the voters want.
The county has crafted wish lists with $712 million in projects. The Cultural Council of Palm Beach County, has a $228 million wish list says the Sun Sentinel. Under state law, cities would be entitled to 40 percent of revenue generated through a sales tax increase.
So, all three incumbents (Maxwell, Triolo, Amoroso)
want to raise taxes...again!
Diane Jacques argument was excellent but all those who voted "no" want to know where the money would be allocated. They want to know more details on this proposed sales tax that would be in effect for 10 years raising $2.6 billion county-wide. If it went 100% towards infrastructure, this could be a good thing but there is no guarantee just like in the Lake Worth General Obligation Bond that was defeated by the voters. And even if governments tell you money is dedicated, things have a way of changing when you're dealing with politicians.
The City of Lake Worth is doing that right now with the Utility Bond of 2004 that was for a 13.2kv upgrade and now the city is pushing/considering a 26.4kv upgrade. My question is how do you get taxpayers to pay for a bond that was for a 13.2kv upgrade and now the city wants to change that to a non-standard voltage? We still owe over $50 million on the 2004 Utility System Revenue bonds that were refinanced twice as well as interest of over $12 million. This presentation was supposed to be on last night's agenda.
Things just don't seem to get better and continue to go backwards.
7 comments:
Blame the politicians for the problems now and why they want to raise sales tax. Our public schools are suffering because our government allowed all these charter and magnet schools that are for PROFIT, affecting our poor public schools now. Someone is making tons of money on us and then they want us to pay more taxes. I will not vote to raise our sales tax at all. Our government just cannot be trusts with our tax money, look what Lake Worth tried to do with that bond to get our money. I don't trust government and I will never vote to raise our taxes ever again, ever!
If the debt is $50 million and the refinancing, interest amount to $12 million--that is a shocking 24% rate on that loan. Are we sure someone is not just jerking us around for higher commissions?? How could anyone with an ounce of common sense even consider a rate of 24%? Could this be a little horse trading in the dark to benefit those they know? Can we get an audit?
Imagine if you had a 24% rate on your mortgage.
Isn't Gov. Scott's big boast that he is lowering taxes? Is this how he does it, through a back door tax hike?
That's pushing it. Scott got around $1 billion is REAL tax cuts. No back door stuff going on with him. Hell, he even denied the Trio the $3.5 mil they wanted from the State. He saw through it. Now they can write up their grant correctly and get more money paid for by someone else's taxes somewhere.
@3:34--
Well we will be paying 31.4% for the Siemens loans over the life of the loans. Not unusual, anonymous @ 3:50. Not a deal Trump would make.
What was the Mayors argument? You didn't include that and included everyone else's comment
I was bored with the mayor's comment but here it is:
A 60-40 split on the half cent or a 30-20 split on the full cent could go a long way with our backlog of road projects without relying on property taxes (as in your previous question). Tourists and visitors pay a good portion of this tax as they use the roads too. This is one issue that would need serious discussion as it influences our budget discussions and can change funding sources.
Post a Comment