Sunday, September 02, 2007

Simon Leis:  Campaign Solicitations on the Taxpayer’s Dime?

Posted by Michael Earl Patton

The Cincinnati Beacon has obtained a copy of a letter that the Hamilton County Sheriff has sent to his employees encouraging all of them to vote for the jail tax and mentioning that layoffs are a real possibility if it does not pass.  Many things are noteworthy about this letter, perhaps the most notable is that this is a campaign solicitation that was sent from the sheriff to his personnel.

Other items of note are the clarifications that the “Comprehensive Safety Plan” is about building a new jail, the claim that the sales tax increase will cost the average taxpayer $33 per year, and the claim that Commissioner DeWine is not a “friend of law enforcement.” Since this is an official letter from the sheriff, and not Simon Leis as a private citizen using his title of sheriff, this is involving the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office with local politics, and appears to be using taxpayer money to do so.

The letter is below.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

cincysue says:
02 Sep 2007  at  04:26 pm | #

He probably shouldn’t be campaigning on public money but I think you made a fatal flaw in publishing this letter which is quite convincing. Also, what argument could you have with the contention that the tax will amount to only about $33. That would be based on spending $6,600 a year on taxable goods. A little more than $500 per month excluding food which isn’t taxable and the largest household expense for most of us and specifically low income households. That sounds about right. It amounts to one modest dinner out a year for two, and not even one tank of gas. You need to get another argument besides this being a regressive tax that unfairly affects the poor. Poor people aren’t throwing around a half a grand+ a month on taxable incidentals so it’s probably about a $10 or less tax burden for lower income. Now put that same burden entirely on the backs of property owners, a much smaller population, and instead of $33 it’s probably a a couple hundred added to an already inflated tax bill. Now that’s unfair. If any of my math is wrong sue me. I’m about words, not numbers.

Anon says:
02 Sep 2007  at  05:05 pm | #

Sue,

Please reduce the number of your words. Until you have something intelligent to say.

says:
02 Sep 2007  at  05:22 pm | #

He probably shouldn’t be campaigning on public money but I think you made a fatal flaw in publishing this letter which is quite convincing.—from cincysue, #1

Read the masthead.  The Cincinnati Beacon never has had any problem about publishing opposing views.  If the sheriff had submited this letter as an editorial to the Beacon for publication instead of distributing it the way he did, my guess is that the Beacon would have published it if it hadn’t already been printed elsewhere.

Also, what argument could you have with the contention that the tax will amount to only about $33.

My main problem with the jail proposal is not with the tax increase but that it does nothing about the current dysfunctional system.  In fact, if more jail beds are available and also more money to keep people locked up while waiting for their court date, it will discourage the current system from being fixed.

I pointed out the $33/taxpayer in my introduction because that is the first time I had seen a figure attached.  Of course, a bad plan is a bad plan, even if it is a relatively cheap bad plan. 

Further, Todd Portune had a problem with the jail sales tax increase last year before he signed on to the first jail tax referendum.  Also, several people spoke up about this at different public hearings.  If one is on limited income, has only a few dollars left over every month, and is facing utility and food increases, then every dollar of additional tax hurts.

And there are other tax increases planned.  Cincinnati is planning to raise property taxes to help pay for various corporate give-aways, like $30 million to Corporex.  The Cincinnati Public Schools will have a tax increase on the ballot.  The Kosmont-Rose cost of doing business survey put Cincinnati as the fourth most expensive place in the country.  Any tax increases MUST be absolutely needed else the population decrease will accelerate and even more businesses will leave the county.

says:
02 Sep 2007  at  05:30 pm | #

cincysue,

Why do you want to shift the tax burden to the working class and the poor?

The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income. In other words, if the activity being taxed is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely to be carried out by the rich, then the tax is regressive. To determine whether a tax is regressive, the income-elasticity of the good being taxed as well as the income-substitution effect must be considered. A simplified illustration of a regressive tax on income (proportional on consumption) is as follows: If Jane has $10 and John has $5, a tax of $1 on a purchase would result in an effective tax rate on the total of 20% for John and 10% for Jane. Thus, a tax that is fixed to the value of the good/service (without exemptions or rebates) would likely, in effect, result in a higher rate of taxation to people with less money (depending on consumption level and timeline examined - year or lifetime). A regressive tax system does not mean and likely would not result in low income earners paying more taxes than the wealthy, only that the effective tax rate relative to income or consumption would be a larger tax burden to low income earners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

cincysue says:
02 Sep 2007  at  08:10 pm | #

Dean - Do you think that people struggling to keep their homes should take the burden for the schools, hospitals, mental health, parks and everything else as well as the jail? I think you made the argument that property taxes are too high. So when the jail has to come, and it will, the burden won’t be fairly distributed and the foreclosure crisis will be exacerbated. Not for the wealthy. They find ways. But for those that are in the lower income brackets that are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Every winter and summer the elderly die in their own homes, homes that they own, because they can’t risk using a fan or heat or air because they have not one penny more to put on the utility bill. They would have a choice if they were going shopping. None if it’s tacked onto their tax bill. You call that fair? And the same to MEP.  Don’t you think there are property owners on limited income that will actually lose their homes as a result of the substantial raise in their property taxes that is coming. And it will be far higher than $30 a year. As you point out homeowners are facing a slew of raises. This one may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. And it will come.

Like I said, whether or not you build a hospital, people will get sick and need to be cared for. We would hope to have a good hospital, with modern equipment, physical therapy, etc. It’s not the building, it’s the social conditions. I see absolutely NOTHING proposed by the anti-building people that will change conditions one iota. Nothing.

And Anon. First learn to write a sentence correctly. And second, screw you, Jethro. If your pea brain gets taxed by too many fancy words, don’t read it.

Simon Said says:
02 Sep 2007  at  09:39 pm | #

City employees understand they should not participate in any type of campaigning while on duty. I clearly recall councilman Bortz grilling the health commissioner about some employees’ alleged use of city copiers to make flyers about clinic closings during the budget process. Doesnt the County have the same type of policy? Can we expect any of the commissioners (especially DeWine) to call Leis on the carpet for violating the policy? It seems to me that it is a form of intimidation for Leis to TELL people in his office to vote for the jail, or else. Threatening people with losing their jobs and creating a culture of fear is a form of workplace violence and the sheriff must be stopped.

anon2000 says:
02 Sep 2007  at  11:00 pm | #

Dean - thanks for the definition, I never really understood it - but Dean, according to this definition --- this sales tax isn’t “regressive”.

“if the activity being taxed is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely to be carried out by the rich, then the tax is regressive”

It isn’t a FIXED tax on any item bought necessarily and uniformly by all - it is a percentage on all taxable goods.  Everyone knows that the more available money one has, the rich have more by the way, the greater the burden will be on them. 

So for example as it applies to the tax on gas might be regressive because everybody has to have it, consumption for certain purposes are very similar ( gas to go to work) and the tax is fixed on a specific product. Or the cable tax—these are, per this definition, regressive.

But this tax applies to all taxable goods, and the majority of the tax will be paid by the wealthier.

So, at best, this tax is regressive pertaining to a few products (as it relates to school clothes and supplies, Christmas gifts, toilet paper) - but overwhelmingly and related to the proportion of available and expendible income held by the wealthiest among us and the broad application of the tax, it is not a regressive tax.

I wonder if, like nonprofits, poor people could flash their food stamp card and for purchases under $1,000 - the sales tax would be waived?  That would be cool.

Thanks Dean for pointing this out, it wasn’t only educational but it disproves for the most part that this is a regressive tax—it just doesn’t meet the definition

CincyJeff says:
03 Sep 2007  at  12:28 am | #

So when the jail has to come, and it will, the burden won’t be fairly distributed and the foreclosure crisis will be exacerbated. Not for the wealthy. They find ways. But for those that are in the lower income brackets that are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

CincySue, previously you endorsed a Cincinnati school levy that will cost homeowners $295 per $100,000 of valuation.  Should I assume you are withdrawing that endorsement? 

Regarding the Sheriff’s letter, I’m anxiously awaiting CincyBertie’s condemnation of Leis for apparently using county taxpayer resources in some capacity to promote a political effort.  It’s hard to see how county resources weren’t used.  Even if it was a letter printed on private paper, and sent by mail paid for by the Sheriff’s campaign fund, how else would he have gotten a list of Sheriff’s employees and their mailing address?

says:
03 Sep 2007  at  05:52 am | #

anon2000,

Poor people pay a higher percentage of their income on taxable goods than rich people.  That has been shown time and again.  It is widely documented, and you can find it with a Google search.  Period.

cincysue,

Renters pay property taxes, too, only indirectly.  You are aware, I presume, of the fact that rent is allowed to rise at the end of a lease’s term?  I can’t image anyone owning the land would decide to lose money on increased property taxes, when that increase can just be passed along as a rent increase.

I understand what you are saying about fixed income home owners.  I’m shocked, however, that you so vehemently ignored them when supporting CPS’s school tax increase despite knowing that our whole State’s school funding system is unconstitutional.  You said that was not the kids’ fault.  I agree.  But it also is not the fault of elderly people on fixed incomes, barely able to make ends meet.

I believe CPS is top heavy.  I wish there were a way to legislate that the number of teacher cuts and building funding cuts needs to be proportionately reflected in administrative cuts and administrative salary clawbacks.  If every time the admins cut from the schools, they also cut themselves, the schools would lose less as the system bureaucracy would diminish.

cincysue says:
03 Sep 2007  at  08:11 am | #

Dean and Cincy Jeff - I certainly did support the school levy and would again. I do wish that an alternative had been proposed that would more fairly distribute the burden but that didn’t happen and it’s a decision of conscience. Not like COAST, I believe that all children deserve an education, not just wealthy kids that can afford private schools. Here, we have the perfect opportunity. A good and fair plan. You have all ground it into dust.

says:
03 Sep 2007  at  08:53 am | #

Of course all children deserve an education, but as part of an unconstitutional system that leaves the elderly starving to death?

CincyJeff says:
03 Sep 2007  at  10:41 am | #

Sue you’re contradicting your own argument.  While arguing for the regressive, massive Sales Tax hike sought by Si Lies, you said if we had to raise property taxes instead to finance this plan, “the foreclosure crisis will be exacerbated”.  You went on to cite the old people on fixed incomes who die in their homes because they can’t afford price increases, and said this tax would be the straw that breaks the camels back.

But when the topic turns to CPS, you have no problem endorsing a levy that is several times more expensive than a jail levy would cost.  This levy would excacerbate the foreclosure crisis in Cincinnati even more than a jail levy would do the same for Hamilton County.  Do you no longer care about the elderly people you pleaded for in post #5?

cincysue says:
03 Sep 2007  at  11:50 am | #

Dean - you drank the COAST kool-aid and I posed a scenario for you and Brinkman and the anti-school crowd that I can’t find now, that you didn’t reply to, but I will try again.

In a way I agree with you. But I have a different spin. It’s clearly unfair that those of us that don’t have children in the school system, have to subsidize those of you that do have children that you expect to be educated, like yourself and Brinkman and many more of the anti-school crowd. Our tax dollars go to public schools but also private schools via vouchers and other subsidies, secondary education is also supported by taxes. But the most unfair are the lavish tax advantages bestowed on those that use more resources-those with children. I think more money could be circulated back into the system if all of those were cut. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about choosing between education for your children and feeding the elderly. You can find a way to educate your own or do without. Cut all these advantages, credits and deductions across the board. And it might make people more responsible and reconsider popping out a little tax deduction each year like Brinkman if we stopped subsidizing him. No child care credits. No earned income credit. No medical deductions for children. No more rewards. Even the lottery could go toward rebuilding the infrastructure which everyone uses. And tax deductions for adults only. 2 adults and 6 kids in the household would equal 2 deductions only. Can you imagine how much in taxes could be recovered and diverted back to the system if child-bearers real income was taxed like the rest of us?

Don’t you think this is a fair plan? Fiscally responsible? Think COAST will take up this one? Diverse coalition, anyone??????

says:
03 Sep 2007  at  12:59 pm | #

"and mentioning that layoffs are a real possibility if it does not pass.”

MEP,
Leis may have implied it, but he didn’t “mention” it, did he? 

says:
03 Sep 2007  at  04:38 pm | #

MEP, Leis may have implied it (layoffs), but he didn’t “mention” it, did he?—from David E. Gallaher, #14

From the fifth paragraph of his letter:

If the sales tax fails, as he (DeWine) wishes, we will no longer house prisoners in Butler County, the Over-the-Rhine detail will be terminated, and lay offs of personnel are a real possibility.

anon2000 says:
03 Sep 2007  at  04:54 pm | #

Dean#9 - Dean not according to your definition.  Measured in the whole - the wealthy will spend considerably more and thus incur considerably more taxes. 

As to necessities, yes, poor people would be spending a greater portion of their total income on this tax, but then you would have to ignor are the discretionary and proportional income of the wealthier spent in the economy - and that’s where you have lost your argument and position that this is regressive - the definition clearly distinguishes between finite goods and all goods.

As to the property taxes forcing people into foreclosure, at least in Hamilton County, the truth is Dusty Rhodes does an incredible job despite being a COAST groupie of refusing to take legal action on a home with delinquent taxes until the property is being transfered or unless abuse of the generosity of his department is really evident.

Noone is losing their home due to property taxes.

Second on that, Strickland just gave sweeping and I think way too broad of a tax break to the retired and disabled who own and reside in their homes. Plus we have the Homestead tax deduction and the hardship clauses - what would really help is if those programs were advertised more and poor families identified and helped with the deductions they are entitled to receive.

(But people like Stan Chesley getting a reduction on his property taxes just because he lived another year with all his wealth - is ridiculous)

says:
03 Sep 2007  at  05:00 pm | #

anon2000,

Are you really trying to argue that a sales tax is not a regressive tax?

Please stop, while you are ahead.

But in case you have forgotten, let me show you the almighty words of Todd Portune:


It allows Heimlich to tell voters he has solved the jail problem while also allowing him to hide behind the inevitable criticism of raising taxes [and the most regressive kind of tax at that – a sales tax –paid by children and the poor alike] and say that it is not him raising taxes but rather the will of the people.

(source)

says:
03 Sep 2007  at  05:09 pm | #

MEP,
Thanks for catching that.
It confirms that there is a blurry line between providing so-called justice and “featherbedding.”
And this instance of the sheriff crossing the line bothers me more than it being a campaign solicitation.

says:
03 Sep 2007  at  05:32 pm | #

cincysue, I did not drink any COAST Kool-Aid, but I’m still trying to figure out what kind got into you…

cincysue says:
03 Sep 2007  at  06:43 pm | #

Dean - Don’t you think you baby machines are taking advantage of the rest of us with all your tax deductions and credits? Seriously? Reread my post and respond.

anon2000 says:
03 Sep 2007  at  10:26 pm | #

So you and Portune are both wrong - I’m going by the definition you provided.

The sales tax is not a regressive tax because it is not limited only to specific goods that are bought more frequently by the poor -like cigarettes.

Again, Dean, thanks for the education - I always hated that part of the CSP, now that that issue is eliminated, I feel so much better that the Carl Lindners, Bob Castenellis and Stan Chesleys of the county will be carrying a far greater share of the burden proportionately and literally to solve our safety issues.

As it should be.

says:
04 Sep 2007  at  05:09 am | #

Yes, anon2000, let’s talk about the definition I provided—specifically this part:

A regressive tax system does not mean and likely would not result in low income earners paying more taxes than the wealthy, only that the effective tax rate relative to income or consumption would be a larger tax burden to low income earners.

says:
04 Sep 2007  at  05:11 am | #

cincysue,

No, I don’t think your singling out of those who have children makes sense.  Those with children are not the only ones who may use services funded by government, paid for by all of us.

cincysue says:
04 Sep 2007  at  05:15 am | #

Dean - but those of you that have children get special advantages that the rest of us don’t get. Set asides. A kind of welfare. A regressive tax on the rest of us?

says:
04 Sep 2007  at  05:20 am | #

Having children is not the only advantage one can earn.

anon2000 says:
04 Sep 2007  at  11:44 am | #

Dean, you’re conveniently ignoring the consumption part again.

“The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income.”

Dean - on goods that are necessities, this is regressive - on everything else - and there’s a lot of everything else - it is not regressive.

So if you measure this tax purely by the numbers, it is clear that in a majority of instances - it is NOT a regressive tax.

says:
04 Sep 2007  at  01:36 pm | #

In all of my nearly 37 years of elected office in Hamilton County I have never asked our citizens for any tax increase to support our operation.

Is he kidding, or just counting on us all to be just plain stupid.  Si supported the Heimlich tax increase just last year?

says:
04 Sep 2007  at  03:06 pm | #

Oh anon2000, maybe one day you’ll learn what simple words mean.

“The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income.”

Not “always.”

cincysue says:
04 Sep 2007  at  04:47 pm | #

That’s going to be my battle call from now on. I don’t mind paying property taxes to support schools, but I want all tax advantages eliminated for people with kids. There’s so much talk of whether or not taxes are fair and it’s clearly unfair to penalize those that don’t have children and don’t use extra services. Clearly unfair. And the nerve of you and Brinkman. You oppose gay marriage so gay couples can’t even get the basic advantages of a married couple but still you extort them into educating your kids. Outrageous.

anon2000 says:
04 Sep 2007  at  06:10 pm | #

Ohhhhh Dean, Dean, Dean, maybe one day you’re reading comprehension will expand to include context....

(You shot yourself in the foot on this one, Honey.)BANG!

Jason says:
06 Sep 2007  at  08:30 pm | #

As further prrof that the sheriff has an indefensible plan, he won’t speak to lacal groups without the promise that there will be no oppostion position presented.  What a joke.