Someone below asked in a posting that I supply the math for giving a 100% credit to income tax payers and raising the rate of the income tax collections from 1% to 2% and raising $1.7 Million for the city.
So here goes:
Currently Pickerington imposes a 1% income tax with a 50% credit for income earned in another city that has an income tax. I also must stress that this is not an exact science. Projections can and will vary.
It is projected that in calendar year 2008 that Pickerington will collect $4.3 million in income tax revenues. If Pickerington were to do away with the 50% credit then they could add back into the above collections $1.3 million (for the current credit) and the total collections for income taxes would be $5.6 Million in 2008. I hope everyone is still with me.
So if the city voters were to simply double the current rate from 1% to 2% with no credit then they city?’s projected revenues would increase to $11.2 Million (2 times 5.6 million).
So if we now subtract the 100% credit from the above projected revenues we would get the net revenues down to $6 Million in net revenues. If a .5% (of the workers income)credit is equal to $1.3 million then four times that .5% credit would equal $5.2 Million (four times 1.3 equals $5.2 million) or a 100% credit of the 2% we pay to the city.
So based on the current projects from the city of $4.3 million in income tax revenues in 2008 this would increase those revenues to $6 Million or a $1.7 million increase in revenues for the year in question.
Who would lose:
Clearly the PLSD and City employees.
The business employees that work in the city.
The businesses that operate in the city.
Who would win:
The workers that live in Pickerington and work in another city like Columbus. Clearly our study in 2005 indicated that 85% of the workers that lived here worked someplace else. My survey that I ran in 2006 indicated at least 70% of those surveyed worked in another city and paid taxes to that other city.
The seniors for the most part would not be affected because their fixed income is not affected or taxed by the city. Any earned income that is not in the category of social security or retirement income or pensions like interest from savings outside the above categories would see tax increases.
I hope this explains the options ahead and why I support this option outlined above.
So here goes:
Currently Pickerington imposes a 1% income tax with a 50% credit for income earned in another city that has an income tax. I also must stress that this is not an exact science. Projections can and will vary.
It is projected that in calendar year 2008 that Pickerington will collect $4.3 million in income tax revenues. If Pickerington were to do away with the 50% credit then they could add back into the above collections $1.3 million (for the current credit) and the total collections for income taxes would be $5.6 Million in 2008. I hope everyone is still with me.
So if the city voters were to simply double the current rate from 1% to 2% with no credit then they city?’s projected revenues would increase to $11.2 Million (2 times 5.6 million).
So if we now subtract the 100% credit from the above projected revenues we would get the net revenues down to $6 Million in net revenues. If a .5% (of the workers income)credit is equal to $1.3 million then four times that .5% credit would equal $5.2 Million (four times 1.3 equals $5.2 million) or a 100% credit of the 2% we pay to the city.
So based on the current projects from the city of $4.3 million in income tax revenues in 2008 this would increase those revenues to $6 Million or a $1.7 million increase in revenues for the year in question.
Who would lose:
Clearly the PLSD and City employees.
The business employees that work in the city.
The businesses that operate in the city.
Who would win:
The workers that live in Pickerington and work in another city like Columbus. Clearly our study in 2005 indicated that 85% of the workers that lived here worked someplace else. My survey that I ran in 2006 indicated at least 70% of those surveyed worked in another city and paid taxes to that other city.
The seniors for the most part would not be affected because their fixed income is not affected or taxed by the city. Any earned income that is not in the category of social security or retirement income or pensions like interest from savings outside the above categories would see tax increases.
I hope this explains the options ahead and why I support this option outlined above.
