Ohio Has the Third Highest Tax Burden in the U.S.

[Jeff Endress]

For example, our school board cannot conceive of asking employees to pay the employee portion of the pension contribution or to pay a meaningful portion of the health care costs.

Bill, as I've mentioned on say, a dozen or so occasions, the school board is stuck. There's a contract. Until the contract expires, this isn't even a a distant possibility, and yet, it seems that you're always pointing to costs savings measures that can't possibly be taken because of the existence of those pesky contracts.

While the stats would seem to support the notion that Ohio is on the the top of the tax bite, there is an awful lot of data NOT present. As an example, what is the level of service being provided in other states? Without knowing what the taxes pay for, there is no way to actually compare the amount being paid. Do states with lower taxes have municipal rubbish service, or is it all BFI? How about the costs of water, sewer ? What about other "taxes" that weren't included. VA. imposes a huge tax on cars, vs. our minimal registration fees. Some states tax food.

But really, without an analysis of what everyone is getting for what they're paying, the stats are meaningless. You simply can't assume that everyone receives the same services and benefits and then compare the tax rates. You have to first examine those services and benefits before the analysis of the costs for them makes any sense.

Jeff

[Tim Liston]

Hey Bill did you see this in yesterday's USA Today?

Pension gap divides public and private workers

What I find most interesting is that it refutes the notion that government employees receive superior retirement benefits in exchange for lower wages during their working years. The much higher wages/benefits paid to public sector employees, and the growth rate of the difference, is rather shocking actually. The unfunded liability represented by public sector pension promises will be an enormous tax burden if nothing is done.

[Charyn Compeau]

Jeff:

I can only speak for our little patch of Western Pa:

Smaller population with demographics similar to Lakewood, a school system that performs at the same general level as Lakewood, and taxes as follows (Lakewood rates in red):

Local Income tax: 1.75% (1.5%) residential/ 1.0% (0.5%) non-residential
School Tax: 0.5% (n/a)
Property Tax: 57 mills (145.7 mills)
State taxes are flat rate: 3.07 (ohio has progressive from 0.7% to 7.1%)
Sales tax 6% (7.5%)
No tax on clothing, food (food only)
No use tax for vehicles (same)
Cigarette tax: 0.31/pack (1.595/pack)
Gas Tax: 0.259/gal (0.28/gal)

Water & Sewer are lower, rubbish and recycling is via Waste Management (which I love) which is paid for directly by the residents (about $33/mo), all children are transported to school, there is no additional cost for school sports.

FWIW
Charyn

[Jeff Endress]

Charyn

That's a good start. Next we have to look at safety force coverage, police ratios for population, fire coverage per area/population. How's the library there in Western PA? Is there a Dept. of aging, related programming?

Perhaps we're over taxed for what we get. I don't know, and can't make that determination from a simple comparison of tax rates.

My point was/is, that you have to evaluate exactly what you get for what you pay. The tax burden/question is a coin with two sides, and only looking at half the equation renders any conclusions drawn well, sort of half *****.

Jeff

[Charyn Compeau]

Jeff - I absolutely agree. I provided the data as quick look at how the two communities compare in the areas that you noted.

Hermitage has a very active senior program; however, there seem to be a greater community involvement in terms of "wrap around" support so the burden to the taxpayer is less as a result. They have a decent library (of course it pales in comparision to Lakewood's... I have been well spoiled in that regard!)

Crime rates are lower;however, that is one area that is difficult to compare due to the difference in population sizes and land footprint (Hermitage is wayyyyy bigger with less people); however, there are more industry and big retail spaces (malls). As I said comparison is tough here.

There is also a huge recreation park (similar to the RR Reservation of the Metroparks) that is a part of the city.

I am NOT saying that Hermitage is better or cheaper. I am only illustrating some of the differences in what and how the taxes and services lie.

When we did a comparison to determine which of our homes were more or less expensive - they really ended up pretty close in terms of bang for the buck with the real issue not being differences in local (city) taxes and services - but county and state.

Which of course was the leader here. Not that Lakewood had the highest tax burden - but Ohio.

Even if we manage our city finances perfectly we will still have a higher burden as a result of those higher level taxes. And to your point - I think it is really important that we identify and understand the difference between the three levels and the services associated with each.

FWIW
Charyn

[Jeff Endress]

And to your point - I think it is really important that we identify and understand the difference between the three levels and the services associated with each.

Indeed. Statistics can be helpful in the examination, but, in and of themselves, they are illusory.

Jeff

[Bill Call]

The much higher wages/benefits paid to public sector employees, and the growth rate of the difference, is rather shocking actually. The unfunded liability represented by public sector pension promises will be an enormous tax burden if nothing is done.

Thanks for the info.

There are other news reports that detail the disconnect between government employees and the people who pay them.

The Ohio teachers retirement health care system is facing a fiscal crisis. A recent news item in the PD reported the struggle between school boards and teacher unions regarding funding the shortfall in the health trust fund. One representative of the school boards said if the districts are asked to pay want the unions are asking they won't have money to buy books.

That comment illustrates one of the problems faced by taxpayers. School boards can't imagine saying no. They can imagine closing schools, eliminating programs and halting the purchase of books.

Another recent article in the PD stated that teachers in all Ohio districts pay 10% of their pay into their retirement plan. When I pointed out the falsehood of that statement to the reporter I got no response. When I sent a letter to the editor pointing out the error they refused to print it.

At least a site like the Observer allows for alternative views, the on line version anyway.

[Gary Rice]

Bill,

While I certainly respect your right to post your opinion, and I understand full well, the need for ongoing taxpayer oversight, and accountability demands, I really have to give my own point of view about one thing here.

You seem to be repeatedly in favor of cities, or school districts being able to make unilateral cuts anytime they like, at the expense of negotiated agreements.

Is that your position?

You seem to think that this would save money. I would argue that given even more discretionary dollars to the hands of management would not necessarily save you a dime. It certainly would not improve the morale of your workforce, and might result in increased liability issues. For example, city workers have insurance, and part-timers may not. If some high school student loses his foot to a mowing accident, just watch how your expenses would go up! (not to mention the greater tragedy for that young person)

While there certainly are differences in perspective between administrative and labor interests, the fact is that the collective bargaining process is part of what we do, and is backed by law. Cities or schools trying to circumvent that process, run the risk of having an unfair labor practice complaint lodged against them, as well they should.

We who have worked in the unions are very proud of the quality of our workers, whether certified or classified. For the workers' own protection, we demand safe working conditions, fair pay, due process, medical care, and equitable retirement packages.

We are already seeing many teachers leave for cities and states paying higher salaries with greater benefits than Lakewood does. To remain competitive, we must understand the bigger picture here.

Union people do their job. If there is a performance issue, there is a fair, negotiated appraisal process involved.

I believe that you have argued that administrations often need greater efficiency. Your professional labor associations would probably agree with you.

Just don't blame us. We don't run things.

[Bill Call]

You seem to be repeatedly in favor of cities, or school districts being able to make unilateral cuts anytime they like, at the expense of negotiated agreements.

Is that your position?

Yes.

The current collective bargaining agreement system is completely broken.
The government unions make demands and City administrations give in.

On the rare occasion when when an arbitrator actually looks to what is affordable or fair they come up with a plan that has City employees paying $50 a month on a health plan that costs $15,000 per year.
The demands of government unions have sapped this region of its vitality, prosperity and future.

Specifically, the demands of Lakewood's unions have damaged all aspects of life in this community. The City employees? They don't give a damn. Why? They don't live here.

They have nothing but contempt for the City and its people. Their attitude is best summed up by their own words "F... Lakewood, I don't give a God damn about Lakewood, I don't live in Lakewood."

I wish there was a more sensitive way to point out the truth, but there isn't.

[ryan costa]

If the Union Contracts cannot be renegotiated it may be easier to simply eliminate the departments in total. If my memory serves me right, Thomas Jefferson's administration didn't fire or remove the "midnight judges" from office, he eliminated their offices. On the other hand, no healthy person believes they are overpaid.

[Gary Rice]

Bill,

First of all, I would again reiterate that you are entitled to your opinions.

Secondly, I'm glad that we have concerned citizens like you, who are willing to give voice to their positions. We need everyone in the discussion.

For years, the public sector employees lagged behind their private sector peers in salary. Benefits, both with medical care, and with retirement, was one way to even things out.

As you are well aware, the last few years have seen a downturn in the number of good paying, benefit-ready jobs all over America. Between NAFTA and CAFTA free trade agreements with our neighbors, American manufacturing looks to me as if it has gone onto the rocks, for good.

Except for service jobs, medical jobs, and jobs supporting military-industrial efforts, we don't seem to have too many private-sector jobs for workers left.

Public-sector people (city workers, teachers, etc,) admittedly came out of this economic crisis rather well, compared to so many others.

But remember- they had to endure rather meager salaries for many years until after, say 15-20 years on the job- they were finally making a liveable wage.

Remember too, in the case of teachers, that unlike the private sector, they were forced to return again and again to the classroom using their own money to update their skills, in order to retain their certificates. Today, they are only issued 5 year licences, that require rigorous and expensive update requirements.

In reference to your statement about what, I would guess, would be some Lakewood worker's comment. That is one person's rather negative opinion. I'm sure as well that a great many Lakewood employees live in the city, and would not feel that way.

I respectfully disagree about the public sector collective bargaining system being broken. It is, in fact, the law of the land, as it well should be.

Do you really think that we are better off now, having limited the power of the unions by right-to-work states, and sending manufacturing offshore?

Think of it Bill, since WWII, what manufacturing have we lost, or at the least, severely limited?

Cameras, watches, shoes, textiles, TVs, etc.........

Do you really want to erode workers rights even more?

So many work today for little pay, no benefits, and one payday away from the street.

Your call for fiscial responsibility is well-taken, but as union people learned long ago: If you wait for the boss to raise your pay, you'll be waiting a long time.

[Bill Call]

Do you really think that we are better off now, having limited the power of the unions by right-to-work states, and sending manufacturing offshore?

American manufacturing is more productive than ever before. Americans are richer than ever before. Americans have more stuff than ever before. Americans seem more uneasy than ever before. Why? My own pet theory is that the pace of economic change has increased so fast that people don't have time to relax with the competition breathing down their neck.

I use to work for a union pension fund. I traveled the country auditing companies of all sizes.

In Eastern Tennesse I visited a union shop that paid its industrial employees $6 per hour. The new contract allowed them to pay even less.
They were engaged in a slow bleed process to replace the $6 help with $5 an hour help.

I recall one business owner in New Orleans who was bragging about spending $50,000 on the mardi gras parade while complaing about his $8 union work force. He also mentioned his $1,200 boots.

In defense of these owners, they grew up without shoes and started their business from scratch and they deserved their reward. They also had to deal with the competion.

I am not opposed to unions. I am opposed to a system that allows government employees to claim all additional tax revenue as theirs. I am opposed to a system that allows government unions to slowly bleed a community dry.

The economy country wide is quite good. The economy in Ohio is bad and getting worse. The government unions solution? Decrease everyone's take home pay.

[Gary Rice]

Good morning Bill, and everyone,

If I were teaching debate class, one of the techniques that I might use would be to have my students say something like this:

"I cannot fault your logic, but I must question your premise!"

It would appear, Bill, that you and I come from different premises. These are no doubt based upon our different frames of reference. I too, have heard unsubstantiated horror stories about union stewards mis-using pension funds. In fact, wasn't there a movie about that?

Lets clear up a few things.

There are no "government unions". I believe that you mean "public-sector unions", but as you phrase it, our readers might think that they are government sponsored, and that, they are not.

Years ago, teachers could have been fired if they struck. Only through court cases, were public employees able to achieve collective bargaining abilities. Our unions are independent of the government.

You might recall the air-traffic controllers strike during the Reagan years, and what happened to them.

You say that you are not opposed to unions. Another poster on the deck claims that he is not opposed to teachers, either.

Yet then, the attacks begin. I was a teachers' union officer for years. There were no parades or $1200 boots that I saw. (although I did scarf a pretty good deal on a pair of good-looking cowboy boots at a flea market once, but they were used :-)

Bill, in so many ways, you have brought up good points to this deck, yet I think that some of your arguments are specious, and again, to me, agenda driven.

To imply that there is a system that allows "government employees to claim all tax revenue as theirs", or to "bleed a community dry" is just patently erroneous, at least in my view.

To blame unions for the ills of a system, is to blame the men and women who built that system, while ignoring the people who direct and supervise that system, and who agreed with the union- in a proper forum, as to what salary, medical care, and benefits were appropriate.

Let's look at the bigger picture. Only by working together, will we be able to gauge the pulse of this city.

[Bryan Schwegler]

You say that you are not opposed to unions. Another poster on the deck claims that he is not opposed to teachers, either.

Yet then, the attacks begin.

If by clarifying and bringing other points of view contrary to your own you mean an attack, then yes, I guess that's what it is.

Bill, in so many ways, you have brought up good points to this deck, yet I think that some of your arguments are specious, and again, to me, agenda driven.

In all fairness to Bill, Gary you also are very agenda driven. It was mainly your constant agenda pushed in multiple threads regarding teachers and unions that made me feel the need to jump into the one I did.

It's disingenuous to imply that Bill is the only one with an agenda. In truth, we all have one as we all want to support our line of thinking.

You are very defensive of teachers and unions, and that's to be expected as that's the world you lived in for so long. I feel the same way when people have misperceptions about the industry I work in. However, sometimes the emotion needs to be taken out, other points of view needs to be considered, and an understanding needs to be had that disagreement does not always equal attack.

[Gary Rice]

Bryan,

Let's again be careful with our terminology.

Defending a position is far different from driving an agenda.

One position is explanatory, and the other, perhaps an exercise in polemics?

And for sure, on the deck, there are many with agendas.

As to whether I have one?

Although I don't see myself as such in this case, I suppose we all might, whether we admit it or not. Still, I only thought that IN MY OPINION, that a FEW of Bill's positions might be agenda-driven. I DID NOT state that BILL was agenda-driven, as you however, seemed to say, concerning me.

I do not presume to describe people; only to debate their points. I would caution you just as a friendly general rule that I often used in class-

We should avoid saying that a person IS something, without adding "in my opinion". Of course, that's only my opinion :-)

My main point is just that I don't like to see teachers, or workers, having to shoulder undue burdens that they don't deserve.

And that's why I spoke out.

These days, I'm retired, and out of the classroom. I can no longer issue detentions, or check your spelling work.

I'm not paid to have an education agenda anymore. I'm just your opinionated neighbor, and hopefully, your friend.

By the way, around the time I was retiring, there was a new idea brought forth that red pens should not be used to correct papers, as they might disturb self-esteem. I believe they might have suggested purple, pink, or pastel colors to do the job.

I took my red pen home with me to retire by my side.

I also would simply guess that, after reading all of our postings, readers will probably see why teachers historically felt the need to form unions.