Revenue Enhancing Ideas

David Lay · Post by **David Lay** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:39 pm

What you call a fee, others would call a tax.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:46 pm

David Lay wrote:What you call a fee, others would call a tax.

But a fee is a fixed charge and a tax is usually based on a unit of income or wealth basis..

David Lay · Post by **David Lay** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:47 pm

Okay, for sake of discussion...

Say this 'fee' was passed. Would you charge just renters, homeowners, or both?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:48 pm

Richard Cole wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:
David Lay wrote:So, you're saying that renters should be liable for more taxes/fees/whatever than home owners?

A lot of people, myself included, rent because we can't yet afford to own a home.
No, I am saying that the city should look at charging a residency fee to renters. Note the word fee.. Thanks for paying attention again Dave..
Earlier in the thread you said a registration fee than renters would be liable for - now it's a residency fee

Residency fee is what I meant..

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:52 pm

David Lay wrote:Okay, for sake of discussion...

Say this 'fee' was passed. Would you charge just renters, homeowners, or both?

Yes, it would just be for renters at a certain income level..

David Lay · Post by **David Lay** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:53 pm

See, that would be double dipping to me...charging the property owner taxes, then singling me out as a renter and making me pay a 'fee'? That is ridiculous.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:59 pm

David Lay wrote:See, that would be double dipping to me...charging the property owner taxes, then singling me out as a renter and making me pay a 'fee'? That is ridiculous.

And you know that life always makes sense

So, what is your suggestion for increasing revenues for the city?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:01 pm

David Lay wrote:See, that would be double dipping to me...charging the property owner taxes, then singling me out as a renter and making me pay a 'fee'? That is ridiculous.

hmm double dipping, the fedral gov takes money from my paycheck then I pay federal taxes on my phone, cable, gasoline and etc... I have learned from the best..

David Lay · Post by **David Lay** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:01 pm

Honestly, in a city that is notorious for property taxes, I don't think we need any more revenues... we just need better ways for using what the city is already getting.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:07 pm

David Lay wrote:Honestly, in a city that is notorious for property taxes, I don't think we need any more revenues... we just need better ways for using what the city is already getting.

The city needs to transition from a city built for the 1930's to a city built for the 2,000's. Is the current revenue stream enough to do that?

David Lay · Post by **David Lay** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:10 pm

Considering the property taxes that the city will receive from Rockport's $400,000+ homes, and other developments in the area...my guess is yes.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:16 pm

David Lay wrote:Considering the property taxes that the city will receive from Rockport's $400,000+ homes, and other developments in the area...my guess is yes.

I hope that the turning of doubles into singles also picks up a little more steam. A percentage of the fee could could be earmarked for this project.

Danielle Masters · Post by **Danielle Masters** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:24 pm

Stephen I often agree with you, but this time I don't. One of the issues facing Lakewood currently is abundance of rental units sitting vacant. Many landlords have turned to section 8 or have stopped doing credit checks leading to some undesirable tenants. I think that having a residency tax would just add to the problem. Renters who could live elsewhere would choose to do so rather than pay an additional fee. I know that if I was looking to move into a city an additional annual fee might sway me to choose another city.

I do have to commend you for thinking out of the box, I just don't think this idea is a good one.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:28 pm

Danielle Masters wrote:Stephen I often agree with you, but this time I don't. One of the issues facing Lakewood currently is abundance of rental units sitting vacant. Many landlords have turned to section 8 or have stopped doing credit checks leading to some undesirable tenants. I think that having a residency tax would just add to the problem. Renters who could live elsewhere would choose to do so rather than pay an additional fee. I know that if I was looking to move into a city an additional annual fee might sway me to choose another city.

I do have to commend you for thinking out of the box, I just don't think this idea is a good one.

great response! And you make a valid point..

Danielle Masters · Post by **Danielle Masters** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:32 pm

great response! And you make a valid point..

Glad to see I make sense every now and then.