Gencarella: The Hypocrisy of Switching Out Car Taxes for Tolls
Thursday, January 05, 2017
The definition of "eliminate" is to completely remove or get rid of something.
When Speaker Mattiello speaks of ‘eliminating’ the car tax, he really doesn’t mean ‘eliminating’ it, he just means having someone else pay for it.
Mattiello Couldn’t Find $45 Million Last Year, But Now He Can Find $200 Million.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTHow is it that Speaker Mattiello believed there was no way to find the required $45 million for infrastructure repair in the state’s budget (hence the whole new toll scheme) but he is emphatic that he can ultimately find $200 million in the budget to subsidize inefficient local governments via their local car taxes?
According to GoLocalProv data, the end result of state subsidies for car taxes will be Providence and Pawtucket and Central Falls and Woonsocket and Cranston receiving an extraordinarily high pro rata share of the pie since they assess the highest taxes on automobiles to fund their inefficient governments. So, if you live in any of the other 34 cities and towns, you need to recognize that you will be paying your state taxes in order to give more money to those 5 cities. Just another game of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Keeping it Local Is Best For the Taxpayer.
There was a recent editorial that provided two important points to consider. First, while the car tax may be considered regressive, it gives most local residents “skin in the game." It helps keep them interested in how the local tax dollar is spent. Second, matching local tax with the local services provided typically results in greater accountability. In other words, it’s the responsibility of local elected officials to keep costs, and therefore taxes, low. If they don’t the local voter will theoretically hold them accountable. Removing this accountability provides less incentive for your city and town councilors to keep pressure applied on the local budgets.
A Look Backward.
The argument for ‘eliminating’ the car tax is to relieve the taxpayer’s burden. But rather than finding alternative sources of revenue in a state with an overall high tax burden, doesn’t it make more sense to reduce the cost of government?
At the same time, Governor Carcieri eliminated the state subsidy for car taxes, he proposed ways for municipalities to reduce the cost of local government and make it much more efficient thereby allowing for a reduction in taxes. He proposed things like eliminating minimum manning in police and fire departments, imposing a 25% health care co-share premium on municipal workers and eliminating the Caruolo Act, none of which were passed at the time. Later, Governor Raimondo encouraged cities and towns to address their pension costs via renegotiation of municipal contracts and others have said that passing ordinances that mirrored state pension reforms were an option. Again, very little, if anything was done in that area.
Fast Forward To 2017 - Tolls and Taxes.
Years after refusing to provide a means for local municipalities to reduce their costs, the General Assembly leadership now believes it’s their responsibility to ensure that others fund the 5 cities’ car tax. But where will that leave you, the taxpayer? You will be left to pick up the cost of inefficient local governments by subsidizing those car taxes. That will be on top of the hidden tax (otherwise known as a toll) you will find in the cost of goods you purchase and on top of the ultimate toll you will be paying on your car when the truck toll scheme doesn’t pan out.
So when the Speaker begins his rhetoric about reducing the tax burden for the average taxpayer, you know what he really means - redistributing wealth to the urban cities, providing a hidden tax (which will ultimately be an open tax) on goods thinking that no one will notice and assessing a toll on your car.
Happy New Year!
Related Slideshow: 10 Things to Know about Elorza’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal
Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza introduced his Fiscal Year 2017 budget proposal for the city -- here are 10 things you should know.
Related Articles
- Gencarella: Is RI On A Path To Socialized HealthCare?
- Pam Gencarella: The Twilight Zone
- Gencarella: Rhode Island - The Rule of Lawlessness
- Gencarella: It’s Time to Brew Our Own Coffee and Cut Out the Coolattas
- Gencarella: Is There a Movement Afoot
- Gencarella: RI Firefighters: Public Servants, Hardly Indentured Servants
- Gencarella: Let’s Leave It A Local Issue
- Pam Gencarella: Where Does Raimondo’s Vision Put Us in Five Years?
- Gencarella: Can We “Make it in RI?”
- Gencarella: Public Union Benefits Limit What Our Government Can Do For Taxpayers.
- Gencarella: A Drop In The Proverbial Ocean State Budget
- Gencarella: TOLLS - Trucks Today, Cars Tomorrow.
- Gencarella: ’Twas the Night Before Session
- Gencarella: Truth or Dare, RI Style
- Gencarella: Is RI ‘Economic Development’ Moving Us Backward?
- Gencarella & Bishop: Political Football v Public Safety
- Gencarella: RI Has Its Own October Surprise
- Gencarella: CVS, A Prime Example Of Squandered State Resources?
- Gencarella: RI’s Fall From Grace Has Been A Long Time Coming
- Gencarella: RI, A Government In Crisis - Nothing New
- Gencarella: All ‘Tolled’, It’s A Bad Plan
- Gencarella: The Toll Plan - One Mell of A Hess
- Gencarella: Robbing Peter (and Mary and Jane and Rob) To Pay Paul
- Gencarella & Bishop: Billion Dollar ‘Big Dig’ - Fewer Bridges, Fewer Cars, Nearly Double The Cost
- Gencarella: Why Would Elected Officials Propose To Disobey The Law?
