Lawsuit Filed Against Curry's Pension Sales Tax

[benmarcus]

Don't get me wrong, Im glad the anti taxers are against the bill.  It makes the costs much larger in the future.  But the whole problem would never have happened if they hadn't been listened to in the first place. 

14 years later, It seems brain damaged in retrospect to cut your revenue lower than your expenses.

Just like it seems desperate to blame the people that you owe a shitload of money to as a result of your own shortsightedness.

That said: seriously.  Tax now to avoid even higher bills later.

Curry's Pension Plan is a Pay Day Loan.

Social Security, anyone. If Congress hadn't kept borrowing from the fund, it wouldn't be set to default by mid-century. This is why an involved and informed citizenry is so essential to ethical government.

In all honesty, we only have ourselves to blame, as a whole, with just deplorable municipal turnout and folks just expecting things to happen without any sort of effort.

The best thing we can do for this city's budget woes is REJECT the half-cent tax on posterity and force an actual, robust conversation about the budget and our real options. Because there are plenty of them. Just none that will be free. 

[jaxlongtimer]

This is a great graphic from the T-U that shows how easy it would be to pay the current pension obligations now, not decades down the road at far more costs.

Curry flatly rejects raising property taxes or any other existing taxes or fees.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-08-09/story/if-sales-tax-fails-other-solutions-will-have-be-found-jacksonvilles

[camarocane]

Gotta tow that "no tax" line. Gas tax, property tax, even the JEA franchise fee would be passed on to rate payers in the form of a rate increase (another tax ). 

[tufsu1]

^ and its just this viewpoint that has me strongly considering voting NO

[vicupstate]

Lowering property taxes created the mess, fix it by raising them. AT the very least START with that.

BTW, can the Sales Tax be raised by less than 1/2 cent? 

[camarocane]

^ and its just this viewpoint that has me strongly considering voting NO

Exactly!

[brainstormer]

Lowering property taxes created the mess, fix it by raising them. AT the very least START with that.

Thank you! This is why I am voting no. Curry took all options off the table except for his sales tax which would allow him to be the savior now while saddling the city with huge debt payments in the future.

Since Curry loves Trump and Trump loves nicknames, how about Cunning Curry?

[tufsu1]

Lowering property taxes created the mess, fix it by raising them. AT the very least START with that.

BTW, can the Sales Tax be raised by less than 1/2 cent?

no.  math is hard. it would create a small nightmare for the state to come up with weird accounting formulas for each county.

huh?

Most counties that have implemented the local option sales tax have added a full cent...and some are contemplating another 1/2 to 1 cent.  It is entirely possible to have a 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, or 1 cent sales tax.

[jaxlongtimer]

It seems to me all the last half dozen or so administrations and accompanying city councils, collectively, deserve "credit" for the mess we are in now.  And, that the difficulty in finding a "solution" to fixing it is an artificial, self inflicted problem.

In a nutshell, here is why:
   1. Buying votes of police, fire and city employees with promised benefits that were reckless in their design and ultimate cost and not fiscally fair to taxpayers paying for them.  I am convinced that such "political" promises were made with the full knowledge that the bills would come due long after those making the promises had moved on.  [I also note there remains a cloud as to if these plans were even legally and legitimately enacted.]

   2. Ridiculous assumptions about investment returns continuously yielding 8%/year, rain or shine.  And, regardless of such assumptions, guaranteeing them for decades.

   3. Failing to consider the obvious long term actuarial trend that people are living ever-longer, extending the cost of benefits even more.

   4. Locking in a pension plan for 30 years.  Who, in today's fast changing and volatile world, makes 30 year agreements on something like this.  It's why employers in the private sector have dropped pensions and no longer offer lifetime health insurance to retirees.  Government is certainly not immune to the same issues and should be reacting accordingly.

   5. Year after year, ignoring or incompetently not understanding the accumulating and fast growing funding balance shortfalls.  How could no one see the "elephant in the room"?

   6. Not only refusing to consider raising sales, property or other taxes regardless of how dire the City's budget problems are, but actually reducing them for many years.  I don't know any business or person who would voluntarily reduce their income for any reason (especially when the City is already recognized as the "low price leader" with its tax structure).  If there is "excess" income, it should be "saved" for the inevitable rainy day, not squandered by forfeiting it and then refusing, no matter what, to ask for it back when needed.  This is fiscal irresponsibility beyond the pale.

Foremost, I am concerned the current proposal is not ideal because it just adds more debt so we can continue to kick the can down the road again.

It appears the " circumstances" limiting our options are artificial in that the only reason they exist is because our elected leaders lack the will to say it like it is:  A tax increase is the timely and best way to fix this issue.  Painting themselves into corners with promises of "no tax increases" for any reason is just foolish and voters should be wary in the future of those who limit fiscal options under any circumstances by making such promises.

I note, too, that the City has a poor track record of sticking to promises regarding long term programs (e.g. the Renaissance and Better Jax Plans).  Once again, today's "promises" will be left to others to live up to (or not).

In summary, the current plan, in many ways, is mimicking the behavior that got us here in the first place:  multi-decade promises, highly speculative assumptions (e.g. no guarantee the Union's will make the necessary concessions being promised) and a steadfast refusal to properly adjust current tax rates.

Until I see a convincing point-by-point rebuttal to the above, I am questioning my ability to support the solution on the ballot.  If the ballot initiative was accompanied by an immediate property and/or sales tax increase (based on 800,000 citizens, I figure about $50 per capita per year is needed) to allow for not financing the current shortfalls and the ballot sales tax was thus a complimentary replacement and dedicated funding source for the future once it kicked in AND we had agreements in hand with the Unions that made the desired adjustments to the pension plans, I could wholeheartedly agree with this plan.

Haven't seen above points being addressed by the "yes" team.  Leaning more and more to the "no" vote on this.

Any update on the lawsuit?

Now, I see Democratic party is coming out against the tax:  http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-08-16/story/duval-county-democratic-party-urges-rejection-half-cent-sale-tax

[jaxlongtimer]

Asking again: Anyone have a status report on this lawsuit?  Seems a ruling favorable to the plaintiffs could throw an interesting monkey wrench into this initiative.  Only 7 days to go.  Is it possible to retroactively nullify this with a post-election decision?

[southsider1015]

Let's say Curry's plan doesn't pass.

What then?  How and when do we get a new deal?  What makes anyone think the Council (not Curry) will raise millages?  What makes anyone think that a new deal will be struck with the unions?

I agree with another poster:  people are hating the plan because Curry is behind it.   The answer to the problem is by a referendum, sadly, because Council won't approve higher millages.  Brown had the same problem.  It's just now going to happen in Jacksonville anytime soon.

The way I see this problem being solved right now is by referendum.  The deal might not be cheap, but the deal puts us on a path towards fixing it. 

If it doesn't pass, someone please explain this next, much better deal will easily get passed and save the day.  Please explain how voting No will solve the problem in this lifetime.

[strider]

Let's say Curry's plan doesn't pass.

What then?  How and when do we get a new deal?  What makes anyone think the Council (not Curry) will raise millages?  What makes anyone think that a new deal will be struck with the unions?

I agree with another poster:  people are hating the plan because Curry is behind it.   The answer to the problem is by a referendum, sadly, because Council won't approve higher millages.  Brown had the same problem.  It's just now going to happen in Jacksonville anytime soon.

The way I see this problem being solved right now is by referendum.  The deal might not be cheap, but the deal puts us on a path towards fixing it. 

If it doesn't pass, someone please explain this next, much better deal will easily get passed and save the day.  Please explain how voting No will solve the problem in this lifetime.

Here's the issue.  Even if this pension tax passes, where is the guarantee that the unions will work with the city to fix the issue?  If that doesn't happen, the entire vote is for nothing.  Wasted time and money.  So, imagine this.  The unions only agree if things get better for them so we end up in more debt. That will mean not only did the proverbial can get kicked down the road which grossly increases our future debt, it also makes things worse.  Of course, it does get better for a short time before it gets worse. A few benefit now and a lot of us will pay later.

I also resent being lumped into some false idea that many are against this pension tax just because Curry is behind it.  I am against it for multiple reasons.  It is indeed kicking the can down the road.  I have issues with how it is being sold.  "Vote Yes for Jacksonville"?  Really? That's the statement the promoters of the plan want the general public to grab onto because past the idea that a future sales tax may be used to pay down a pension debt, there is nothing else guaranteed in this plan. I have issue with the fact the millions have been donated by wealthy business men to get this passed.  I have lived in this town long enough to know that no one does anything like that unless there is something in it for them.  Makes me wonder why it is so important to free up 40 to 60 million for the next few years.  Based on past experience, most of it will never be used for anything that really helps us. And yes, I do have some issue with Curry himself.  After all, he is the one that stated past bad behavior of his Chief of Staff, the one being accused of poor ethics, does not matter, only what she does for him.  Makes me wonder what exactly she will be doing for him.

What happens if it doesn't pass?  The money has to come from somewhere.  Most of us do not see the needed infrastructure improvements here anyway so less of that will go pretty much unnoticed. We could raise money other ways.  Increased taxes have been discussed and will have to be discussed.  One fact you may be missing when saying City Council will not raise taxes is simply that if the pension tax does get voted down, the majority of the people will have spoken and will have said it's OK to raise taxes now so we can pay off our debt now. City council will have no choice. Besides, I truly suspect that if this tax voted down, some within our City Council will step up and say that gee, it's not going to be as bad as we said.  We can do this and not raise taxes much at all.

[vicupstate]

The answer to the problem is by a referendum, sadly, because Council won't approve higher millages.  Brown had the same problem.  It's just now going to happen in Jacksonville anytime soon.

Actually city council DID approve a millage increase during the Brown administration, against his strong protest to balance the General budget.   

[benmarcus]

I also resent being lumped into some false idea that many are against this pension tax just because Curry is behind it.  I am against it for multiple reasons.  It is indeed kicking the can down the road.  I have issues with how it is being sold.  "Vote Yes for Jacksonville"?  Really? That's the statement the promoters of the plan want the general public to grab onto because past the idea that a future sales tax may be used to pay down a pension debt, there is nothing else guaranteed in this plan. I have issue with the fact the millions have been donated by wealthy business men to get this passed.  I have lived in this town long enough to know that no one does anything like that unless there is something in it for them.  Makes me wonder why it is so important to free up 40 to 60 million for the next few years.  Based on past experience, most of it will never be used for anything that really helps us. And yes, I do have some issue with Curry himself.  After all, he is the one that stated past bad behavior of his Chief of Staff, the one being accused of poor ethics, does not matter, only what she does for him.  Makes me wonder what exactly she will be doing for him.

+1000. I was optimistic about Curry because he seemingly was trying to find a middle ground on some issues. But coming from Chicago and seeing what strongarm politics does to a city, I've taken great exception with how this has been pushed. It has the all too familiar scent of machine politics, using peer pressure and ultimatums to get things a certain way, instead of factual debate and a presentation of the options available.

[southsider1015]

The answer to the problem is by a referendum, sadly, because Council won't approve higher millages.  Brown had the same problem.  It's just now going to happen in Jacksonville anytime soon.

Actually city council DID approve a millage increase during the Brown administration, against his strong protest to balance the General budget.   

Ok, great point. Millages were raised, but yet the pension problem wasn't fixed?  And yet there is faith here that millages will be raised enough to fix the pension, AND it won't be used for other purposes?  Hasn't this already happened a dozen times?  Where's the guarantee that increases millages will be used to fix the pension? 

Voting NO blindly puts faith in Council, right?  No thanks.   

Also, I find it somewhat confusing for anyone to have voted Curry in, and be voting this plan NO.  There's probably a handful of folks here that are finding themselves in that  situation.