search
top

No, No, No!

I am not going to agree to raise sales taxes to cover a property tax reduction.  Don’t we have a big surplus right now?  Ed Rendell is a tax and spend liberal.  How did this guy ever paint himself as a moderate?  I’ll take a property tax reduction from the surplus, please.

In Philadelphia, where the city takes an additional penny in sales tax, the overall rate would go from 7 percent to 8 percent. That would rival New York City, where state and local sales taxes add up to 8.375 percent.

Rendell’s proposal would bring Pennsylvania in line with New Jersey, which raised its sales tax last year to 7 percent.

Oh yeah, imitating New York and New Jersey.  Where do I sign up?  Because Pennsylvania just really needs higher taxes.  Thank god for term limits, but I have to deal with this crap for another four years!

4 Responses to “No, No, No!”

  1. Brad says:

    Wasn’t the revenue from slot casinos supposed to fund property tax reduction? The revenues didn’t live up the estimates? I’m shocked…SHOCKED!

    Let’s see, Ed Rendell has tried to reduce property taxes through Act 72, which failed miserably. He’s tried to do it on a tax on people who can’t do math (AKA gambling) and that’s apparently not enough. What makes him think that he’s right this time?

    Watch him enact Lynn Swann’s proposal.

  2. Seems your Gov is almost as bad as our new Gov.

    The only real tax cut is a spending cut; I don’t know much about the fiscal picture of PA, but is the real issue profligate spending?

    We probably will get slots here in MD eventually. Nothing like a tax on the mathmatically impaired, eh?

    MD actually is one of the best states to live in from a tax point of view. People from MD usually blanche when they hear that and will fight tooth and nail to disagree, but according to the American Taxpayers Union we’re something 7th or 8th best out of 50.

  3. Sebastian says:

    I think part of my issue is that I’m one of the few people who think property taxes are fair and a good way for government to raise revenue, for one simple reason: It’s very stable, and it’s hard to cheat. The downside is that applies to anyone who owns property whether the have high or low income, so retirees tend to hate them.

    But I’m not too keen on the idea of replacing a stable tax with one that doesn’t as reliably bring in money.

top