November 21, 2008

Kudos To Rushton

It takes alot of guts to talk about one tax rate for commercial and residential, but it needs to be done. The question is will the other city councilors work with him or attack him for not being for the "lowest residential tax rate". Although I hope the former, I predict it will be the later.

Better yet where is:
  1. Destination Worcester
  2. Chamber of Commerce
  3. Choose Worcester
  4. Prominent Commercial Property owners

7 comments:

Brendan Melican said...

This is the one issue I'm happy to agree with you on, Bill. As a Worcester home owner I want the opportunity to pay higher taxes. The services we rely upon in Worcester do not grow on trees.

And attempts to change the rules mid-game, as is the case with PILOT, is not an equitable solution.

tim macdonald said...

The tax rate should be the same for business and residential. Why should someone pay more because they have a business in the city and employ residents of Worcester.

Bill Randell said...

Tim:

I agree pitting businesses against businesses makes no sense. We have seen what the dual tax rates has done to the commercial tax base, have we not?


Bill

Paulie's Point of View said...

I think I'd rather be happy that I am getting a bang for my tax payments instead of being happy about paying more..own a few properties and the happiness goes away quickly when the return on what you pay out is less than equal..this is a serious issue..I'm involved with it now in Hyannis..Hyannis Area Chamber of Commerce is heavily involved..I have to agree with Wild Will - where is the Worcester Chamber of Commerce on this issue..I get weekly e-blast from the HACC on the issue....CC Clancy is Worcesters Dappah O'Neil without the personality.

I had a CC whispah in my ear recently instead of via Twittah and this CC was right up front - "we are not business friendly" in Woostah!

Paulie's Point of View said...

Newton is a perfect example of folks "hapy to pay more taxes" with little accountability..makes for a lot of unhapy folks who can no longer afford to live there or just get fed up with the nonsense..I know quite a few that just got fed up with the nonsense concerning the high school built for Kings & Queens.

We need fair taxation that takes into account the residents and business..in a city neither can exist without each other unless as in Worcester fashion it almost entirely depends on hand-outs!

Sudbury keeps out business and folks of wealth move in..Worcester pushes out business and Paulie's Pajama Parade moves in....if we are going to always be basing taxation on 75 year old Mrs. Murphy's ability to pay her property tax then we will at some point find ourselves with only Mr.s Murphy, Paulie's Pajama Parade and the City Council left in the city.

Saying, "I want the opportunity to pay higher taxes" is fairly broad...I want em' if it means I can now finally get tenants that have jobs, want jobs, have educations,want educations..contribute to the city! If it just means more taxes to support even more "loads" then I back out...

Paulie's Point of View said...

"The services we rely upon in Worcester do not grow on trees."

>>you did not outline the services and I should have included this in my prior post

Jhn said...

This is all just talk, let's see what he actually does about it. I see this as just some grand standing to business interests as the guy is 100% in bed with the minicipal unions...so therefore by definition he cant be pro taxpayer...be it a business taxpayer or resaidential taxpayer.

I do agree thouogh there s/b just one rate and the examlple I always cite is that I (a business taxpayer) and one of Paulies Pajama People (PPP) are in line at McD's for a $.99 cheesburger. The PPP pays $.99 for his and I, the businessman have to pay $1.99. That's basically what the city does by charging businesses twice the rate that homeowners have to pay.

And let us not forget:

a. the businesses also have to pay a personal porperty tax on equipment, furniture, etc as well as a real estate property tax.

b. The business sends no kids into the school system and the school system is 1/2 the citys budget.

And WTH is with McGovern securing $2M to train people for manfacturing jobs. What non profits will get this money and dare I ask where the manufacturing jobs are in his district? This smacks of more payola for non profits and frankly most manufacturing jobs are no skilled/ semi-skilled at best.

We already have a trade school, night schools, private propriety schools, and the like that can alraady do this training and there is gubment money availble to those who wish to attend.

I wonder how much of this payola ends up at the likes of MLK center or a CDC. Yes CDC's do get into "education" although in a small way.

BTW this notion that Bio-tech manufactuiring might be our savior is a misnomer....bioteach is not anywhere near as labor internsive as older traditional manufacturing industries.