View Full Version : $150 TAX COST per avg Resident says City



DavidGlover
03-02-2008, 10:15 AM
This is the City's Data, the City's Economic forecast. The $150 is for the avg. OKC residents, some will pay more, some less. Non-OKC residents will fund the other 30.5%.

If the Tax Vote passes, the city has determined it will cost an average of $150 for each and every resident. 20 million dollars will build basketball practice facility. 100 million dollars will fund changes to the Ford Center designed mainly to subsidize an NBA owner in making more money.

THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE CITY MANAGER"S OFFICE:

Dear Mr. Glover,

I enjoyed our conversation this morning.

The City Finance Department has been able to provide sales tax information according to Standardized Industrial Code (SIC) as well as additional information you may find of interest. Please find attached a spreadsheet denoting gross sales and City sales tax receipts by SIC for the calendar year 2007.

With regard to your question as to what percent of Oklahoma City sales tax is paid by Oklahoma City citizens, the Finance Department has just recently received information on this topic. Based on an economic analysis conducted by Oklahoma State University economist Dr. Mark Snead, the average Oklahoma City resident can expect to pay about $10 per month for the 15 months the Ford Center Improvements Sales Tax will be in effect. This is based on economic data that shows 30.5% of Oklahoma City's sales taxes are paid by people who live outside the City. For the $120,000,000 estimated to be collected through the one cent sales tax, this means approximately $36.6 million will come from people who are not citizens of Oklahoma City.

I hope this information is responsive to your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions or comments.

Regards,

Thomas A. Anderson
Executive Manager - Special Projects
Office of the City Manager

betts
03-02-2008, 10:19 AM
David, although I see that you have data from the city, it still completely mystifies me how anyone could come up with that doing the math.

If a family of four spent $10 per month per person on this tax, that would mean that this family is spending $4,000 a month on groceries and amenities. That comes out to $48,000 a year. How many people living in Oklahoma City do you honestly think are spending that kind of money on taxable items?

I think the city's figures are wrong. I could see that being the average amount per family, but not per person. If someone else sees this differently, please enlighten me.

Easy180
03-02-2008, 10:23 AM
Ten bucks a month

That they are already paying

$4 gas....Shocking

Equivalent of 4 sodas a week....Not even close

Why lose so much sleep over less than a buck a day David?

The poor and elderly get a sales tax refund anyway...The rest of us this has zero effect on

SouthsideSooner
03-02-2008, 10:33 AM
Count me in. Sounds like a great deal to me.

Slivermoon
03-02-2008, 10:41 AM
Gee, I wonder how many of those "residents" are businesses buying taxable goods and services from other businesses? I bet companies like Chesapeake, Devon, the Oklahoman, Sandridge, and hundreds of others contribute a goodly part to the $10 average.

Also, it seems to me it is a good thing for Oklahoma City citizens that 30.5% of our City sales tax is paid by non-residents. Frankly, I bet this number is higher now that we have attractions like the Ford Center than it was pre-MAPS, and improvements to the Ford Center will only continue this trend.

Maybe I just don't get it, because this positioning has not convinced me to change my "yes" vote.

Architect2010
03-02-2008, 10:48 AM
What Southside said... $10 dollars a month for a brand-new arena??? Hey, thats a gudd deal. I think that should be a part of their campaign. "For less than a dollar a day, you can help OKC get a new arena, grow our economy, attract major businesses, etc." =P

betts
03-02-2008, 10:55 AM
Even if you believe the $10 figure, which for the reasons I stated above, is probably WAY too high, that's 33 cents a day, not even a dollar.

All of us could probaby stand to give up a coke or a candy bar a day(or at least, I could), which would save us far more money than the sales tax would cost us. And we might be able to contribute to Mayor's Mick's million pound goal!:bright_id

DavidGlover
03-02-2008, 12:39 PM
The price is low to some, but high for most. Avg family of 4 pays $600 toward corporate welfare.

SouthsideSooner
03-02-2008, 12:52 PM
The price is low to some, but high for most. Avg family of 4 pays $600 toward corporate welfare.

What a bunch of bull.

Prove it.

Prove the average OKC family of 4 spends $600.00 on "corporate welfare".

Don't let the truth get in the way of you trying to make a point.

Karried
03-02-2008, 01:06 PM
What do you think an average family of four pays for regular welfare?

ie food stamps, section 8 housing etc? Just curious.

Pete
03-02-2008, 01:26 PM
Here's how the city must have come to that number:

$120 million, 69.5% to be paid by residents of OKC (since the other 30.5% is estimated to be paid by non-residents): $83.5 million

Divide that number by the population within the city limits (about 550,000) and that gives you about $151 per person. And since the tax will last 15 months, that's about $10 a month.


But of course, that also assumes $12 billion in sales tax generating commerce during that time ($120 million divided by 1%). Or, almost a billion every single month. Not sure how that compares to the last 12 months, for example.

betts
03-02-2008, 01:37 PM
The price is low to some, but high for most. Avg family of 4 pays $600 toward corporate welfare.

What a bunch of bull.

Prove it.

Prove the average OKC family of 4 spends $600.00 on "corporate welfare".

Don't let the truth get in the way of you trying to make a point.

David, I respectfully have to state that if a private family pays "$600 toward corporate welfare", that means they have spent $60,000 in taxable items in Oklahoma City in that time period. Do you know what the net income of a family that spends $60,000 in 15 months for food, clothing and miscellaneous would have to be? It would have to be a LOT more than almost everyone in Oklahoma City's income. I'm guessing that family would have to have an income of over $250,000 a year. That's why the math has to be bad.

If I'm wrong here, would someone mind stepping in and correcting me? I'm not a mathematician.

BDP
03-02-2008, 01:39 PM
The "average" is a worthless figure, because it in no way represents what most people are spending. I think that Glover guy needs a class in statistics. Find out what the median is and then you'd have a much more meaningful number, as it would tell you that exactly half of the people are paying more and exactly half are paying less.

It's more likely that many more people are paying less than that specious $150 figure and a few are paying a lot more. You have to realize that this average number in now way represents the majority of families.

Pete
03-02-2008, 01:42 PM
I think one of the obvious flaws in the calculations (which I broke down above) is that it assumes only individuals are paying sales tax.

What about all the sales tax paid by businesses, corporations, schools, hospitals, etc.?? Unless they are buying wholesale (for resale to others) they are all paying sales tax on everything they buy.

I think this clear omission is why the numbers don't make any sense.

fubaduba
03-02-2008, 01:44 PM
The mall is a fine place, and worth fighting for!

aIc489mhk-Q

betts
03-02-2008, 01:48 PM
I think one of the obvious flaws in the calculations (which I broke down above) is that it assumes only individuals are paying sales tax.

What about all the sales tax paid by businesses, corporations, schools, hospitals, etc.?? Unless they are buying wholesale (for resale to others) they are all paying sales tax on everything they buy.

I think this clear omission is why the numbers don't make any sense.

That is most likely the case, and explains a lot.

betts
03-02-2008, 01:56 PM
OK. I looked this up for Oklahoma City:
Median OKC Household income
$35,394.0

Median Family Income
$43,489

Considering the $600 figure we were given above for 15 months would come to $480 for 12 months, that would imply that a family of four is spending $48,000 a year for groceries, clothing and miscellaneous. That would be impossible given the median famly income in OKC of $43,489.00

JerzeeGrlinOKC
03-02-2008, 02:01 PM
Here's how the city must have come to that number:

$120 million, 69.5% to be paid by residents of OKC (since the other 30.5% is estimated to be paid by non-residents): $83.5 million

Divide that number by the population within the city limits (about 550,000) and that gives you about $151 per person. And since the tax will last 15 months, that's about $10 a month.

I wanted to add another point to this misleading calculation, Mr. Glover. The assumption of $151 dollars per person is a straight division assuming a normal distribution (in other words, the assumption that the tax is evenly divided among the population). Don't you think that the large purchasers (including corporate transactions) are paying the real brunt of the total? And don't you think many of those that are paying the brunt for high-priced items can afford this tax? Like others have said in this thread (and most other threads), the price that those who would be "hurt" by this tax is probably minimal, probably less than 10 dollars a month, and are already benefiting from tax-payer dollars in other metro services (why is that not brought up more often?). Anyhow, saying its $151 a person is just so off-the-wall misleading! It doesn't tell you anything.

What I would really like to know if I asked the city official, is what the median value (not the mean) of the income tax first of all (because Iím sure larger high-priced purchasers dominate the contribution to the total, which makes the average useless), and what is the tax that those that are middle class, and then those that are at or below the poverty line have to pay on average? And then I would venture to think how the city and stateís economic improvement will go to help these people in way of jobs and services (Iím sure there are many ways).

Seems like all this crying about the tax is more out of the principal of the taxation rather than reality of the benefits to the city, state, and economy as a whole. But of course I'm not saying anything that has not already been said on these boards, so I'll shut up now.

:fighting4

Easy180
03-02-2008, 04:45 PM
The price is low to some, but high for most. Avg family of 4 pays $600 toward corporate welfare.

Completely ridiculous statement...Many families of four don't even make $60,000 in income

Math check

metro
03-02-2008, 05:42 PM
David, just curious do you have kids? If so are they going to OKC Public Schools? If so us OKC taxpayers are paying for kids in the Village to go to OKC Public schools. Why don't you complain about that at a Village council meeting, that OKC voters are paying for Village school kids. We've already proven you live in the Village. You can't even vote in this election. How about attending Village city council meetings and let us OKC voters decide this one.

solitude
03-02-2008, 05:53 PM
David, just curious do you have kids? If so are they going to OKC Public Schools? If so us OKC taxpayers are paying for kids in the Village to go to OKC Public schools. Why don't you complain about that at a Village council meeting, that OKC voters are paying for Village school kids. We've already proven you live in the Village. You can't even vote in this election. How about attending Village city council meetings and let us OKC voters decide this one.

I'm quite sure that David pays property tax in the Village (or pays rent to a lanlord who does). Schools aren't financed by sales taxes, metro.

metro
03-02-2008, 05:59 PM
Not totally, but you are partially correct solitude, but I'm pretty sure Maps for Kids (paid by OKC taxes) paid for new construction, or renovations/upgrades to many metro area schools, include schools Village kids attend. In fact OKC Voters have/are paying approximately $470 million in taxes FOR SCHOOLS.

City of Oklahoma City | OCMAPS (http://www.okc.gov/OCMAPS/index.html)

solitude
03-02-2008, 06:10 PM
Not totally, but you are partially correct solitude, but I'm pretty sure Maps for Kids (paid by OKC taxes) paid for new construction, or renovations/upgrades to many metro area schools, include schools Village kids attend. In fact OKC Voters have/are paying approximately $470 million in taxes FOR SCHOOLS.

City of Oklahoma City | OCMAPS (http://www.okc.gov/OCMAPS/index.html)

No, actually you are only partially correct. Operating expenses for schools, in Oklahoma, are paid through property taxes. That's not partially correct, that's the huge chunk of any school district's budget. There are many outside funds from bonds, private grants, the federal government, the state government (lottery) and the capital improvements funded through Maps for Kids.

As for Maps For Kids, the flaw in your argument to David is that it's the same one everyone has been knocking David on when it comes to how much per person, etc. People in the Village obviously rack up a lot of sales tax dollars down the street at Penn Square or up the street at Quail Springs at Target, Sam's Club, WalMart and so it goes.

The argument must be consistent.

betts
03-02-2008, 07:00 PM
I'm sorry I ever brought that Village thing up. What I was trying to imply is that people, if they're philosophically opposed to this sales tax, can choose to shop in parts of the metropolitan area that do not collect OKC sales tax. Although you may not save money, you have satisfied your principles. Therefore, it is not a completely involuntary tax, unless you don't have transportation out of Oklahoma City. I'd drive an extra few miles to satisfy my principles.

In fact, I'm going to inconvenience myself if this tax passes. I've already said, and I will stick to it, that I will not shop outside of Oklahoma City proper, for the duration of the sales tax collection. No catalogue shopping, no Amazon for books, no shopping in Edmond, or trips out of town. I'm willing to do a little more for principle.

SWOKC 4 me
03-02-2008, 07:53 PM
150 bucks gets the ford center upgrades and all that comes with it! even if this figure is accurate then count me in! I would pay $150!

metro
03-03-2008, 08:05 AM
No, actually you are only partially correct. Operating expenses for schools, in Oklahoma, are paid through property taxes. That's not partially correct, that's the huge chunk of any school district's budget. There are many outside funds from bonds, private grants, the federal government, the state government (lottery) and the capital improvements funded through Maps for Kids.

As for Maps For Kids, the flaw in your argument to David is that it's the same one everyone has been knocking David on when it comes to how much per person, etc. People in the Village obviously rack up a lot of sales tax dollars down the street at Penn Square or up the street at Quail Springs at Target, Sam's Club, WalMart and so it goes.

The argument must be consistent.


As betts semi-pointed out, then so must your argument be consistent. These people (including David Glover) are voting NO because of PRINCIPLE, not to save 1 penny. Actually, The Village has a HIGHER TAX RATE than OKC (Oklahoma City Area Sales Tax Rates (http://okc.about.com/library/bloksalestax.htm)) . So as betts said, he and others can so choose to spend in the Village or whatever suburb just to boycott OKC on PRINCIPLE. I didn't reference anything on how schools are funded, but I did reference on how they are built. And it has been documented (and I provided a link to Maps for Kids on the OKC.gov website) that over $470 million in OKC tax money is being used for construction and remodeling of schools (including suburban school districts). Again, for construction, remodeling, and technology upgrades (not to pay bills and teachers salaries).

OSUFan
03-03-2008, 08:12 AM
Why do the no voters lob out a bunch of "facts" about the campaign but never respond when questioned on them?

jbrown84
03-03-2008, 09:50 AM
I can't believe that The Opposition is calling this campaign "deceitful" and "dishonest" when they are saying things like "every MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD will pay $150 for this".

Right. Let me give little 5 year old Lucy her annual $60,000 allowance so she can go to the store.

betts
03-03-2008, 09:58 AM
Not to mention the fact that they are assuring everyone we're getting a team even if this tax proposal is not passed, despite not one shred of evidence supporting that theory. I'm wondering if it doesn't pass, and we don't get a team, if these opposition "leaders" will fade back into the woodwork, or if they'll have the chutzpah to admit they misled people.

bornhere
03-03-2008, 10:36 AM
I'm not making that assurance. I don't know if they'll come or not – and obviously, I don't personally care if they come or not.

What I am assuring you is that the sales tax increase is just a part of the total cost. No one will tell you what the total cost will be, or how long you'll be paying it – and I think that's because they believe if you knew, you wouldn't vote for this.

jbrown84
03-03-2008, 10:59 AM
Yes, but David Glover and the other opposition leaders ARE saying we'll get a team either way.

Misleading

Dishonest

Deceitful

DavidGlover
03-04-2008, 10:22 AM
Time will tell. I do know they would like to be here. OKC has shown it's ability better than any other city. Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

SouthsideSooner
03-04-2008, 10:28 AM
Time will tell. I do know they would like to be here. OKC has shown it's ability better than any other city. Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

Most people realize you don't get something for nothing.

Your 15 minutes is up, David.

jbrown84
03-04-2008, 10:35 AM
Time will tell. I do know they would like to be here. OKC has shown it's ability better than any other city. Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

No, the best outcome for everybody is a renovated arena that can compete for events and concerts, and houses an NBA team 41 nights a year.

Karried
03-04-2008, 11:24 AM
OKC has shown it's ability better than any other city



Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

There are no guarantees of this and that's exactly the sort of thinking and misinformation that will make people Vote NO.

Vote YES!

BDP
03-04-2008, 01:05 PM
Everyone can agree that the best outcome for 99.9% of people is that no taxes for this and a NBA team comes.

Not true at all.

Without these improvements the Ford Center's competitive position will begin to erode very rapidly given the size and scope of the arenas that are coming online in the area. There will be more and more venues for the same amount of events and, no doubt, Oklahoma City will have to compete harder and give away more to make up for facility shortcomings just to land the events. With these improvements, though, Oklahoma City not only retains its competitive position for these events, but improves it drastically and increases its chances for even more, bigger and better events.

The NBA is just icing on the cake as it would be a guarantee the venue would be operating for 41+ nights a year with a stable tenant that's paying rent and generating revenue. Without that, the Ford Center and the city has to be at the whim of the concert and convention industries, which are by no means consistent.

So, basically, a NO vote relegates the arena to remaining a second tier facility in an industry where tier 1 facilities are popping up all over the place. A YES vote leap frogs many arenas, making it competitive with some of the best in the industry and insures that Oklahoma City is a major player for large scale events into the future. The possible bonus is that it could help us land a major permanent tenant that, to date, we have not had. And don't think the possibility of a major tenant gets any better than it is right now for a market of our size.

The reality is that getting the NBA is not entirely in our control and if Seattle successfully drags the fight on longer, up to two and a half years longer, that is more time for more markets to work up proposals with their shiny new arenas with at least twice as many amenities as the Ford Center has now. No doubt these owners, who will be losing money during that time, will be looking for the biggest pay off to cover those losses, which almost assuredly will not be in the Oklahoma City market.

So, there really is nothing but downside to voting no and a tremendous upside to a YES vote. Of course, according to your math, I'll have to find a way to scrounge up the $45,000 in disposable income to cover my "average" family of 3's part.

:LolLolLol

betts
03-04-2008, 01:58 PM
Not true at all.

Without these improvements the Ford Center's competitive position will begin to erode very rapidly given the size and scope of the arenas that are coming online in the area. There will be more and more venues for the same amount of events and, no doubt, Oklahoma City will have to compete harder and give away more to make up for facility shortcomings just to land the events. With these improvements, though, Oklahoma City not only retains its competitive position for these events, but improves it drastically and increases its chances for even more, bigger and better events.

The NBA is just icing on the cake as it would be a guarantee the venue would be operating for 41+ nights a year with a stable tenant that's paying rent and generating revenue. Without that, the Ford Center and the city has to be at the whim of the concert and convention industries, which are by no means consistent.

So, basically, a NO vote relegates the arena to remaining a second tier facility in an industry where tier 1 facilities are popping up all over the place. A YES vote leap frogs many arenas, making it competitive with some of the best in the industry and insures that Oklahoma City is a major player for large scale events into the future. The possible bonus is that it could help us land a major permanent tenant that, to date, we have not had. And don't think the possibility of a major tenant gets any better than it is right now for a market of our size.

The reality is that getting the NBA is not entirely in our control and if Seattle successfully drags the fight on longer, up to two and a half years longer, that is more time for more markets to work up proposals with their shiny new arenas with at least twice as many amenities as the Ford Center has now. No doubt these owners, who will be losing money during that time, will be looking for the biggest pay off to cover those losses, which almost assuredly will not be in the Oklahoma City market.

So, there really is nothing but downside to voting no and a tremendous upside to a YES vote. Of course, according to your math, I'll have to find a way to scrounge up the $45,000 in disposable income to cover my "average" family of 3's part.

:LolLolLol

Wow. Excellent post. Yes, it will be beyond annoying if this vote fails and we have to fix the arena up anyway just to be competitive with Omaha, Wichita and Tulsa.

flintysooner
03-04-2008, 02:06 PM
I was just looking at some new photos of Tulsa's BOK Center. I think it is a beautiful structure and coming along very nicely now. I really think we in Oklahoma City cannot rest on past accomplishments.

jbrown84
03-04-2008, 02:52 PM
Very well said BDP. You and betts continue to make the best, most intelligent arguments on this subject.