Archive for Sunday, October 5, 2008
Retailers debate impact of sales tax
October 5, 2008
Advertisement
City Manager David Corliss stands in front of the crowd and tugs on the lapel of his suit jacket - David Letterman style - and delivers his now-standard line about the city's proposed 0.55 percent sales tax increase.
"When Corliss goes and buys another $100 suit, it will cost me an extra 55 cents," Corliss says at a recent Chamber of Commerce luncheon.
Thus far, the line is drawing a laugh - and for the most part - a nod of agreement.
Voters will go to the polls on Nov. 4 to decide three separate sales tax proposals - a three-tenths of a percent tax for infrastructure improvements, a two-tenths of a percent tax to fund basic public transit operations, and a five-one hundredths percent tax to fund enhancements to the public transit system.
Retailers' reaction mixed
Debate already has been fierce about whether the community should continue funding public transit operations, and the condition of city streets is always a hot topic.
But so far, discussion has been sparse about whether another 0.55 percent in sales taxes would harm the city's retail community. That discussion, however, may be on the way - especially as national economic news worsens.
"I think people will start paying attention to almost every dollar because of everything that has been going on in the last few weeks," said Win Campbell, a founder and employee of the downtown home furnishing store Winfield House. "This crisis has put the focus on where your money is going, right in front of us."
Not all retailers, though, are worried that the tax increase would hurt their businesses. That's in part because even with the increase, Lawrence's total sales tax would still be in the ballpark of the rates of other area communities.
"I think people will notice it for the first couple of months, but after about six months it will be part of the landscape," said Jane Bateman, president of South Iowa Street's Jane Bateman, The Interiors Store.
Still in the ballpark
If all three sales tax proposals are approved, Lawrence's total sales tax rate would increase from 7.3 percent today to 7.85 percent. The increase essentially would take Lawrence's rate from among the bottom half of those charged by major Kansas cities to the top half.
The rate would be higher than Topeka's rate of 7.45 percent, but still less than many of the major shopping areas in the Kansas City metro area.
For example, shoppers at Oak Park Mall in Overland Park are charged a 8.025 percent sales tax. Shoppers along 119th Street in Olathe generally are charged an 8.525 percent sales tax. Those rates may go up, too. Johnson County voters are being asked to approve a new 0.125 percent sales tax for education and research.
Shoppers at The Legends near the Kansas Speedway in Wyandotte County are charged a mix of rates. Many of the shops in the actual Legends portion of the development charge an 8.15 percent sales tax. But the two largest retailers in the area - Nebraska Furniture Mart and Cabela's - charge a 7.65 percent rate.
How it's charged
But it also is worth noting that the rules of how sales taxes are charged have changed significantly since 1994 when the community last considered a sales tax increase.
Today, it is possible to shop out of town but still end up paying the Lawrence sales tax rate. For example, if you buy a piece of furniture from Nebraska Furniture Mart and have it delivered to your home, you will pay the Lawrence sales tax rate. If you load the piece of furniture in your truck, however, you will pay the 7.65 percent rate.
With vehicle purchases, you are assured of paying at least the Lawrence sales tax rate regardless of where you purchase the vehicle. For example, if you purchase a vehicle in Topeka, you will be required to pay the difference in sales tax when you register the vehicle with the Douglas County Treasurer's office. If you buy the vehicle in Ottawa - where the tax rate is 7.9 percent - then congratulations, you've helped the state with its revenue situation. In other words, you won't get a refund on the amount you've paid over the Lawrence rate.
'Such a small amount'
That change in the law - which started being enforced in 2005 - has muted some of the opposition that has traditionally come from car dealers toward sales tax increases. But that doesn't mean there's still not concern.
Dale Willey, president of Dale Willey Automotive, said the sales tax increase may not cause people to shop out of town for a vehicle, but it may cause them to delay purchasing one altogether.
"It's just raising the burden on everybody who has to buy a car," Willey said.
Some big-ticket retailers, though, think Lawrence consumers will adjust. Jeff Cullen, manager of Stoneback Appliances at Ninth and Iowa streets, said consumers are more likely to leave the city because of the initial price of an item instead of the sales tax that is charged.
"I'm sure we'll hear about it when we ring them up," Cullen said. "But for the most part, Lawrence people are pretty good about shopping local."
Consumers out-and-about this week mainly were not overly concerned about the potential tax increase, although several said it would become more important as the price of the item they were purchasing increased.
"For most purchases it is just such a small amount," said Lawrence resident Carol Whitaker, who was leaving Chico's in Downtown Lawrence. "It probably is something you should pay more attention to, but it just goes so fast."
Top ads RSS
- ACCOUNTING The Lawrence Paper Company is seeking a motivated individual ...
- Now Hiring Nights! Secure location, paid training. Jackson Hewitt Tax ...
- Groundskeeper needed for multiple properties. Flexible hours. Must be able ...
- Part Time Food Service Basehor-Linwood USD 458 CALL 913-724-1396
- Optometrist Assistant/Optician Great opportunity for a person with a positive ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Lawrence police officer hit during high-speed chase December 2, 2008 · 73 comments
- Friends, family pay tribute to accident victim at crash site December 2, 2008 · 169 comments
- Blog: Interactive David Bowie Song Title Game November 6, 2008 · 490 comments
- Flagrant misuse December 2, 2008 · 51 comments
- A white female was taken into custody Tuesday afternoon after a high-speed chase Tuesday afternoon. December 2, 2008 · 3 comments
- School monuments November 25, 2008 · 238 comments
- On the street: Do you think it should be illegal to keep chickens within city limits? December 2, 2008 · 55 comments
- Poll: Do you agree with a city proposal to fine people $50 for failing to clear their sidewalks of snow? December 2, 2008 · 25 comments
- Biological attack likely during next 5 years December 2, 2008 · 24 comments
- Ramona Morgan appeals convictions in U.S. 59 hit-and-run murders December 2, 2008 · 8 comments
- Columbia, Mo., police chief wants 'warrants' to be issued for arrest of KU football team December 1, 2008
- Budget crisis slams social services, universities December 1, 2008
- Police searching for clues in sexual assault December 2, 2008
- Lawrence police officer hit during high-speed chase December 2, 2008
- KPERS loses nearly 27 percent of value; pay raises doubtful for state workers December 2, 2008
- Friends, family pay tribute to accident victim at crash site December 2, 2008
- You can’t hit ‘em all December 2, 2008
- Highest tide in 20 years floods Venice December 2, 2008
- City Commission agenda: Can chickens come home to roost? December 2, 2008
- 1 in 5 young adults has personality disorder December 2, 2008
5 October 2008
at 8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
Don't fall for the Lawrence Bailout
This tax increase is brought to you by the same folks who could not find a single way to save money in their last two annual budgets while residents on this very forum have posted multi million dollar reductions that could have been implemented. These are the same folks who have raised your water and sewer rates at 5-7% clips while moving that 4 million dollar surplus into general fund expenditures. These are the same people who have watched the T be managed in a completely incompetent mannner for the past few years knowing the existing structure , operation , and strategy was inept.
Vote absolutely no on all measures and force this group to manage or get off the pot !
5 October 2008
at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
If you're upset about the management of the city, paying attention and even voting in the next commission race is the way to deal with that— and that can include finding another way to finance public transportation and infrastructure needs. But voting no against the public transit measures means that public transit will end, period.
5 October 2008
at 8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deskboy04 (Anonymous) says…
I don't want to pay more taxes.
5 October 2008
at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Centerville (Anonymous) says…
If I'd rather not give Corliss 55 cents to buy a new suit, that's certainly my choice. Playing minstrel to raise taxes is stupid.
5 October 2008
at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
Ha ha. I'm embezzling and joking about it.
I have been pushing for an external audit of our city. I think this type of stuff is indicative of lots of corruption. Heck, the city could take care of the bus system for 5 years off the money they would save by no longer funding the 2 private golf courses they subsidize in town. Don't forget that they are building another one as well.
5 October 2008
at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…
Paying hire taxes is the patriotic thing to do.
9/11.
5 October 2008
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Lets pass the sales tax to help retail sales in Topeka and the KC metro.
5 October 2008
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
So, things will cost more. Let us rail about that tiny percentage of overall
cost of living increases to which such taxes amount.
5 October 2008
at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boeing (Anonymous) says…
$100 suit…now that's fancy!
I'm so freakin' mixed about this…I still have no idea how I'm going to vote.
5 October 2008
at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
skinny (Anonymous) says…
I am voting no for the tax increase even though I buy most of my stuff on the internet so I don't pay sales tax anyway!
5 October 2008
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bizarre (Anonymous) says…
This tax increase will hurt the elderly and low income the most..
Ya folks can still buy off the internet and avoid the tax altogether, but housing in Lawrence is already out of reach for a lot of folks.
5 October 2008
at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Corliss should be ashamed of himself for that $100 suit cheap shot.
Be honest, Mr. Corliss.
Tell the citizens that for every $100 they spend on food, clothing, fun, electricity, phone service, water, sewer, trash pickup, cars, and every other product or service, you would have them pay more in sales tax than you require one of the few people who actually ride the T to pay for their own ride!
Corliss and the Grass Roots Action folks want to require people with no wiggle room in their budgets, and no option of increasing their income, to buy other peoples' rides.
Mr. Corliss, some people can't even afford a $100 suit - they have to spend every penny on the bare necessities. Think about that the next time you take a politically motivated show ride on the EmpT.
5 October 2008
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
agl (Anonymous) says…
Just because the sales tax is higher elsewhere, doesn't mean we need to increase ours.
5 October 2008
at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jmadison (Anonymous) says…
We have a sales tax approaching the rate in Washington state, which has no state income tax.
We have a property tax approaching Oregon, which has no sales tax.
We have a state income tax which most assuredly is going to rise in view of the lackluster economy and state revenue shortfalls.
Our citizens need to vote with their best interests at heart.
5 October 2008
at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
oldvet (Anonymous) says…
“I think people will notice it for the first couple of months, but after about six months it will be part of the landscape,” said Jane Bateman, president of South Iowa Street's Jane Bateman, The Interiors Store.
and this is exactly what they hope, so they can hit us again with yet another tax or tax increase and we won't notice… shame on you!!!!
5 October 2008
at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
“But it also is worth noting that the rules of how sales taxes are charged have changed significantly since 1994 when the community last considered a sales tax increase.”
Some of us were around in 1994, and we remember the promise that the extra 1 percent tax that was specifically approved by the voters for parks and recreation projects would end when the bonds were paid off. Did that happen? No. When the bonds were paid off, the commissioners did not retire the extra tax. Instead, they violated the spirit, if not the law, of the 1994 sales tax authorization, and kept the tax in place. The city has had an extra 1 percent sales tax windfall for the last several years, without taxpayer approval. And they have wasted it.
And now they want more.
Ask yourselves, if this tax passes, and then for some reason, such as lack of federal funding, the T is scrapped anyway, will the city reduce the sales tax back down to where it is today?
Of course not.
Vote. No. No. No.
5 October 2008
at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Has anyone ever seen merrill on the bus? Or boozo??
5 October 2008
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
brutas61 (Anonymous) says…
Get a new contractor or have the city take control of the transit system and do it for half the cost! MV Transportation is a complete scam, and it's management. Go visit the facility and ask to meet Mike Sweeten. Ask him all the questions you want, and then make your decision. Ask to see a TRUE breakdown of the costs, and see how badly that MV transportation is raping the citizens of Lawrence. And now they want more? These people are nuts, and so are we if we vote to keep the transit system as it is. Every dollar placed under the stewardship of Sweeten and MV transportation is wasted and gone forever! VOTE NO on November 4th!
5 October 2008
at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Hydra (Anonymous) says…
The tax rate chart ljw put on this artical might be meaningful if they also posted a chart next to it with the difference in pay scale between the communities.
I would gladly pay the extras tax if Lawrence paid JoCo
wage scales!
5 October 2008
at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
Yes, we just spent $700 billion to bail out irresponsible companies, so let's go ahead and increase taxes while we're at it. Great idea.
5 October 2008
at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thebigspoon (Anonymous) says…
I remember in the early 80's when people came from out of town to buy in Lawrence because our sales tax was a lot less than in the K.C area.
We had outlet malls and downtown shops that were all a big attraction. Then these out of town families would even stop by our local car dealerships to shop and purchase as well. All because of our town had “things going on for it”.
Now what do we to attract families?
Not much.
5 October 2008
at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thebigspoon (Anonymous) says…
I should have typed early 90”s not 80's
5 October 2008
at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
Notice that there is absolutely no contingency plan. They have put all their eggs in the increase basket and ignored any other alternative. Typical of this group. This group of commissioners and staff are the single most incompetent bunch of managers in the region.
Have they costed a mini version of the T , NO
Have they prioritized any budget cuts if it fails , NO
Have they in the past been honest with where the money goes , NO
Have they been honest in prior rate increases like water & Sewer , NO
Have their revenue projections been accurate , NO
These folks are incapable of efficiently running this city !
Vote No on all three proposals !
What did your suit really cost Corliss ? Can't even estimate a suit cost can you ?
5 October 2008
at 1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RogueThrill (Anonymous) says…
All things being equal, I hardly believe that the proposed sales tax is going to keep people from traveling 40 miles to shop in Lawrence. Higher gas prices and bulk stores in outlying larger cities will do that on their own.
Considering that both candidates are going to increase taxes substantially to help pay off all money we are creating out of thin air, I will take this minor tax increase in stride.
5 October 2008
at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Aniko (Anonymous) says…
I am a long-time Lawrence resident now living in Norway. Unable to drive, I used to depend on the T to get me to work, to doctor's appointments, to shop for food, etc. A small increase in sales tax to help pay for mobility for folk who cannot drive is not asking too much. Keep in mind that those who rely on public transit do so because they cannot afford a car or, like me, cannot drive due to a physical limitation. It is the elderly, the infirm, the poor, and many others less fortunate, who rely on public transit. Without public transit, folk are forced to beg others for a ride, robbing them of their sense of independence. In more enlightened parts of the world, like Norway, Hungary, India, Ghana, Peru, just to name a few of many places where public transit is a given, the thought that a local or national government would deprive its citizens of mobility is unheard of. Please, Lawrence residents, please vote for that very small sales tax increase and help those who rely on public transit. It is asking very, very little of you to do so. I remember the people of Lawrence as being very generous in spirit. I hope that is still the case.
5 October 2008
at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Why is it a requirement for all taxpayers to pay more every signle day to support the T, but it is not even considered that T riders users pay more for a ride?
5 October 2008
at 5:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
If I made $12,000 a month plus as Corliss makes, I wouldn't care about squandering another 55cents to the city commission.
Vote NO.
I just came through Wichita and they have big billboard to VOTE NO for a 270 million school bond issue, called their 'bridge to nowhere'.
This sales tax no matter how small or how large it is to different residents and non residents, it is a bad thing.
I just want to see a list of business that DO NOT support the sales tax. Remember, the T is currently being driven the city manager, and the city commission. Would you trust them to continue driving the operation? Vote NO
Names please.
5 October 2008
at 5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
And for a Sunday night closer, I wondered why Corliss looks so sloppy in his suits For a hundred dollars, now I know. And what a fine group to sell his “plan” to, the Chamber.
So, does Win Campbell want the tax? Does Jane Batemen want the tax? Yes or NO.
5 October 2008
at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toe (Anonymous) says…
Be sure to remember the names of these business that are wanting to take your money. Jane does not need your business and neither does Win. Buy less, live better.
5 October 2008
at 8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Andrew Stahmer (Andrew Stahmer) says:
“The great thing is : this isn't like East Berlin; if this passes and the tax gets increased, you can always move;”
Perhaps someone ought to clue you in on the difference between a sales tax and, say, a property tax. The new tax, if passed, will be levied on anyone who *spends* in Lawrence, which may or may not be those who live there. And with such a heartfelt welcoming attitude such as the one reflected in your moronic 'if-you-don't-like-it-leave' comment, there's plenty of folks who will be more than pleased to do exactly that.
How are you going to pay for your buses then, Mr. Stahmer?
5 October 2008
at 10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
And Corliss provides the wrong numbers as usual. He is already paying 1% city so if you added the 55cents, it becomes $1.55. Mr. Corliss, many people pay utilitiie bills, electric and gas and they average $100 a month (or more). So do you, Mr. Corliss and Ms. Bateman and Win Campbell, do you honestly believe that all residents should pay another $1.55 a month just in taxes on two utiliy bills to support a BUS?
Be honest and I wish the Journal World would interview those bozos at the next Chamber meeting. The one behind closed doors where they laugh us off as fools.
And as the old saying goes “and leave the driving to us”. Well, it is time for change. Do we want Corliss and the commissioners on a free for all bus ride at our expense?
NO, Vote NO on all three issues. Did you notice how the J/W stated that a few main streets would be upgraded. Where is the list of streets? Where is the list?
5 October 2008
at 10:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I've got an idea to pay for the T. Since it is such a moral dilemma for those that are kinder, gentler than the rest of us AND the rest of us don't think we should be taxed on our property for their eight year old failed experiment, we can add it on our Kansas income tax like the “Chickadee Checkoff” option. Call it the “T checkoff”. This way those more caring people can give to their hearts content for the T. I'm sure they will give generously, and the rest of us can decide for our selves if we want to pay for the T.
The other advantage of this, is we can get people from the rest of the state to have the option to help voluntarily fund it. I'm sure that we will get lots of people from around the state to help provide for all those disadvantaged people that the pro-T say are here in Lawrence. I'm sure we will especially get lots of donations from western Kansas since Lawrence has so many friends out west.
5 October 2008
at 10:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Andrew Stahmer (Andrew Stahmer) says:
“The great thing is : this isn't like East Berlin; if this passes and the tax gets increased, you can always move; there is no wall of fence keeping you in Lawrence, you're free to move to Eudora or Ottawa or Larned or Bashor or McClouth or Manhattan or Emporia or Lecompton::. In most of those cities you won't be further traumatized by the mere sight of transit busses. God bless America!”
––––––––––––––––
Be careful what you wish for. If more of the people who pay for your precious T left, the pro-T side would be begging the state and the federal government for more money.
But I think deep down inside, that is what the pro-T side wants. They want to tax people to death so that they can have this or that pet project. Anybody who opposes their pet projects is labeled undesirable. They want a green town, not by being more environmentally friendly, but by taking more of our green backs.
They hate the fact that the city is giving residence the VOICE to decide for themselves IF they want the T. They hate choices, as they want to dictate where tax money goes. They want the 3 mill levy in the budget to keep the T running, but they refuse to admit that it too is a tax.
Thank you goes to the city commission for letting people vote on election day. It is called power to the people. It most likely will pass because of what the students are being told, but at least the people's voice will be heard.
5 October 2008
at 10:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
none2, I already proposed the checkoff, and said it could be on the water bill, which is the proper fee collection service for the city.
Has the Journal World interviewed EACH city commissioner and the city Manager and the auditor and asked the following question of each one: If the sales tax FAILS, will be T be shut down?
That is the question. Very simple question for a gutsy reporter. Go do it!
5 October 2008
at 10:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Meatwad (Anonymous) says…
Mini version of the T? That's interesting. Maybe it could go to “mini” mode until and if there becomes more demand for it?
I feel supportive of the tax but road repair and other issues are more of a priority for me than the T. I would not want it to disappear, maybe just downsize until the public seems to want to use it more.
5 October 2008
at 11:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
“I would not want it to disappear, maybe just downsize until the public seems to want to use it more.”
And another one hits the nail on the head. The pro-T crowd repeatedly tugs at the heartstrings pointing out all those that have no choice but to ride the T. But it's never likely to be a viable system until more people *WANT* to ride it. In NYC, for example, there is simply no way to move a daytime population of 20 million people around the city in cars, and there's no place to park them if you could. It's not only more convenient, but typically faster, to take the subway or even the bus. That is not the case in Lawrence, and it's unlikely to ever be.
And when more people ride public transit because they *WANT* to? Fine. Let them pay for it. If they're doing it not because they can't drive but because they want to save money or whatever, why should the rest of us pay for their choices?
6 October 2008
at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
Downsize it before any vote is taken. In the meantime, VOTE .
40 years ago, I paid a quarter to ride the bus in a big city. 40 years ago. Certainly, the fare should be at least $1.50 now. This town charges a dime to park, a nickel to park. No wonder they don't have any money.BUT wait a minute, they do, those parking lots downtown, paid for by the taxpayers produce some hefty income. Why aren't they being used 24/7 to produce revenue. Most of downtown Lawrence is parking lots. Look at it. Without the parking, there would be at most 3 blocks of retail on eachside of an alley.
biggest asset the city has is real estate and under utilizied
Suits for $100 at Harold Pinder's. Go figure where Corliss got his suit.
7 October 2008
at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Why aren't more of the city's expenditures being put to a vote?
I'd like to vote on the tax abatements and other incentives for businesses, for one thing.
And the millions being spent on economic development.
I guess notajh is against almost all government expenditures, since most of them benefit one group or another.
It's very hard to create a simple list of items that benefit all of us that we could agree on - that's why we have different elected representatives pushing for their districts.
7 October 2008
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
And, seriously, are you as upset about subsidizing new development?
As far as I can tell, it hasn't benefited me one bit, and in fact has had a negative impact on my quality of life over the last 5 years or so.
Why should I pay for their choices?