So...

 

As proposed, this will be the first income tax increase since the early 80's.  The Mayor's administration states that this is needed in order to close a budget gap.  If there is no tax increase, city workers will be cut and city services will decline (with some services already paltry, at best, sometimes even depending on location). 

 

Concurrently, the State Income Tax cuts have been felt in municipalities statewide, and the taxes formerly given to cities from the State will not come back under the Kasich administration (and you can forget about any help for anything this year since he's running for President).

 

 

 

Cleveland's proposed income tax hike vs. Gov. John Kasich's tax cuts: By the numbers

By Jackie Borchardt, cleveland.com

Email the author | Follow on Twitter

on February 02, 2016 at 8:00 AM, updated February 02, 2016 at 10:58 AM

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Gov. John Kasich has gradually cut taxes for individuals and businesses since taking office, but personal income tax savings could be canceled out by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's proposal to increase the city income tax.

 

Jackson said the city has lost an accumulated $111 million since 2011, when Kasich took office, from cuts in the local government fund, estate tax, tangible personal property tax and commercial activity tax.

 

Jackson wants to make up for that loss and offer residents better services by increasing the city income tax from 2 to 2.5 percent.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/02/clevelands_proposed_income_tax.html#incart_m-rpt-1

I wonder when enough will be enough for voters regarding tax increases? I get it, the state is cutting local level support to an insane degree but maybe the city/county employees should all be looked at by an outside source. If the reports of city/county workers that get paid inflated salaries to do work that should earn far less are true, it should be pretty easy to uncover. Additionally, I did a little research to see what the Council members make and in 1999 they made $53k a year with $14,400 open expense account and a $40k a year exec assistant with a guaranteed 6% annual increase. If we only assume Council makes $60k + expense account + assistant a year X 17 that is $2 million dollars a year. Add in I'm sure many more inflated salaries and I think we start to see how issues in the budget are showing their ugly head when state money disappears. Our County exec/Council make more than other cities as well and are looking for a 15.5% salary increase. As one of the highest taxed cities, it's starting to get a little crazy.

I alluded to this Plain Dealer article (2013) in the Mayor Jackson thread, but I figured I might as well post it here. It compares Cleveland's city council to peer cities. Just my two cents on Council...different 'scandals' are continually brought up, but all that happens is a council person will speak out with no real action taken. They've been critical, which is good. But they never actually do anything.

 

With regards to efficiency though, I think we all have some sort of an idea of how poorly run the City's departments are, as wasteful spending has been reported on repeatedly. The administration probably thinks it's easier to tax it's working commuters and throw money at the problems than it is to actually fix the issues plaguing the city.

 

Apologies for the pessimistic post.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2013/05/cleveland_city_council_makes_m_1.html

I alluded to this Plain Dealer article (2013) in the Mayor Jackson thread, but I figured I might as well post it here. It compares Cleveland's city council to peer cities. Just my two cents on Council...different 'scandals' are continually brought up, but all that happens is a council person will speak out with no real action taken. They've been critical, which is good. But they never actually do anything.

 

With regards to efficiency though, I think we all have some sort of an idea of how poorly run the City's departments are, as wasteful spending has been reported on repeatedly. The administration probably thinks it's easier to tax it's working commuters and throw money at the problems than it is to actually fix the issues plaguing the city.

 

Apologies for the pessimistic post.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2013/05/cleveland_city_council_makes_m_1.html

I don't feel it's pessimistic at all. Things need to change for Cleveland to get to the next level. It is an amazing city with amazing residents and amenities, but there are definitely issues that need corrected. You can't just keep asking for money. It's on every single level...schools, local income tax, RITA/CCA, sales income tax, state income tax, federal income tax. I don't know about everyone else, but my yearly increase is 1.5-2%. Let's get to the heart of the matter so we can stop taxing the residents out of the city/state.

Good for them. I'd also set up tolls at all major thoroughfares into and out of the city and nickel and dime nonresidents in every other way possible. No, I'm not kidding. One way or another no one in this region should get a free ride. Cleveland and other hard-hit municipalities should engage in draconian revenue-generating measures until outer-ring suburbanites leeching off of all of the good in this region start realizing that the only real long-term solution is either a full-scale merger or at the very least region-wide income tax sharing.

Given what Kasich did to municipal taxes I'm surprised this didn't come sooner, and I'm surprised to learn that the city hasn't raised the municipal tax since 1981.  Things have certainly gone up since then.

Good for them. I'd also set up tolls at all major thoroughfares into and out of the city and nickel and dime nonresidents in every other way possible. No, I'm not kidding. One way or another no one in this region should get a free ride. Cleveland and other hard-hit municipalities should engage in draconian revenue-generating measures until outer-ring suburbanites leeching off of all of the good in this region start realizing that the only real long-term solution is either a full-scale merger or at the very least region-wide income tax sharing.

 

that would never work.  Cleveland is not a strong enough economic driver.  Nothing exists in the city that cannot be duplicated or relocated in the suburbs of Beachwood/Westlake, etc.  The suggestions you made would only accelerate the decline

 

EDIT - the only exceptions possibly would be steel mills & the port operations, but even nickle & diming those operations would probably drive them elsewhere

that would never work.  Cleveland is not a strong enough economic driver.  Nothing exists in the city that cannot be duplicated or relocated in the suburbs of Beachwood/Westlake, etc.  The suggestions you made would only accelerate the decline

 

EDIT - the only exceptions possibly would be steel mills & the port operations, but even nickle & diming those operations would probably drive them elsewhere

 

Of course it would, you're forgetting about all of the employees and operations that can't or won't leave the city, and other events held in the city that would never be held in the suburbs. Many things happen within the city limits that would never, ever happen anywhere else the region. Museums, sports, government institutions, etc., etc. Forget steel mills and ports, the Cavs aren't moving to Beachwood, Federal offices aren't moving to Beachwood, courts aren't moving to Beachwood, the Cleveland Museum of Art isn't moving to Beachwood. Make it painful, make it scorched Earth, make it a civil war. Cleveland or nothing.

Of course it would, you're forgetting about all of the employees and operations that can't or won't leave the city, and other events held in the city that would never be held in the suburbs.

 

Some can't leave the City...but many can...and already have or will in the future.

 

The irony of that view is that the more you burden those who can choose where to locate, the more financial pressure you will come under due to lost revenues...which leads to more totalitarian revenue collecting...which chooses more people to relocate and so on (and the death spiral continues).

 

Make it painful, make it scorched Earth, make it a civil war. Cleveland or nothing.

 

Except there is no "Cleveland or nothing" for the vast majority of people.  It's "Cleveland or pretty much anywhere else including the suburbs"  The vast majority of people in the region have no problem going for the latter.

 

Do you honestly think that will end up with Cleveland coming out on top?

 

 

EDIT: I'm sending my new slogan ideas to Destination Cleveland: "Cleveland: For Those That Have To." or "Cleveland, If You Must" or "Cleveland: When There's Only One Option."

^LOL

that would never work.  Cleveland is not a strong enough economic driver.  Nothing exists in the city that cannot be duplicated or relocated in the suburbs of Beachwood/Westlake, etc.  The suggestions you made would only accelerate the decline

 

EDIT - the only exceptions possibly would be steel mills & the port operations, but even nickle & diming those operations would probably drive them elsewhere

 

Of course it would, you're forgetting about all of the employees and operations that can't or won't leave the city, and other events held in the city that would never be held in the suburbs. Many things happen within the city limits that would never, ever happen anywhere else the region. Museums, sports, government institutions, etc., etc. Forget steel mills and ports, the Cavs aren't moving to Beachwood, Federal offices aren't moving to Beachwood, courts aren't moving to Beachwood, the Cleveland Museum of Art isn't moving to Beachwood. Make it painful, make it scorched Earth, make it a civil war. Cleveland or nothing.

 

Museums, sports, govt institutions

 

Sports- ever been to a Detroit Pistons game at Auburn Hills?  It's really freakin nice

 

What govt institutions are you referring to?  The Justice Center???

Of course it would, you're forgetting about all of the employees and operations that can't or won't leave the city, and other events held in the city that would never be held in the suburbs.

 

Some can't leave the City...but many can...and already have or will in the future.

 

The irony of that view is that the more you burden those who can choose where to locate, the more financial pressure you will come under due to lost revenues...which leads to more totalitarian revenue collecting...which chooses more people to relocate and so on (and the death spiral continues).

 

Make it painful, make it scorched Earth, make it a civil war. Cleveland or nothing.

 

Except there is no "Cleveland or nothing" for the vast majority of people.  It's "Cleveland or pretty much anywhere else including the suburbs"  The vast majority of people in the region have no problem going for the latter.

 

Do you honestly think that will end up with Cleveland coming out on top?

 

 

EDIT: I'm sending my new slogan ideas to Destination Cleveland: "Cleveland: For Those That Have To." or "Cleveland, If You Must" or "Cleveland: When There's Only One Option."

 

And...you missed the point. Of course individuals have options. Large institutions, for a variety of reasons, do not. And any individuals that want to or need to visit these institutions will have to come to the central city. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon.

 

Of course this is not the most desirable outcome. But until the leechburbs decide that sharing resources or even merging is in their best interest, their residents have no leg to stand on to complain when Cleveland must raise income taxes to astronomical levels.

Of course individuals have options. Large institutions, for a variety of reasons, do not.

 

Large institutions/businesses do have options.  How on earth do you come to any other conclusion?  The gears of decision making may turn slowly and the threshold may be higher than the average guy deciding where to buy a house....but yes, businesses consciously decide where to locate given the universe of variables in play.  If your argument is "well the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Cleveland Clinic can't just pick up and move"....then good luck.  The University Circle behemoths may stay put, but many other businesses/institutions will not.  I can't even believe I'm typing this out tbh.

 

Edit: Can someone please correct the spelling error in the title of this thread?  It's driving me off the walls.

Sports- ever been to a Detroit Pistons game at Auburn Hills?  It's really freakin nice

 

Looks like a nice arena in a terrible location. Personally I enjoy stepping outside of The Q after a game, having a few beers at one of the local bars, and riding the RTA back home. Regardless, none of these sports teams are leaving the city limits anytime soon unless it's for another region. Like I said, many of these institutions are "Cleveland or nothing."

 

What govt institutions are you referring to?  The Justice Center???

 

Yes, but also county, state, and Federal agencies have a significant majority of their institutions located within city limits. Unlike private businesses that might threaten to move and actually follow through because of increased income taxes, these institutions probably would not.

What govt institutions are you referring to?  The Justice Center???

 

Yes, but also county, state, and Federal agencies have a significant majority of their institutions located within city limits. Unlike private businesses that might threaten to move and actually follow through because of increased income taxes, these institutions probably would not.

 

Now I can't tell if you're trolling or not.  Is your strategy to make a borderline intolerable taxing/revenue collection program and rely on the fact that some cultural institutions, sports arenas, and government offices can't/won't move easily?

Large institutions/businesses do have options.  How on earth do you come to any other conclusion?  The gears of decision making may turn slowly and the threshold may be higher than the average guy deciding where to buy a house....but yes, businesses consciously decide where to locate given the universe of variables in play.  If your argument is "well the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Cleveland Clinic can't just pick up and move"....then good luck.  The University Circle behemoths may stay put, but many other businesses/institutions will not.  I can't even believe I'm typing this out tbh.

 

Let's make a list:

 

Cleveland Clinic

MetroHealth

University Hospital

KeyBank

Cleveland Browns

Cleveland Cavaliers

Cleveland Indians

Cleveland Museum of Art

Cleveland Orchestra

Westside Market

Cuyahoga County Headquarters

State of Ohio

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (i.e. Federal Government)

Horseshoe Casino

 

 

When you start making a list of significant employers and institutions that will never leave Cleveland proper for the suburbs, you'll see that what I mean. Besides, most of the largest private businesses that could have left Cleveland's city limits already have. I could see some of the above institutions moving some of their operations outward, but every one on that list has to or will want to keep the majority of their operations within the actual City of Cleveland. Which means visitors and employees that have to come into the city, pay city income taxes, etc. on a daily basis.

 

 

edit: Just to further drive home the point, only one Fortune 500 company remains within the city limits:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/06/7_northeast_ohio_companies_made_this_years_fortune_500_photos.html

Now I can't tell if you're trolling or not.  Is your strategy to make a borderline intolerable taxing/revenue collection program and rely on the fact that some cultural institutions, sports arenas, and government offices can't/won't move easily?

 

First of all, as you can see above, it's not "some," it's almost all of the region's largest employers and sports/cultural attractions.

 

Second of all, no, I'm saying that if I were in charge I would keep this in my back pocket as the nuclear option if/when talks of regionalization and mergers stalled. However this 2.5% income tax rate, which many will complain about, is a natural reaction to the inequities that exist in this region due to fragmentation. I'm just suggesting that if does not cover budget shortfalls or leads to businesses leaving town for the leechburbs, other options exist.

Well thank god you're not in charge.  I don't want to see a City whose appreciable commercial activity is solely comprised of government offices, sports arenas, and museums.

 

Do you have access to breakdown of the number of employees at the institutions you listed versus all other private businesses within City limits?  I think the number of the latter is much larger than the former...at least much larger than you seem to think it is.

Large institutions/businesses do have options.  How on earth do you come to any other conclusion?  The gears of decision making may turn slowly and the threshold may be higher than the average guy deciding where to buy a house....but yes, businesses consciously decide where to locate given the universe of variables in play.  If your argument is "well the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Cleveland Clinic can't just pick up and move"....then good luck.  The University Circle behemoths may stay put, but many other businesses/institutions will not.  I can't even believe I'm typing this out tbh.

 

Let's make a list:

 

Cleveland Clinic

MetroHealth

University Hospital

KeyBank

Cleveland Browns

Cleveland Cavaliers

Cleveland Indians

Cleveland Museum of Art

Cleveland Orchestra

Westside Market

Cuyahoga County Headquarters

State of Ohio

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (i.e. Federal Government)

Horseshoe Casino

 

 

When you start making a list of significant employers and institutions that will never leave Cleveland proper for the suburbs, you'll see that what I mean. Besides, most of the largest private businesses that could have left Cleveland's city limits already have. I could see some of the above institutions moving some of their operations outward, but every one on that list has to or will want to keep the majority of their operations within the actual City of Cleveland. Which means visitors and employees that have to come into the city, pay city income taxes, etc. on a daily basis.

 

 

edit: Just to further drive home the point, only one Fortune 500 company remains within the city limits:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/06/7_northeast_ohio_companies_made_this_years_fortune_500_photos.html

 

Just looking at your list, Cleveland Clinic can, and has, moved alot of jobs outside of the city. They have that large office complex in Beachwood now that use to be Bank of America offices. Key has a huge back office complex off Tiedeman, where by now they may have more employees than they currently do downtown. They just moved 400 or so there from the Higbee building not too long ago when Gilbert bought it. The county and the state and the feds could move anywhere. There's nothing that mandates they be in the city of Cleveland. Honestly the only employers that have to be in the city is the city itself, and the casino, which could just as easily close up shop all together.

 

Anyways, I'm kind of curious to see if the mayor is coming out with 2.5% right away to get everyones attention and get all the bad press and naysayers out, and then pull it back to a lesser increase to say "see, it could be worse".

that would never work.  Cleveland is not a strong enough economic driver.  Nothing exists in the city that cannot be duplicated or relocated in the suburbs of Beachwood/Westlake, etc.  The suggestions you made would only accelerate the decline

 

EDIT - the only exceptions possibly would be steel mills & the port operations, but even nickle & diming those operations would probably drive them elsewhere

 

Of course it would, you're forgetting about all of the employees and operations that can't or won't leave the city, and other events held in the city that would never be held in the suburbs. Many things happen within the city limits that would never, ever happen anywhere else the region. Museums, sports, government institutions, etc., etc. Forget steel mills and ports, the Cavs aren't moving to Beachwood, Federal offices aren't moving to Beachwood, courts aren't moving to Beachwood, the Cleveland Museum of Art isn't moving to Beachwood. Make it painful, make it scorched Earth, make it a civil war. Cleveland or nothing.

 

Such a dumb idea it borders on parody.

Agreed. Let's move on to more substantive discussions -- namely, what an actual mayor has proposed for Cleveland.

Well thank god you're not in charge.  I don't want to see a City whose appreciable commercial activity is solely comprised of government offices, sports arenas, and museums.

 

Do you have access to breakdown of the number of employees at the institutions you listed versus all other private businesses within City limits?  I think the number of the latter is much larger than the former...at least much larger than you seem to think it is.

 

Washington D.C. thrives because of that exact scenario. I'd trade every single private business in Cleveland for even a quarter of the Federal government institutions in our nation's capital. That city is as close to being recession-proof as you'll find anywhere.

 

As for your other point, this list is hard to decipher based on how it's written, but I'm not seeing anything here that changes my opinion:

 

https://development.ohio.gov/files/research/B2001.pdf

 

Just looking at your list, Cleveland Clinic can, and has, moved alot of jobs outside of the city. They have that large office complex in Beachwood now that use to be Bank of America offices. Key has a huge back office complex off Tiedeman, where by now they may have more employees than they currently do downtown. They just moved 400 or so there from the Higbee building not too long ago when Gilbert bought it. The county and the state and the feds could move anywhere. There's nothing that mandates they be in the city of Cleveland. Honestly the only employers that have to be in the city is the city itself, and the casino, which could just as easily close up shop all together.

 

You're not really wrong*, but these institutions and others like it are traditionally located within city limits no matter what region. And they're less likely to react to increases in taxes or other local policies that may be difficult on their employees.

 

*The Cleveland Clinic's main campus is growing literally by the day. They may have some offices elsewhere, but they're deeply invested in the city and my suspicion is that the overall number of employees grows as the campus itself does.

 

Such a dumb idea it borders on parody.

 

I love it when people make posts like these yet offer no real retort. I'll stand by my original argument: City leaders should do everything in their power (like raising income taxes) to nickel and dime nonresidents as long as regional cooperation is being stymied and consider more drastic options if this situation persists.