Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 28 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Timing may be wrong for new tax
Published Thursday, April 24, 2008
We’ve all heard the old saying that real estate can be boiled down to three things: location, location, location. That may be true, but politics is about timing.
Get the timing right and you can pass anything; get the timing wrong and even a no-brainer measure will meet huge opposition.
That’s a lesson that tourism leaders may learn the hard way as they work to lobby for passage of a new $2 per bed hotel occupancy tax. The revenue the tax will generate is earmarked for marketing efforts. The issue goes before voters on June 3.
On the surface, it is a fairly clear-cut issue. The tax — or fee as some people like to call it, preferring the softer, euphemistic name — doesn’t really hit the pocketbooks of most residents.
Since the occupancy tax only affects people staying in hotel rooms, it’s likely that few, if any, Natchez voters will see much in the way of an effect.
But the word “tax” will conjure up an automatic “no” from many voters, regardless of how it impacts them. But it’s not just the knee-jerk reactionists that are of concern. The timing is bad.
With rising gas prices, a still tight credit market and a weak U.S. dollar, the notion of another “tax” will probably also elicit a similar response from otherwise level-headed consumers and voters, too.
Tourism leaders should quickly begin to outline the details of what they plan to do with the funds if the tax is passed. Further, proponents should launch a marketing campaign to explain to voters what the tax means to them. Timing is critical to making the tax pass; and time is running out.
Comments
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 2:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wisdom from the Natchez Democrat. The times they are a changing. (insert little yellow smiley face here)
Thanks, y'all......
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 3:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Reasons to vote against this tax:
1. Neither the new tax bill nor its number have been published in the local paper. The citizens of Natchez won't know exactly what they are voting for.
2. The tax is regressive. It requires the same tax of a poor person only able to afford a 50.00 room as it does of a richer person able to afford a 100.00 room.
3. The tax is an infringement on the basic right of persons in the US to travel freely from one place to another. As rights are God given they should not be taxed.
4. The board that will decide how the tax is spent is unelected and represents certain special interest groups, the Casino Cartel, the Antebellum Home Cartel, the Restaurant Cartel, and the Hotel Cartel. A minority of special interest groups should not be allowed to push through legislation that unfairly promotes their business at the expense of the majority of the people. If the city is successful in collecting this 400,000.00 for marketing the money will be spent outside of the city; that is potentially 400,000.00 that could have been spent in the city at businesses not represented by the Tax Cartel and their friends in public office. Do you want a government by special interest, influenced politicians, and unelected boards? If you do, vote yes for the tax.
4. Natchez is not tending to basic services such as street repair, education, and environmental protection through recycling and proposes the new tax not to create a pool of money to be used for attracting new industry, but to promote existing profitable businesses. More new taxes will follow after the upcoming elections to pay for basic services, and these taxes won't be on hapless travelers but on the citizens of Natchez. Let the tax hungry know now you aren't going to fall for this.
5. The power of government to tax should not be used to promote private business interests. Let private business interests pay their own bills just like you have to pay yours.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 4:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as they don't tax me $2.00 to sleep in my own bed go ahead. Just don't spend any projected revenue yet, with the cost of gas going up the prospect of tourist looks slim. Tighten your belts and get ready the financial "crest" has not been reached yet and when it does it will make the river look like a stream. I have lived thru a few recessions and the current state of the economy scares the heck out of me.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 4:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If that St. Catharine Creek Project goes through you will be taxed more to sleep in your own bed scotty. That is what all the hoopla is about, the buildup to a tax increase to raise the money necessary to get matching grant funding.
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 5:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This tax does affect some of the residents. Sometimes when we have lots of folks over, we rent rooms for some of our guests. So it's not a tax for only people from somewhere else. We just don't need any more taxes of any kind for any reason right now. Just look at the $800 million dollar embasy the U.S. built in Iraq. The largest and most expensive embasy in the world in a war torn country with a population less than the state of California. We Americans have got to put a stop to all of the abusive spending of our hard earned money. We here in Natchez can start by voting NO to this proposed tax.
Posted by Mucasplug (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 5:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From reading the above post this tax vote has little chance of passing. I am against it, but the reasons above are laughable.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 5:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll vote for any tax that won't effect me, kinda like the people that don't own property getting to vote on property tax increases. Only difference is this tax will not help offset the costs to the city of the new hotels. I doubt the city will break even in my lifetime for the costs of servicing these new businesses. At least the boat is cheap to service and the tax money is okay.
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No new tax.....Enough said. First time I have agreed with the Democrat in a while......scary....
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't read the article as pro no tax. I read it as pro education if the tax proponents hope for it to pass. But I'll go back and check it with my other pair of reading glasses.
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i'd rather see 2 bucks a room tax than billions spent on war.
Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tax his land, tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule,
Teach him taxes is the rule.
Tax his cow, tax his goat,
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his ties, tax his shirts,
Tax his work, tax his dirt.
Tax his chew, tax his smoke,
Teach him taxes are no joke.
Tax his car, tax his grass,
Tax the roads he must pass.
Tax his food, tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his sodas, tax his beers,
If he cries, tax his tears.
Tax his bills, tax his gas,
Tax his notes, tax his cash.
Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, tax him more,
Tax him until he's good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.
Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom!"
And when he's gone, we won't relax,
We'll still be after the inheritance tax.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
fatherof4, That was great and thanks for posting it. In my own defense please let me say that this $2 tax is the only tax I have ever been for.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(OldGrandDad) You're just getting "Mellow" in your your young age!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Enkikur...a rebuttal:
(First the disclaimer...I am a conservative Republican and do not normally support taxes, however, in this case I think it's warranted)
1. The new tax bill will be published and will be on the ballots for all to see.
2. Progressive taxation is what is truly regressive, it punishes people for achieving...smacks of socialism.
3. People have the right to travel...insofar as they can afford it...no one has the RIGHT to limitlessly travel on anyone else's dime.
4. The tax revenues are to be spent by the Board of Aldermen...the Board has these other "cartels" (an unfair characterisation) to advise them...expenditure is still in the hands of elected officials...you got a problem with that?...vote!
4: Apparently you can't count, so I'll follow suite...unless you've lived in a vacuum, Natchez is cash strapped...the reasons go back for years, basically to a period when we had a mayor, for whom no price was too high for his name to be on a monument and a board of aldermen who acquiesed. We have loans and bonds, secured at high rates then, that we are now paying exhorbitantly for.
Natchez can't repave streets, or do much else unless we get Federal or State assistance (taxes we've already paid), unless we have other funds to do so. You're argument is basically, let's kill the goose that lays the golden eggs! How miopic!
5: Really Number 6, but whose counting? Uh...excuse me? What better way to spend government dollars than to help companies, corporations, other entities that promote business and give the people better more numerous jobs. Do you suggest that we just put everyone on the public dole? Businesses aren't just paying their own bills they're paying their employees benefits too, like pensions, 401Ks, insurance of all types, etc.
Fact is you either didn't think about what you were espousing or you are a socialist...which is it?
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm very conservative. I dislike big government whether it is Federal, state or city. I do not like taxes or mismanagement of public funds. But in this case, concerning this particular tax, I wish folks would please try and put a hold on the anti-tax emotionalism just long enough to consider it. This is simple reciprocity. We (Natchez folk) are paying these taxes when we visit other towns and stay in their hotels. This tax will have some of our own money returned to our own community. Right now, when we go out of town to stay in hotels, our money flys out of the community and is gone forever. Lets try and get some of it back.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OldGrandDad...very eloquently put...I couldn't agree more...when we gonna have that julep convention on your front porch? I'm buying!
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sammohon, We'll have to plan on that. Maybe while we chat we'll get lucky and some skateboarders will come by. I like to put out a handfull of peagravel on the sidewalks for them. But its best if I have my camera phone set on video. Makes the juleps go down so much better.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sammohon, what you are talking about is fascism, pure and simple, and for that reason I do believe you really are a neo-conservative. If the aldermen are making the decisions, why do they need advice? Get a grip. They aren't going to make any decision that board of very interested parties (and campaign donors and who knows what other incentives are involved) don't endorse.
You are advocating taking money from one group of people who have no political power in our community, but who bring outside money to it, the tourists, to give to promote a handful of businesses. Hotels, casinos, antebellum homes and restaurants. The cartel description fits and I stick by it.
Regarding your point #2, punishing people for being poor is regressive. A progressive income tax IS socialism. Why do you say it smacks of it? You are not very clear in many definitions it seems. You aren't alone in that though.
How is not paying a tax for staying in a hotel in Natchez traveling on someone else's dime? Your point #3 makes no sense at all.
Your Republican double-speak is very interesting and long predicted. We have new definitions of normality, new definitions of privacy, new definitions of terrorism. I guess it's time we had a new definition of conservative. Let's just call conservatives the militant wing of the Democratic party.
For the life of me I do not understand why people like you bother to call yourself conservative when you identify yourself as Republicans. Have you seen any newscast in the last eight years? How much history have you read?
Just look what Natchez is currently seeking money for:
a super high dollar walking trail, the creek project, roads for streets after squandering city money on unnecessary boards, recreation complex money...and who knows what other fevered dreams may lie fermenting the brains of those building this Monte Carlo on the Mississippi?
If Natchez wants to preserve its southern town charm, it should try being a southern town instead of begging for money to become some kind of neo yuppie hedonistic heaven. Natchez does not need, and does not want smokestack industry. Remember that? But Natchez wants every spare nickel that hits the ground between the Gulf of Mexico and the Canadian border. I find it sickening.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When a town starts letting a group of businesses take money from sub groups of persons, that town is setting a very bad precedent that will make every such future request easier to push through. The town then might as well replace elected officials with self appointed boards of business leaders, not that we are that far from that state now. That is something entirely different from representative government.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...your first paragraph is incorrect and irrelevant...I won't get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person, by the way, you didn't answer my question...no matter, your statements speak volumes.
You call me a fascist because I seek fairness? It is not a crime to succeed! People shouldn't be punished for it. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it kicks the *#^% out of your socialism.
That small group of businesses, hotels, restaurants and casinos, etc. are Natchez. If they don't exist and thrive neither do we.
Reread your point 3 and then reread mine...it's pretty clear...God didn't give you the right to travel without paying for it. If you can afford it and want to come here you can help us to improve the experience for the next traveler.
Double speak?...I say what I mean and mean what I say, ask anyone that knows me. They will also tell you that I have watched the news for years (much to their chagrin) on several different outlets with differing points of view almost religiously, my favorite channel is the "History Channel" and I have probably read more history books than you ever knew existed.
I'm not necessarily for all of the projects you mention, but I think that we should improve and progress. Remaining stagnant is a recipe for disaster.
Who are the people that make up Natchez?...just the ones you are protesting against...if it weren't for them Natchez wouldn't exist...those people do represent Natchez...if you don't like Natchez, Mississippi, the US and our capitalist system, by all means LEAVE...according to you, you have a God given right to travel!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sammohon, I did think about what I was saying and I stand by it. It is wrong to use the taxing power of government to subsidize business. If taxes are to be used for advertising a small number of businesses whose representatives serve on the advertising board, how is that different from using taxes for the payroll of the same businesses?
It is not different, not at all.
I also don't agree with your contention that Natchez is the hotels, casinos, restaurants, and antebellum homes. I am sure those people think they are the sum of all, but in my mind they are not. If they were the sum of Natchez, then the local economy should click right along if they eat at each other's restaurants, tour each other's homes, gamble at their new tax base, and stay in each other's hotels.
You are free to disagree with me and I agree that I don't have the mental equipment to engage the erudition you've gained from your linked politics and religion tied with your wide ranging media education; you are evidently a scholar and your intellect towers above mine.
My indefensible argument remains that I believe it is wrong to tax some people to award the proceeds to others for a business expense. I do realize this is widely popular among Republican conservatives today though, who have been trained to seek group approval from MahaRushdi, spokesguru for big business and those who believe they share the wealth because they believe the propaganda that personal responsibility and oxycontin addiction are compatible. Dittos.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(Sam) Hang in there! Survival of the fittest!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...you're right about two things...you have the absolute God-given right to continue to be wrong...and you recognized the superiority of my arguments...LOL
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on April 27, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now that we are in agreement, can you explain to me what conservative Republican principle promotes the taking of the property of one group of people to give to another group of people for the second group's business expenses?
There are two things I would like to point out to you. People who travel are traveling on money that has already been taxed heavily, and the remains are further taxed with severance, sales, and excise taxes, so no one is traveling for free. If there is to be a tax for sleeping in Natchez, why limit it to only hotels? Why not tax the guests of private citizens as well, since they are freeloading on friends and relatives? I am sure there are plenty of people like you who would be willing to call the city and let them know your neighbors have guests.
Secondly, you haven't really made any arguments, you mainly engaged in ad hominem attacks, which Rush claims are the staple of liberal Democrats. Is this more evidence of your general confusion? Because the second thing I would like to point out to you is that you are fuzzy on what socialism is. Socialism is taking the property of individual for the supposed common good, which is what this hotel tax aims to do. There are only two approaches possible for the use of capital resources. Either capital is the property of the individual, or it is the property of the collective group. Traditionally Republicans have taken the view, though not in the last 130 years or so, that capital is the property of the individual and not the group; this is what confuses me about your identification as a conservative Republican. You don't seem to realize this even though you've read more history books than I have ever seen. Now, about the facts behind one of your supposed arguments, how did you determine the number of history books I've seen in my life? Could you please tell me how many I've seen, I am interested in that bit of trivia myself.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on April 29, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...lighten up will'ya...I was being facetious.
Regarding the tax, generally, I agree with your definitions of socialism and capitalism...additionally, I will admit that I'm not normally for additional taxation and have been disappointed with Republicans for not adhering to fiscal conservatism as of late, however, I do not see things as totally black/white in this case. The tax is pragmatic...I see nothing wrong with invoking common sense even if it collides with philosophical dogma. Otherwise your sarcasm doesn't gain you much in your arguments...at least I was kind enough to recognize them as some sort or argument.
As for your reading habits, I can only guess by what you say. Apparently it's mostly liberal/socialist revisionism. I have read a good bit of that myself, just to see what the other side is up too, but I didn't become gullible to it. As for numbers...no way to tell, but I'm pretty confident my list is longer than yours...nanananananah...phthht!
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 1, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While you call me a liberal and socialist for reasons I cannot discern, Yeahuh said I am a conservative dinosaur.
Our system is not capitalistic, at least not in the sense most people think of capitalism, and the average man and woman is certainly not a capitalist; because of the heavy tax burdens we bear at all levels the average person cannot accumulate capital. This is to be expected in an economy like ours where the medium of exchange has no definite value, and the medium of exchange is a unit of debt and not value.
What can bre more pragmatic than advocating for a system of defined value for commerce, and for allowing the owners of labor to retain as much as possible the fruits of their labor?
How can you be a conservative and not understand that the word 'dollar' is a unit of weight, and how can you be a conservative and support taking the property of unrepresented persons to devote to the good of another group of people? Wasn't the America you love formed partly out of distaste for taxation without representation? What makes our country a republic is that although we vote for representatives those representatives take an oath to uphold certain basic rules of liberty and commerce that were instituted for the protection of all, which neither party is now paying much attention to. There is nothing pragmatic in allowing elected officials to violate the oaths of conduct most basic to the preservation of the republic. Taxing people who have no representation, as the tourists do not, may be a pragmatic way to appropriate the property of others, but it is in contradiction to the values our soldiers are said to be dying to uphold and in perfect concord with those "who hate our freedoms" that your champion in the White House speaks of.
Who is the revisionist here?
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 1, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Natchez1, well, there are always people who are to the left of someone who is liberal and, likewise, people to the right of people who are conservative. I can say one thing for certain, you are persistant and bombastic...I like that.
Think of this particular tax as a pragmatic "ticket" to see the show. The people affected are "voting" and have representation to pay the tax by coming to see the show...which allows us to sell the show to a broader audience, thus growing the audience...if they don't, well, it was a marketing failure. If they do, then Natchez profits...that's capitalism!
As I said before, I'm not normally for additional taxation, in fact, I abhore it. That being said, I'm also not so conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist or any other label to the extent that I cannot see that this is one of the few common sense efforts at helping the people who actually pay the taxes that are NOT representative or pragmatic.
In short, this is a good tax as opposed to so many bad ones we currently have...let's help Natchez and get rid of the bad taxes...can we agree on that?
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on May 1, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Natchez1...BTW, I'm impressed. The "nanananananah...phthht!" usually works...now I've got my thumbs in my ears and I'm wriggling my fingers around at the computer screen...will it suceed?...I guess we'll see...be careful, you're being taunted for a SECOND time...LOL
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)