A Correction and a Poke in the Eye
A correction, courtesy of :
Although the “liquor by the drink” tax is authorized by City ordinance, it is imposed under authority of a state law that limits the City to a rate of 10%: “…Any council of any city of the first class coterminous with a school district of the first class may authorize the board of education of such school district of the first class to levy a tax imposed upon each separate sale at retail as defined herein within the school district of the first class of ten per cent of the sale price” (53 P.S. ยง16134).
So I’ll retract my statement that the mayor lied, and propose that he told a half-truth instead. He told a half-truth because the man voted in favor of the liquor-by-the-drink tax.
Some may argue that a tax on drinks is a regressive tax, but I don’t know if I agree: drinking in bars is an activity practiced by all sorts of people from a variety of scio-economic strata. Marc Stier piles on and proposes a latte tax. I agree with that too.
What I do not agree with is going through with cuts that affect kids, the elderly, and low/moderate income families when there are clearly alternative proposals. Michael Nutter keeps telling Philadelphia “I hear you.”
Mr. Mayor: hearing is not the same as listening.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
One thing to consider with this state-authorized city tax for the school district and how it relates to libraries is that many many schools and teachers rely on the public libraries to fill the hole left when the school district does not provide a librairian in the school.
This is very common, and could allow some flexibility in the collection of taxes earmarked for the school district to flow to public libraries as necessary for the continued use of public school students.