Earnings tax vote, how do you view it?

[Okey Dokie]

Originally Posted by rwiksell

I think my question still stands. You said KC should have been more proactive and responsible 50 years ago, to keep people from leaving for the suburbs. The eTax is not that old, so you must be thinking of something else. Care to explain?

Actually, it was 1963

Grant v. Kansas City :: 1968 :: Supreme Court of Missouri Decisions :: Missouri Case Law :: Missouri Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

[SPonteKC]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

I work downtown KC MO, live in Lees Summit. The etax is a big deal in that it's not right. Why should I be paying $500 a year for the privilege of working in KC. I work for the Federal Govt. Homeland Security has a big center in Lee's Summit. Maybe Lee's Summit should do a "shake down" of those employees that live in KC?

If it's a big deal to you, you should get a job outside of KC. It's neither a shakedown, nor "not right", in any meaningful since. Nor are you "paying for the privelege". You are paying a legal, democratically affirmed and established tax, but you don't have to. You are making a choice to.

[westender]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

It wasn't white flight, it was flight from school busing. Busing students away from their local neighborhood schools. My parents flew out of midtown in 1973 because George B. Longan elementary was only a block away and I wasn't going to be going there because of busing. The doing away of neighborhood schools across the country in favor of busing is what accelerated people leaving the urban areas. Schools should have had the same standards and opportunities and in time people would have moved on their own around urban areas.

True -- the big outmigration was 1968-1973. Some of the schools (like Bancroft or high schools like Paseo or Southeast) transitioned from a neighborhood mixed school (which near Troost meant around 80% white) to 95% black in one or two years. The neighborhoods themselves did not change nearly as much as the schools did.

Parents with kids moved en masse. In the 1980s when I would visit these neighborhoods (like Sunny Slope), it would still be around 80% white, but only people in their mid-50s or older -- everyone who was of childbearing age in 1970 had moved. It was like what we now call a 55+ community -- a virtual retirement home. Younger people didn't start to move back into midtown until the 1990s, perhaps once private school options had become clearer.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by s.davis

If it's a big deal to you, you should get a job outside of KC. It's neither a shakedown, nor "not right", in any meaningful since. Nor are you "paying for the privelege". You are paying a legal, democratically affirmed and established tax, but you don't have to. You are making a choice to.

NO, I am paying a tax that I did not vote on, a taxation withOUT representation

[SPonteKC]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

NO, I am paying a tax that I did not vote on, a taxation withOUT representation

That's not what that means.

[skrizzle]

Originally Posted by kcmo

I never had a problem with it whether I lived in KCMO or not (always worked in the city so always paid it). I pay 3% local income tax now. Lots of people make a big deal out of it though. I don't think silent majority really cares about it. The only people that I ever heard that really complained about it were Johnson County residents that worked in KCMO. But they tend to complain about everything KCMO. When I moved to Blue Springs, I think must people worked in the city and I don't recall people ever talking about the etax. It's a pretty good deal for KCMO residents really. Most of the revenue generated comes from KCMO residents and businesses but a good portion comes from suburban residents (I think like 20%). But again mostly from MO side suburbs. JoCo people are the loudest against it, but I think they are a very small portion of the revenue.

The alternative for KCMO residents is pretty dramatic. Much higher sales, property taxes etc and far fewer services.

By the way. If you live in the Northland, how are you paying for the streetcar? That's funded by property owners along the streetcar corridor. Streetcars don't really make sense for commuting. That's terrible transit technology for that. They might someday extend it to downtown NKC just to connect Downtown NKC to Downtown. But if you live any futher north than that, a streetcar would take forever to use as a mode of commuting.

The Northland just needs a robust commuter bus system. KC needs commuter coach buses that go from KCI, Liberty, Gladstone, Parkville etc to downtown. Any sort of rail, even streetcar, does not make sense north of the river and it never will.

I disagree, I think the northland could use existing lines with maybe some additions to setup commuter rail. KC metro is so spread out, it would be nice to have the burbs connected to the core. Ideally I'd like commuter rail to connect the burbs to the city, streetcar for getting around in the core, and buses could be more local to the neighborhoods.

[skrizzle]

Originally Posted by lovekcmo

NO, I am paying a tax that I did not vote on, a taxation withOUT representation

I should try using that excuse next time I'm buying something in another state and they want to charge me sales tax....