- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
City Council approves 1st Bill in Goode’s Economic Package
Submitted by Councilman Goode on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 11:31am.
City Council approves 1st Bill in Goode’s Economic Package
Business Diversity Ranking of City Departments and Agencies to be Law
Philadelphia City Council has unanimously approved the first bill in City Councilman At-Large W. Wilson Goode, Jr.’s Economic Opportunity Legislative Package. The package consists of three bills introduced on January 24, 2008.
The Business Diversity Ranking Bill was approved by City Council at its stated meeting. It will require an annual ranking of City departments and agencies based on percentage levels of utilization of disadvantaged businesses in contracting for goods and services. The information must be provided as part of the City Finance Director’s annual report required by Section 6-109 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, in addition to the annual disparity study and participation goals. The Nutter Administration testified in favor of the legislation and the Mayor is expected to sign the bill into law.
Goode’s Business Privilege Tax Reform Bill, which eliminates the gross receipts portion of the City’s business privilege tax by the year 2015, was recently amended by City Council’s Committee of the Whole to also include reductions in the net income portion. The Nutter Administration also testified in favor of that amended legislation.
Goode’s New Minimum Wage and Benefits Bill, which would require City-supported employers to offer full-time employees the same health benefits that are provided to other full-time employees, will be considered by Council’s Commerce & Economic Development Committee on April 3.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
alternate universe Councilman?
Maybe it's me, but when there is a big old discussion on the front page of YPP about BPT data released from the city, but it does not make sense to come to YPP and crow about
...when there seems to be less and less evidence that it would do much more than lose the city money.
There does to be some proof that restructuring the BPT for smaller businesses makes a lot of sense, but very little that it does at the upper end.
But maybe it is just me.
We simply disagree - lighten up , Ray!
We simply disagree.
WWGjr
P.S. - plus it's a press release, I wasn't going to delete the portion regarding the bpt because I'm posting it here.
I gave you my vote because I thought I'd agree with you
Councilman, if we disagreed as peers, it'd be easy to lighten up. However, you have much more access to power and information than I do and you are not sharing it with me or the rest of us--your constituents.
The scant amount of data we, the public, have does not support the claims made to justify your legislation.
If you can prove to me, and the rest of the public, that your bill is not irresponsible because you can point to past BPT data that indicates a rate reduction will lead to greater wage growth in the future, then great. You should do that.
After all, it is supposed to be a new day and a new way in which this kind of info is available (instead of waiting a month to get a legal opinion that is in conflict with Dept. of Revenue practice).
Otherwise, looking at the data I have access to, and then your bill, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that you are being fiscally irresponsible. Not light, for sure, but a serious matter to consider with any legislator who controls a budget.
There are two other alternatives that I can see also being plausible for the introduction of your bill:
1- The large business community--the 400 odd BPT payers with tax liabilities over $100 k--is threatening to march down Broad Street again or do whatever they can to scare Council members, ed boards, and the Mayor into support. With you, this seems unlikely since you did return a donation from the Chamber of Commerce on the eve of a vote before and of course you have demonstrated a commitment through other legislation to addressing economic opportunity for all.
2- You are willing to take a risk or just concede on the BPT, and allow very large and profitable business to benefit from a rate reduction that is more necessary for smaller business because that is just the only way you can see to get the deal done for small business. Not to mention the fact that the BPT issue (despite being ranked 11th on numerous surveys of 10 top priorities of Philadelphians) keeps standing in the way of Council spending money on anything else. In short, even without any real proof, maybe it's worth it to you to cut the tax rate to be able to move on to other things.
Of course the bottom line is that we are now requesting our data, that the city has now acknowledged we have the right to see, so what exactly is the rush for you to push through this bill without waiting for it to come out?
In fact, when Jennifer first posted her letter requesting more information from Revenue, you said you would help her get it. Remember that?
I'd think as a City Council person you'd be excited that the actual citizens who elected you to represent them are taking such a detailed and active interest in a matter of importance to you.
BPT Reform FACTS
The legislation costs no more than 1% of revenue in the 5 year plan and no more than 2% of revenue over the next 10 years - and it does not cut the net income portion to 4%.
With full implementation of the bill by FY15, as Stan Shapiro testified, business taxes will still be too high.
I think BPT reform - including the elimination of the gross receipts portion - is critical to making the city more economically competitive. That was my position in 2004, 2005, 2006 and yes, in 2007 when I ran for re-election.
Don't act surprised in 2008 - we simply disagree.
WWGjr
Gotta say, Councilman
That's more of a duck than a response. Are we supposed to just take your word for it about FACTS?
The data that have been provided indicate that the rationale for cutting the BPT, and absorbing the consequent revenue loss, is focused more on the sector of existing large businesses than the sector of existing small businesses.
* Is it your contention that City Council should pass legislation that provides less benefit to small businesses than large businesses? Do you think that making currently highly profitable large businesses even more profitable is more important than focusing on making life more profitable for small businesses?
Obviously, helping large and small businesses isn't necessarily mutually exclusive, and obviously large companies do employ Philadelphians (mostly at low-wage jobs) along with the highly paid commuters who live in the suburbs - but I'm curious: are you actually saying that it is your goal as a Councilman to focus more on helping the large corporations that can build and inhabit huge new skyscrapers in Center City than on helping Philly's struggling, neighborhood, small businesses in North or West Philly?
*Edited to reflect Jennifer's comments
That's one interpretation... here's another.
Another interpretation is that the data in the other post shows that 99.5% of the businesses have revenues of less than $100,000 - and therefore, the gross receipts portion of the BPT is even more of a burden for them.
It's all a matter of perspective.
But be sure of one thing, I have enough information - after 4 or 5 years of debate - to make a decision.
I happen to believe in what I'm trying to accomplish.
WWGjr
So then... why not target
So then... why not target them?
Gross Receipts
I don't believe in taxing any business on both gross receipts and net income.
Gotta go to a Rules Committee hearing.
It's been a delightful lunchtime chat. :)
WWGjr
I'm very disappointed
Councilman, you've been on this blog for a number of years now, and I have had the pleasure of meeting you in person any number of times. I have spoken very highly of you to anyone who would listen, largely because of your work to raise the minimum wage and increase access for low-income people to capital to start businesses.
However this response is just very disappointing to me:
You may have the info, I don't. I am a constituent, and I was an enthusiastic voter for you. Is this really the best response you have? I'd much prefer if you provided real answers.
Also disappointed
That Councilman Goode wouldn't (as of yet, anyway) take this opportunity to explain to his constituents in further detail the reasoning behind his decision.
I have constituents on both sides of the issue!
I have constituents on both sides of the issue!
WWGjr
that's it Councilman?
That is what I get for my vote? Seriously Councilman, I was really proud to vote for you last year. And the best you can do to address my request for more information about your leadership on the bill is this?
YPP has had the same tax reform debate a million times!
YPP has had the same tax reform debate a million times!
And I have participated in the debate at least 999,999 times.
I offered a bill in January - and posted on it here - and I recently amended it.
I welcome all comments on the bill BUT until it becomes a new debate, this is like GROUNDHOG DAY!
And to be honest, I think you'd prefer that I work on my April 3rd hearing on the Minimum Wage and Benefits Bill that I offered and also posted about.
I think you understand my position, you don't understand why it's MY position.
Simply put, a lot of different economic initiatives are needed to move this city forward - and we won't agree on all of them.
WWGjr
Councilman Goode
I'm a constituent. I'm asking a relatively simple question that I don't think you've addressed previously - because it is related to the specifics of the legislation you're promoting, and is based on data that were previously not well-publicized.
The analysis of the data presented suggest that your legislation will help large businesses more than it will help small businesses.
Do you have data that support a different conclusion. If so, can you offer it?
If you don't, then what leads you to conclude that legislation that seems to offer more tangible benefits to large businesses is preferable?
Since you are so convinced of your position - it seems that it wouldn't be a complicated process for you to provide some answers.
Why not craft this legislation to specifically target smaller businesses. Tim had a suggestion: eliminate the initial BPT fee. If you're going to give up City revenue - wouldn't that make more sense?
The BPT has flat rates... not geared toward business size.
1)The BPT rates are the same for everyone - and the rate of the cuts would be the same for everyone - not geared toward business size.
2) Councilwoman Brown has legislation co-sponsored solely by me that would create a $50 annual BPT license fee alternative.
3) The gross receipts tax elimination - which has always been my priority - is to kill the dual tax for all AND its legislative intent was to aid small and start-up businesses.
WWGjr
Duck, duck, (goose)?
C'mon Councilman. You're trying to say that because they're based on the same rate, there's no difference between a tax cut of a couple of thou' for a small business and a tax cut of hundreds of thousands (or a couple of million) for a large business?
Look, at least try to tell me that crafting legislation on the basis of what's good for large businesses is justifiable because it would be greater economic stimulus. Or something like that.
You have earned credibility as an advocate for small businesses in our community. But I have a hard time finding the answer you just provided as credible. Last I checked, someone who stands to save hundreds of thousands of dollars just seems to have a tad more pull than someone who stands to save a few thousand. One of the problems with our government is that it tilts towards those who have more pull. We've seen this time and time again with all of the large-scale developments that have taken place which have resulted in very little or no tangible improvement in the economic status of poorer Philadelphians or conditions in Philly's poorer neighborhoods.
I really do appreciate the dialog, but I'm still disappointed in your answer.
Not even
It's not even that 99.5% of businesses have revenues less than $100,000. It's that 0.5% of businesses pay more than $100,000 in business taxes. This is a very small class of very large businesses, likely capped by a handful of megabusinesses that pay nearly a million dollars in BPT. These businesses reap a huge benefit from cuts, but that's because they already pay a huge amount of tax.
Likewise, the 99.5% figures are not especially salient because there are a large number of registered businesses that pay little to no taxes at all, and thus benefit very little if at all from any cuts to the BPT. The most meaningful cut for these very small businesses may be the elimination of the $250 initial fee.
We need to know more about the middle -- that gooey, creamy middle -- in order to have a better picture of what the BPT cuts will do.
right
do do you agree that a vote on a bill should be held back until that info--on the gooey middle--is made public for all of us to see?
Why are you encouraging him
with the gross turns of phrase??
Ray knows what moves me.
Ray knows what moves me.
Splitting the
I think there is and has been enough consensus, enough votes, and enough data (we have, after all, been shrinking rates on gross profits for over a decade, with almost exact revenue neutrality) on the gross receipts side of the BPT that Councilman Goode's original bill could go to the floor.
I think the net profits reduction amendment, which is new and may tilt towards larger businesses, may warrant some further debate, more study, and more public input. I would consider each on their merits rather than packaging the two together.
The other three positions that I think should be on the floor now are:
1) The progression of the rate cuts (how fast/how slow/what effect);
2) The relative merit of BPT profits cuts vs. further cuts to the wage tax;
3) The possibility of sharply cutting the gross receipts tax without eliminating it.
The last one in particular I think demands consideration, since the fundamental purpose of gross receipts is to keep companies who have a presence outside of Philadelphia from hiding their profits to avoid paying taxes.
Councilman Goode did offer to assist in our data request
He let me know that his chief of staff would follow up on our February 7 request.
Councilman, now that we have received the Law Department's statement that there is no legal barrier to the release of data beyond protecting individual tax payer confidentiality, we would appreciate your office communicating its support of the release of the requested information to the Revenue Department.
Constituent Service Process
Simply call the office or e-mail - we have a process and have to officially log it in as a formal request.
We'll need a name, address and phone number of a particular constituent.
If you send it to me, I will forward it.
Send to wilson.goode@phila.gov - and I'll take care of it.
WWGjr
Councilman
you let me know by email that you had forwarded the initial request to your chief of staff. We will be cc'ing you on the follow-up request. Thank you again.
And you demanded a yes or no
And you demanded a yes or no to your question on whether the net income tax is too high. I made clear that I supported cuts in any part of the BPT only if substitute revenue is found. Of course all other things being equal it would be great to eliminate every single tax we have. But that means finding substitute resources to deal with the critical problems facing the city. If you want to talk about consistency, that has been my consistent position, of which you are well aware, ever since this pathetically stupid movement to eliminate taxes no matter what reared its head.
I can't understand how you can move a bill to lock in tax cuts for 8 years with no replacement revenue in a City whose schools, infrastructure and poverty levels are completely unacceptable. It boggles the mind.