A very interesting article from It's our money

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/our-money/How_Phillys_amnesty_compare...

Question one: The article compares various tax amnesty programs from various cities and various states, and reports that unlike many of those other amnesty programs, the one coming up in Philly does not include a payment plan. Why is there no payment plan in the Philly tax amnesty? Is there some basis in research for a determination that a payment plan will result in less tax paid in the end?

Question two: The article states that

We’ve also reached out to several organizations that provide legal and housing services to low-income Philadelphians, but they were largely unaware that an amnesty is approaching.

Huh? Why are these service ogranizations largely unaware of the amnesty? Has the City actually not made a concerted effort to publicize this plan?

Question three: I also found it interesting that in the comments section, Mr./Mrs. Cleanupphilly (who seems to live at Philly.com) argues that this plan is nothing other than pandering for votes by City Council. He/she argues that instead of an amnesty plan, there should be a comprehensive policy of seizing and selling properties on which taxes are owed. OK, I wouldn't go that far (Cleanupphilly also rants that the State should take over all revenue functions in the City). But should there be some kind of strong message disseminated that homeowners/businesses that owe property taxes, and don't take advantage of the tax amnesty (or enroll in a payment plan of some sort), will be facing an increased likelihood that their properties will be seized -- particularly if their properties are abandoned or deteriorating badly?

The article is also chock-full of other interesting tidbits - such as that $302 million in BPT taxes are owed.

And while I'm at it, another fun fact from another on-line article (about the City's debt):

From capital projects to short-term cash flow, the city relies on a lot of debt to operate. Every year, taxpayers repay about $200 million to various banks and financial institutions. The current deficit is about half the total debt service.

I'm pretty dumbfounded by that statistic. Can someone explain to me how a debt service of 200 million can be justified? Can't there be some way to reduce a debt service that is twice the projected budget deficit? What kind of interest rates does the City pay on that debt?