Suchergebnisse

Republican Bossier Parish Sheriff Julian Whittington
may have been trying to be clever in splitting the baby on half, but his recently
announced tax increase isn't explained adequately enough to justify it, if
it is justifiable at all.

Whittington last week kicked off what might become
an orgy of tax increases in the aggregate on Bossier Parish property owners. This
is the quadrennial reassessment of property values in Louisiana, where for
properties held throughout the period by the same owner the Constitution sets
as a default for the collective of these owners that the amount of tax paid in
the aggregate be the same as it was four years earlier. That means the maximum
millages that may be levied by taxing entities are changed to match, in most
instances reduced to offset increased property values. To set a different level
between this and the existing maximum millage, the entity must hold a public
hearing prior to announcing that decision.

Thus, Whittington did – as an elected executive,
he makes the call solo – where he announced that instead of allowing the
automatic roll back from 14.9 mills to 12.7, he would roll it forward to 13.75,
raising this year an estimated $1.5 million more. He justified this by saying existing
full-time deputies could expect an across-the-board $2,500 hike in pay while
new deputies would see their starting annual salary go from $42,600 to $44,100,
or fifth to third among local agencies. This means, unless the value of an
existing property declined more than about 7 percent, Bossier property owners
will pay more in taxes to fund Whittington's office starting this year.

Whether Whittington had to reach deeper into
taxpayers' pockets is questionable. The latest 2023
comprehensive annual financial report for his office showed an improving financial
picture. Further, trends suggest this could accelerate in the future, meaning more
excess cash generated that could have been used for handing out raises instead
of taking more from citizens.

In 2023, the Bossier Parish Sheriff's Office had a
healthy $35.6 million banked in cash, or about two-thirds of what it collected
in revenues that year. Total revenues taken in exceeded expenses by over $4.2
million, and adding a couple miscellaneous items boosted all monies kept in
various funds by over 10 percent to nearly $40 million.

In large part this happened because of both ad valorem
and sales tax collections well above budgeted levels, just under $16 million
for property taxes and just over that for sales taxes which together were $3.5
million more than expected. Personnel expenditures, at $36.7 million, were
about $2.3 million lower than expected.

Unfortunately, BPSO has no web version available of
its general fund budget adopted Jun. 21, 2023 for fiscal year 2024 and the CAFR
for that period won't be available for several more months. But BPSO did post
online its FY
2025 budget, which apparently didn't incorporate something similar to the
actual tax increase. Originally, Whittington
had conceived of an increase closer to $2 million that should have brought
the amount to just over $20 million, but the numbers don't quite add up as the
budget listed $18.36 million.

At the imputed $19.5 million, that represents a
hefty boost of nearly 22 percent in property tax revenues in just two years.
Sales taxes were down, however, by about $1.5 million, or a little below
budgeted FY 2023. The final major sources of revenue, from the state for
holding prisoners, was up over $1.5 million over the two years to $9.3 million.

By themselves, revenues seemed sufficient to
support a raise without a tax increase. Buttressing this is two trends, both
dealing with state policy. First, the state chronically has underfunded pension
plans, but in recent years has made strides towards full funding. This has
resulted in local agencies that use a state fund, as does the BPSO, having to
make extra contributions to it. Yet that excess proportion has been declining
and, for the BPSO, by 2022 almost was at the point it didn't have to pay extra.
A change in accounting actuarial assumptions reversed that starting in 2023,
but the trend continues favorably that should be close to zero extra
contributions by 2028, freeing up money in future years.

Then there's the criminal justice changes made earlier
this year that basically restore the legal environment to that of about seven years
ago. This likely will increase the dollars coming in for holding state
prisoners above what was budgeted in future years, as numbers of state
prisoners held in local jails sagged after standards were relaxed. Of course,
there are costs involved, which the reports don't specify, but clearly more
state prisoners pad a sheriff's bottom line.

However, the FY 2025 budget contains a large
increase in personnel costs, going from $36.7 actual in 2023 million to $40.5
million, which can't reflect the extra pension contribution as that actually
will be lower than in FY 2023. That does seem to include the pay raise, contemplated
prior to the decision to raise property taxes values of which weren't then
officially available.

But what really stands out is a massive over $11
million increase to nearly $14 million in "capital purchases," compared to the
amount of "capital outlay" in FY 2023 (the CAFR categories and the circulated
budget figures use different categories and many fewer for the budget, making one-to-one
comparisons difficult). That drives FY 2025 budgeted expenses to nearly $65
million, while revenues were pegged at over $51 million – actually almost $2
million lower than in 2023, to create a substantial deficit.

It's not immediately clear, according to any web
information, why capital spending is anticipated several times higher in 2025
than in previous years, but the BPSO carries no debt and would have to use its
ample reserves to cover this. And it's become increasingly obvious that sales
tax collections continue to be down across the parish, belying somewhat the
narrative that the Bossier economy is humming along.

So, in reality the tax hike is more like a response
to the huge planned capital spending. Without that, a pay raise without hiking
taxes likely was sustainable, given the trends about extra pension contributions
and state prisoners. And taking more from the people still might not have been necessary,
given the likely one-time nature of the capital expenses being absorbed by the
flush reserves.

In the final analysis, just saying pay raises should
be delivered isn't enough justification to assure the public that raising taxes
on it was necessary – even if Whittington might try to soften the blow by not
taking the maximum. Unfortunately, he likely won't be the first to foist this
on Bossierites, as it would seem the Port
of Caddo Bossier, Bossier Parish, and the Bossier Parish School District,
among entities with a parish-wide presence, all contemplate doing this over the
next month.

Russia's tax reform comes at the expense of companies working outside of the defense sector and related industries.

By combining our broad panel survey of Japanese adults from 2005 to 2008 and actual cigarette tax data, we investigate how smoking behavior including responses to tax hikes depends on time discounting and its biases, such as hyperbolic discounting and the sign effect. Cigarette consumption displays significantly positive correlations with discount rates and the procrastinating tendency, and negative correlations with the sign effect. Hyperbolic, procrastinating, and naïve respondents decrease their after-tax-hike cigarette consumption more than the others, implying that, irrespective of the preannouncement of a future tax hike, they postpone smoking moderation until the tax hike actually takes place. Finally, the government's revenue from cigarette tax peaks at a JPY 29.92 (around USD 0.28 using the conversion rate [107.16] in February 2008) higher tax per cigarette than the present actual level.

In this paper, we investigate two fiscal policy options to mitigate fiscal pressure arising from ageing of the Australian population: pension cuts or tax hikes. Using a computable overlapping generations model, we find that while both policy options achieve the same fiscal goal, the macroeconomic and welfare outcomes differ significantly. Future generations prefer pension cuts, whereas current generations prefer tax hikes to finance government spending commitments. Interestingly, taxing consumption or income results in opposing macroeconomic and welfare effects. Increases in the consumption tax rate have positive effects on labour supply, domestic assets and output (similar to pension cuts), but reduce the welfare of low income households most. Conversely, increases in progressive income or payroll taxes have negative effects on the economy but reduce the welfare of low income households least. Our results highlight the intra- and inter-generational conflicts of interest and political constraints when implementing any structural fiscal reforms.

It's a tough call this Saturday on Shreveport
approving property tax hikes – necessary bromide or throwing good money
after bad?

Across
three proposals, the city plans to raise around $256 million for capital
items. Almost half would go towards roads, streets, bridges, and surface and
subsurface drainage systems (2.45 mills), while nearly a third would go to
water and sewerage systems (1.6 mills), with the remainder going to public
safety, buildings, and recreation (0.95 mills). Unlike measures to fund continuing
government operations, the millages will vary depending upon bond issuance
amounts and timings, with the city estimating 2027 would be the first year initial
millages would be added to tax bills. Eventually, it predicts the total millage
almost will double to close to 8 mills.

Regardless, success of any item at the polls will
push Shreveport further into the category of the highest-taxed city without consolidated
government in Louisiana. Republican current Mayor Tom Arceneaux's
predecessor Democrat Adrian Perkins three
times attempted to have bond issues, around that neighborhood of a
quarter-billion dollars give or take a few dozen millions, in various packages
gain voter approval. His first attempt resulted in complete rejection at the
polls, his second couldn't get City Council assent, and in his third only one
of five measures, about $71 million dedicated to public safety, passed voter
muster.

Of course, the electorate quickly became distrustful
of Perkins partly because of the opaqueness of spending plans and partly
because of other shenanigans in his administration that eventually led to his ouster
upon his trying for reelection. Undoubtedly this played a hand in the
rejections, but this isn't a problem Arceneaux should encounter. In great
contrast, his term to date has featured little drama and the city has bent over
backwards to inform the citizenry about the items to be funded and process to
get there and stated its case for their acceptances, as well as publicizing progress
made on the projects associated with the 2021 hike.

Even with potential skepticism likely mooted, the
items face choppy waters. It's a new tax on the books for at least 20 years and
as many as 30, and the total property tax bill faced by city property owners,
if all measures pass, likely eventually would push their rates into the stratospheric
range of 160+ mills (by contrast, the typical Bossier City homeowner pays about
130, and that's one of the highest in the state).

As well, a question remains about why the city
needs to do all of this when it is shrinking in population. Unfortunately, its
decline isn't uniform; the closer to the city center, the more pronounced it
is, while radiating outwards is new building and hence more infrastructure
demands. Further, the consent
decree over its water and sewerage systems continues to make voracious
monetary demands.

As a result, the most urgent of the three is #2,
which in the main replicates the critical projects that comprise work to
fulfill the consent decree. Legally, the city must pursue these and is behind
schedule. In voters' minds, #1 also may have some criticality, as it addresses
public safety even though most of the spending would occur on buildings and
recreation, since they have shown a willingness to back things associated with
public safety. In light of these, #3 seems the most optional where voters might
be tempted to endure problematic roads and poor drainage in places (if they
ever run into these).

Past recent elections show Shreveport voters
willing to act strategically, so it's not out of the question that they wouldn't
produce a clean inning – three up and three down. Yet the fact remains that for
a city in decline a tax increase is the worst medicine possible that makes it
even less amenable for population and wealth growth – unless fixing the items
removes impediments even more likely to keep the city's fortunes from
reversing.

That noted, voting for #2 can help to solve very
pressing needs, while the other two don't rise to that level. Voters will have
to engage in strategic calculation on this trio.

Bossier Parish property owner tax hikes were led
off by Republican Sheriff Julian Whittington, and waiting in the wings are Bossier
Parish and the Port of Caddo-Bossier. But most consequentially of all, now stepping to the plate
later this week is the Bossier Parish School District, ready to fuel an
anti-family agenda by taking more from families.

Quadrennial property tax reassessments occur this
year, and according to the Louisiana Constitution for continuous owners of
unimproved property through the previous assessment the taxes derived from the aggregate
value of their property parish-wide by default cannot change, although for some
individuals their property values may rise and for others it may fall. This
means the millage rates levied must change, going lower if in the aggregate values
for these owners rose and going higher if these fell. (This doesn't apply to
new owners from the last assessment or if improvements were made to the
property.)

However, a taxing entity may choose to "roll
forward" millage rates to maintain their present level by a two-thirds or
better vote for a plenary governing authority, increasing taxes on every property
owner except those whose assessments for whatever reason in percentage terms decreased
more than the percentage increase possible in the rate when rolled forward. Legally,
an entity must hold a hearing prior to a meeting to do that, and the Bossier
Parish School Board has scheduled that for Sep. 19.

While other parish-wide entities have like
Whittington or seem likely to by virtue of their calling a hearing like the
Port and parish, because they have authorized significantly smaller millages than
the school district, the Board conceivably could hike property taxes by an
amount more than those three combined. At nearly $4.3 million, this would bring
the total estimated ad valorem haul for this year – yes, it will hit
property owners this year – to $91.7 million,

That represents a huge leap if maintaining the
existing 64.43 mills – one of the highest
in the state and well above the state average of local education agencies –
from the $73-74 million range for the fiscal year 2023
reported totals and the budgeted totals for FY 2024,
or about 25 percent. Most will come from higher valuations, but about a quarter
of it from maintained rates if set at the maximum.

Grabbing more from taxpayers come from the fact
that the BPSD
continues to run an operating deficit. FY 2023 saw about $26 million more
spent than collected, driving the net negative position of the district to $571
million. The reasons for that are decades of underfunding pensions and a pay-as-you-go
post- employment benefits system that underestimated utilization to create a
gaping $886 million existing liability. The 2024 budget sees more of the same,
even draining almost to zero reserves of sales tax revenue, the other major local
funding source of around $64 million coming from a 1.5 percent levy, in order to
prop up the general fund so that it registers just a small deficit.

The high-tax BPSD has a recent history of turning
to tax increases in an attempt to bail out the consequences of its bad decision-making
– witness a few years ago trying to hike property taxes to a level far higher
than any other in the state but turned back decisively by voters at the ballot
box – but other recent actions don't inspire confidence that it manages finances
in the best interests of citizens. For example, billboards touting the district
sprang up around the parish not long before the start of the academic year, at
a cost not discernable from the budget.

Why? To discourage families from sending children
to the parish's only private school,
or to the few in Caddo Parish? Or from enrolling in the state's virtual charter school? Or from being
homeschooled (as of last
year, only 21 Bossier students had been approved for this)?

Advertising that you're doing your constitutional
duty of providing education isn't necessary, if you're doing your job well. Quality
education sells itself without the necessity of reminders exhorting your existence
at taxpayer expense. (Or maybe it's a distraction from the fact that the BPSD
produced just a single National Merit Scholar semifinalist for this year;
back in the good old days, my little
old rural high school produced two for my senior year).

But it's the anti-family direction accelerating
under the leadership of new superintendent Jason Rowland that raises the most questions
about whether the BPSB can be trusted with taking more of what property owners
earn. In
the past year, including some time prior to his assuming the top job,
Rowland has solidified plans to open one or more school clinics that can cut
parents out from making health care decisions for their children, told parents
they walk in the footsteps of racial segregationists if they support increased
school choice (which the state passed into law anyway), and spearheaded an
effort to weaken standards statewide. His administration also publicly decried
enabling the (see above) few parish families homeschooling their children to
have the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities as new state
law now guarantees.

This agenda no doubt a majority of parish families
doesn't support, yet the BPSB backed all of these moves, even passing unanimously
a resolution condemning the increased school choice effort despite the fact on
a per student basis district finances likely would be better off. (Meanwhile, in
Caddo, half of its board had the good sense to oppose a similar resolution, which
thereupon failed.) These actions convey the sense that the BPSB cares more
about the agenda of adults – raking in as much money as possible, looking out
for its employees first, getting reelected – than in the desires of families and
children for quality education first by whatever means best accomplishes that.

This lack of accountability puts the BPSB into a
position to take more from the people without regret. Bossierites should ask
questions about the decisions made that reflect this detachment, whether those
justifies taking more money, and whether dumping the anti-family agenda could
produce cost savings that negate the temptation to raise taxes. But the way
things are going, such entreaties will be ignored and the BPSB will get the tax
increase, if smaller, that voters once denied it.

The Bossier Parish School Board seems to have, at
least temporarily, discarded its tin ear, perhaps coming to understand a series
of questionable policy decisions have led to its adding another to its
undistinguished record might have electoral consequences.

Earlier this year, the Board advertised that it would
entertain rolling forward millage property tax rates levied by the Bossier
Parish School District. During presidential election years in Louisiana parish
tax assessors reassess property, but the Constitution mandates that the
difference in values for property held and not improved throughout the period
not increase the total amount of taxes paid for that group, meaning millage
rates would be adjusted automatically unless a two-thirds majority wished not
to do so, effectively raising taxes since that aggregate value had increased
over the time period.

As published, it would have been more than a $4.2 million
increase, or nearly 6 percent. Despite declining enrollments, costs have escalated
because unfunded pension demands and post-employment benefits have skyrocketed over
the past few years. Worse, BPSD already has one of the highest property tax rates of
local education agencies in the state, so Bossier property owners have been hit
harder than almost any others in the state.

And in the recent past the BPSB hasn't
distinguished itself in demonstrating sound fiscal decision-making, In 2019 it
asked for drastic millage increases, dedicated to instructional salaries, even with
its elevated ad valorem taxes and higher-than-average proportion of spending
going towards administrative costs, eventually which unconvinced voters decisively
rejected. (In fact, Bossier teachers according to the latest
data rank sixth-highest in pay at the state with an average over $60,000). Then
there have been questions about superfluous expenditures such as for school
clinics scheduled to open in the near future, and a public hearing to raise
rates might open up BPSB members to accusations of imprudent fiscal management
and having taxpayers make up for their mistakes.

But perhaps the most uncomfortable need to justify
spending might come from recent anti-family actions in addition to the clinics such
as resistance to state laws broadening educational choice and extracurricular
activity participation. School administrators called support of these policies bad
policy if just short of racist, with some board members joining in. Some very
unflattering questions in the public hearing could call into question spending
to resist popular education choice policies that might make look particularly bad
some or all board members who ratified these efforts and hired the officials
involved, besides hanging a tax increase issue around their necks detracting
from reelection purposes in 2026.

Uncomplimentary rumblings within the public
already were about. A local
news outlet declared it would publicize which members voted in favor of
rolling forward, and citizens
already had started questioning the move to the Board. This space laid out
a case against the hike and delved into the controversies the BPSB and district
administrators had fomented that could cause a backlash should it pursue the increase.

A day later, the BPSB released a stunning announcement: it
scrapped the public hearing scheduled the next day, postponing it until the end
of October. Moreover, as announced
at the regular board meeting that next day, a "technical" error had
triggered this and would advance a proposal that would see a "net reduction in
millages." Curiously, the notice asserted the meeting still had on the table the
increase of over $4.2 million, but now listed an overall estimate in this tax
collection about $5 million fewer at nearly $87 million.

The attached fiscal
year 2024-25 budget attached to each notice was identical, so it calls into
question what was the "technical" error, but the practical impact was a real
chance now exists that the BPSB won't hike taxes at all, even if the "error"
seemed to cost it $5 million. And if that transpires, public opinion will have
turned the tide, signaling that enough of the public has become attentive
enough of School Board activities and of district officials to have the BPSB rein
in the deviant direction to the district's voting majority into which it had
lapsed. Other
tax-hiking local governments like the Bossier Parish Police Jury, with one
cued up for the start of next month, should take notice.

Rep. Jodey Arrington (right) and Rep. Brendan Boyle (left) talk during a House Budget Committee markup