Judge Strikes Down Controversial Scranton Commuter Tax
The Opinion, penned by Senior Judge John Braxton, is here, courtesy of WNEP.
12 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Will this have an impact on Panto's tax? Commuter taxes are taxation without representation. If Panto's victims had the opportunity, they'd throw his ass out onto Third Street in a minute.
Where is the big Sal Panto employee that always preached what a great county executive Panto would make? What new and wonderful tax scam would Sal pull at the county level.
Sal is a fake, he was first time as mayor and he is again. Just an overgrown boy with a bad temper.
Scranton is different from Easton in the fact that it is distressed under Act 47 and also had distressed pension plans. The Scranton tax was an effort to work out of potential bankruptcy. No doubt, somebody forgot to cross some t's and dot some i's, and that is why the tax fails to meet judicial review. That does not throw the law out and I would believe that Scranton can still enact a commuter tax following the law because the city is financially distressed. Easton is different since the election is related solely to the distress provisions of the pension law. Did Easton specifically follow the provisions of the law? Who knows? But, that factor will not eliminate the law or Easton's eventual ability to use it.
The Easton commuter tax, like the Scranton commuter tax, is an unfair tax on the wages of people who have no voice in the city government. It is taxation without representation, one of the chief reasons why we revolted against England. It is unAmerican. Also, the Easton commuter tax is adopted under the same law. The judge did not have a problem with dotted i's or crossted t's. It was the fact that nonresidents were being taxed unfairly. If the Scranton tax is illegal, it necessarily follows that the Easton tax is illegal.
Would this also apply to Allentown, which charges non-residents taxes also? Are there any significant differences between the laws in Scranton, Easton, and Allentown?
Can't speak to the particulars of Allentown, Philly or any of the places that have such taxes. I think any form of taxation without representation is fundamentally flawed. That is NOT, however, the argument that won in court.
Sal should just go to commuters' homes and steal their lawn furniture and barbecue grills and strong arm their kids' lemonade stands. It's thuggish. But it's honest thieving vs. the dishonest thieving of his commuter tax. Sal is Easton's thief-in-chief.
Easton's tax was imposed under Act 44 of 2009. Not so sure that the Act 205 references will hold. Don't Philly commuters have to pay a higher wage tax? If Easton charged 1% which is the statutory limit stated in the opinion, and you worked in Easton and lived in a community that charged 0, you would have to pay the 1% to Easton. I think that knocks some of the judge's argument. I think the judge is looking for a higher court to reconcile the state's prohibitions on increased taxes with the provisions of Act 205 and 44. The state DCED in their publications state that distressed municipalities have the right to charge higher taxes on commuters. That was the intent of the distress legislation. A judicial opine will only force the legislature to tighten the law or give municipalities another form of relief such as a nuisance tax on bloggers.
Doesn't Sal get around this somehow because Easton adopted a home rule plan? The problem with Scranton was a failure to tax its residents at the same rate. Sal get around it by taking 1.75% from Easton residents and 1.75 minus the employee local (typically 1%).
Back in 2011, Allentown levied a 0.35% commuter tax on non residents for the specific purpose of shorring up its underfunded pension. After they leased the water and sewer, Pawlowski said it was flush with cash and "fully funded" according to the Times. Does that meant the commuter tax ends?
12 comments:
Will this have an impact on Panto's tax? Commuter taxes are taxation without representation. If Panto's victims had the opportunity, they'd throw his ass out onto Third Street in a minute.
Does your bud Angle agree with J. Braxton?
Where is the big Sal Panto employee that always preached what a great county executive Panto would make? What new and wonderful tax scam would Sal pull at the county level.
Sal is a fake, he was first time as mayor and he is again. Just an overgrown boy with a bad temper.
Scranton is different from Easton in the fact that it is distressed under Act 47 and also had distressed pension plans. The Scranton tax was an effort to work out of potential bankruptcy. No doubt, somebody forgot to cross some t's and dot some i's, and that is why the tax fails to meet judicial review. That does not throw the law out and I would believe that Scranton can still enact a commuter tax following the law because the city is financially distressed. Easton is different since the election is related solely to the distress provisions of the pension law. Did Easton specifically follow the provisions of the law? Who knows? But, that factor will not eliminate the law or Easton's eventual ability to use it.
The Easton commuter tax, like the Scranton commuter tax, is an unfair tax on the wages of people who have no voice in the city government. It is taxation without representation, one of the chief reasons why we revolted against England. It is unAmerican. Also, the Easton commuter tax is adopted under the same law. The judge did not have a problem with dotted i's or crossted t's. It was the fact that nonresidents were being taxed unfairly. If the Scranton tax is illegal, it necessarily follows that the Easton tax is illegal.
Stay tuned.
Would this also apply to Allentown, which charges non-residents taxes also? Are there any significant differences between the laws in Scranton, Easton, and Allentown?
Can't speak to the particulars of Allentown, Philly or any of the places that have such taxes. I think any form of taxation without representation is fundamentally flawed. That is NOT, however, the argument that won in court.
Sal should just go to commuters' homes and steal their lawn furniture and barbecue grills and strong arm their kids' lemonade stands. It's thuggish. But it's honest thieving vs. the dishonest thieving of his commuter tax. Sal is Easton's thief-in-chief.
Easton's tax was imposed under Act 44 of 2009. Not so sure that the Act 205 references will hold. Don't Philly commuters have to pay a higher wage tax? If Easton charged 1% which is the statutory limit stated in the opinion, and you worked in Easton and lived in a community that charged 0, you would have to pay the 1% to Easton. I think that knocks some of the judge's argument. I think the judge is looking for a higher court to reconcile the state's prohibitions on increased taxes with the provisions of Act 205 and 44. The state DCED in their publications state that distressed municipalities have the right to charge higher taxes on commuters. That was the intent of the distress legislation. A judicial opine will only force the legislature to tighten the law or give municipalities another form of relief such as a nuisance tax on bloggers.
Doesn't Sal get around this somehow because Easton adopted a home rule plan? The problem with Scranton was a failure to tax its residents at the same rate. Sal get around it by taking 1.75% from Easton residents and 1.75 minus the employee local (typically 1%).
Comment 2:26 needs to be deleted
Back in 2011, Allentown levied a 0.35% commuter tax on non residents for the specific purpose of shorring up its underfunded pension. After they leased the water and sewer, Pawlowski said it was flush with cash and "fully funded" according to the Times. Does that meant the commuter tax ends?
Post a Comment