Letters: The tax Newport should use on events
The tax Newport should use on events
This letter is in response to the Newport City Council's request for a tax on tickets sold in Newport. It is wrong and is targeted on the Preservation Society attractions.
First, a little history, when the Navy left all we had to save our city was this organization and they stepped up big time. I do realize that the main sponsor of this tax was not here nor were two of the other four positive votes and probably have no memory of those times but I do and I believe they saved our town. Without those mansions what would be the draw for our city and our tourist-related businesses This is not the way to go. This does not mean that I reject an admission tax but that I favor a fair one.
Twenty years ago I proposed a tax with a formula that protected certain events and would raise money from many tourist-attended ones. First I establish the actual base for the tax to be levied. To do this I used the Federal Minimum Wage as the starting point. That is today set at $7.25 per hour and we will use that figure to set the level we use for our tax. So we now set a dollar amount for the implementation of our tax on all tickets that cost at or more that three times min wage or $22.50 and the city wants a tax of (TAX % or $#) that the event adds to its price and sends to the city. So with this formula, the city can either ask for a dollar amount or a percentage and the venue can lower their price to avoid it totally. With this school plays, sporting events movie tickets and many other local events would be except and tourists would be paying the majority of the money.
Using a formula like this allows for a tax on every ticket and the total sold would mean nothing, it would hit the mansions, the tennis matches, the boat show and the music festivals as well as smaller events where the ticket price calls for the tax and if admission to a road race qualified they too would pay as well. By using the Minimum Wage as a base we never need to adjust the tax as it will self-adjust as the wage goes up.
This passed our council on a 4-3 vote and I do not see the state granting the request so maybe they can try this as the idea is good but ethically wrong.
Jack Milburn, Newport
Portsmouth gets the government it deserves
There’s an old saying in our state that Rhode Islanders get the government they deserve.
The same could be said for the Town of Portsmouth.
The Town of Portsmouth’s handling of the East Main Road rotary project is another example of the lack of transparency and accountability our local government has with respect to the people they take an oath to represent and serve.
There have been three events in most recent memory that demonstrate the Town administration’s complete disregard to conducting the people’s business in a transparent and public manner, as well as their view of state and local law.
The most recent example is the town transfer station issue. The play the public was privy to was a desire by the town to shift to curbside pickup and end regular trash disposal. These discussions included every assurance that there was no intent to permanently close the facility. The real intent of the initiative, however, was later revealed as an effort to close the transfer station for good to get more curbside pick-up households and obtain better bids from sanitation vendors.
While seemingly a noble effort to try and better spend taxpayer dollars, it’s an example of using deception to advance an agenda that is incongruous with much of the public’s desires.
We also know that the Town is currently not up-to-date in making its required reports to the State’s Department of Municipal Finance on the status of the pension plan. In fact, we are significantly behind. The director of that department confirmed about six months ago that the Town has not submitted anything in at least two-plus years. If our administration cannot and will not abide by state law, how can we trust that compliance is a priority to them as they carry out the people’s business?
The Town’s pension plan is a sensitive subject in and of itself. As many citizens may recall, the Town was found in violation of the Open Meetings Act on the subject about one year ago with respect to pensions. The Town Council discussed the pension plan while in closed executive session; under a completely different and non-applicable section of Rhode Island General Law.
When the public managed to figure this out and questioned the Council about it, they withheld the full scope of the additions to the pension plan. The true scope was only exposed in an OMA violation investigation. What’s worse? The town administrator and solicitor kept news of this violation from the town council. Many members of the town council found out about the confirmed violation from a letter to the editor.
Larry Fitzmorris, Portsmouth
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Letters: The tax Newport should use on events
