USA: Huntington could become the first city in West Virginia to pass a payroll tax.

City council will meet next week to debate whether to impose the 1 percent tax on people who work in the city. The fee would replace Huntington's $2-a-week service fee, similar to Charleston's $1-a-week user fee. Instead of paying for police officers and street services, the payroll tax revenue would go toward paying down Huntington's skyrocketing employee pension debts. "Nobody's going to be happy with any tax. I'm aware of that," said Huntington Mayor David Felinton. "But I think this is a lot more fair than the user fee. You look across the border and you see all these other states have the ability to do things like this, but it's just brand new in West Virginia. I think all cities need more flexibility to do this." Cities like Pittsburgh, Columbus and Cincinnati have for years charged people up to 2 percent in payroll taxes for working there. Parts of surrounding states like Kentucky and Virginia also charge the fees. Until recently, West Virginia cities and towns had no authority to tax the income of their workers. Instead, places like Huntington and Charleston have adopted user fees, the across-the- board fee that generally helps pay for road repairs and police services. Payroll taxes, on the other hand, vary depending on a person's income, and the tax typically brings in a lot more money than $1- or $2-a-week service fees. Huntington, however, is the only city in West Virginia right now that's eligible to pass a payroll tax. State lawmakers approved a plan just last year to allow cities to charge the tax only if their employee pension plans are severely under-funded. Huntington is the only city so deeply in debt, with reserves to cover less than 3 percent of its future pension obligations. It has pension liabilities that top $117 million. "This (tax) is probably the most viable option the city of Huntington has, other than some sort of increased property tax," said Mark Muchow, fiscal policy director for the state Department of Revenue. The tax would affect any person or family in Huntington earning $10,000 or more a year. A household making that much would pay $100 annually, whether.the money supports one person or four. Someone with an income of $50,000 would owe $500, and someone making $250,000 would have to pay the city $2,500. If the tax passes, most people who work in the city will end up paying more than the $104 now charged for the service fee. Felinton said revenue from the tax would amount to about $8 million a year, all of which would go to pension payments. The city's service fee is bringing in $3 million a year, which helps pay for police and street services. If the payroll tax passes, those services would get some added support from money now being used to pay off pension debts. Felinton has brought up the possibility of passing a payroll tax in the pass, but other city leaders have shot it down in favor of other alternatives. Now, those options seem to be running out. Felinton said the city is likely to miss a state deadline in December to reconfigure its pension payments, a plan that would have allowed it to start a new contribution plan for new hires. "This is a bit tougher to sell," Felinton said. "This scenario isn't as good as (our other options were), but we have to do something and we have to do it sooner than later." Cities around the state have been examining several new funding options, like the payroll tax, that lawmakers approved last year. While most places don't have a choice of adding a payroll tax right now, cities do have the option of abandoning a business and occupation tax in favor of adding their own sales tax in order to boost revenue. Charleston City Council Finance Chairman Bobby Reishman said city leaders here aren't talking about changing the tax structure any time soon. The city has for two years charged a $1-a-week service fee for anyone who works in Charleston, and Reishman said that plan is working out well. "Some of those taxes have been set up for cities that are in real trouble, and we're in good shape," Reishman said. "We're collecting more than we used to, and we certainly don't want to raise taxes any more than we have to." Felinton plans to bring up the payroll tax at the Oct. 24 council meeting, and council members could vote on the option early at a meeting in mid-November. Contact writer Kris Wise at 348-1244. J Kennedy Bennett response to the Editor & K Wise. This regressive revenue measure was drafted by your city's privileged few, who do not receive the bulk of their income from wages but from tenant rents & monopoly interest payments. It will further alienate the wealth of the Produces and shift it to vested interest in land. Your article quotes Mayor of Huntington David Felinton as saying "Nobody's going to be happy with any tax. I'm aware of that." And then offering an alleged counter argument as "But I think this is a lot more fair than the user fee." Neither is fair nor economic and yet his first assertion is true. Nobody is happy with any tax because tax is theft it maybe legal but it is not moral nor economic. The economic alternative is to rate the value of land which the Mayor allegedly governs. None of your cities do this let alone the States or Federal Government. Taxation can only occur after wealth is produced and is therefore external to the economic transaction of its creation. The rent of land is the return for its use and is integral to the economic use and production process and is the just base by which public revenue should be raised. As the value of production and consumption is stored in the land on which it occurs land is traded in a monopoliconomy for a price which is capitalised rent. Fewer and fewer Americans are securing titles to the land. Due to the rising monopoly ownership laws. So that your cities are becoming wage slave centres of compliance and regulatory nightmares for the dispossessed and your public administrations are exporting these policies around the world. The debate is council should rate land via valuation notices with incremental increases in the dollar as all other imposts are struck off until the the single source of revenue achieves a site revenue society with the absence of land price and taxation a consequence. Poverty crime homelessness terrorism would all disappear with it. PS. In a revenue analysis, I am able to quantify what the magnitude is, of the amount of suppressed economic activity by the impost measure herein proposed. If I were to obtain the city's valuation data of all property values (which the Huntington Council should have.) I then can advise as to what the revenue base formulae is, for the highest economic integrity. To replace this proposed slum facilitating measure.