Confused on sales tax
Having read city attorney Schneider's "clarification" of sales tax use, I am confused. It seems to me he said the city can use sales tax for property tax relief if that relief is real or imagined. HUH?
Kinda reminds me of former president Clinton pondering what the definition of "is" is.
Permit me to offer a simple illustration of what former councilman Kircher claims.
Assume state law says the most property tax a city can collect is $100.
The city is collecting $60, therefore they can use $40 in sales tax to provide Property tax relief.
Kircher says McCook is putting more sales tax into the general fund than is allowed ... let's say $50, resulting in $110 total, $10 in excess of the $100 allowed by the state.
In this case, Mr. KIrcher says the property tax must be lowered $10.
His position makes sense ... if cities can use sales taxes to exceed the property tax cap set by the state, why have a cap in the first place?
With $1.9 million in unspent sales tax money, I understand the city's urge to spend it. Nothing upsets government folks more than unspent money. Seems obvious our sales tax is too high.
Inasmuch as Mr. Kircher was a councilman for many years, I feel he probably knows what he's talking about.
If, in fact, the city has been doing what he claims, it seems to me they could and should be liable for repayment of any excess paid the general fund. It also amounts to stealing from every property owner in McCook.
What ever happened to integrity?