Tag Archives: Utility Tax

Thanks Mark Sorensen for speaking to Chico Taxpayers Association

4 Jun

Yesterday Mark Sorensen was good enough to come down to the Chico library to fill in a group of interested citizens on some of the facts regarding the November phone tax increase measure. But, we probably won’t get alot out of the council or the city attorney’s office until August 7, when they are due to turn their “impartial analysis” and ballot arguments in to the city clerk’s office. 

Until then, we are left with a lot of speculation. But the important fact remains – this measure will raise the taxes of every city resident who owns “mobile messaging devices” – specifically , for now, cell phones. 

Councilor Sorensen explained to us that the city is very desperate to pass this measure because they have already been receiving this tax and are heavily dependent on the revenue – some $900,000 a year, in fact. Some cell phone providers, AT&T the most prominent, have already been collecting the tax for an undisclosed number of years, without any legal grounds to back them up aside from the fact that they make up your bill and you don’t ask any questions. The city has been receiving this ill-gotten gain, knowingly,  for years, in violation of our own code, which only allows for the taxing of land lines.  

I can hear the question forming in your mind Joseph – how the HELL do they get away with this shit!?!  It’s the psychic connection -oh oh – think they’ll find a way tax that? 

Well, we’re not the only ones. This is happening in cities around California. Because of a man named Donald Sipple, it’s been brought to the attention of the courts, if not the media. Mr. Sipple has sued AT&T, and won, and in turn, AT&T has had to sue the cities over which Mr. Sipple sued them. The case is still a big mess in the courts, because, despite two rulings to the effect that the money was taken from those city residents illegally, those cities will simply not return the money. 

Anyhoo, this is why the city is so desperate and so dishonest in handling this phone tax increase – they actually do stand to lose $900,000, in General Fund money, no less – the unrestricted kind! And yeah, if this measure doesn’t pass, they are left red-handed.

My-oh-my, how embarrassing for Ann Schwab and Dave Burkland. They know this, but they have made no attempt to tell the voters. Instead they try to tell us they are lowering our taxes and making everything fair for everyone. 

Tsk tsk! If they told the truth on this ballot measure, it would never get off the launch pad.  How can a  tax that is collected off of one very specific portion of the population – those folks whose cell phones are billed to a city address – but goes to pay for infrastructure and services that are enjoyed by everybody who uses our town – whether college students with a phone billed to their parents in LA or folks who work here with phones billed to a mansion in Forest Ranch – be  “fair for everyone” ?

We’ll have to see how they explain this when they come out with their “impartial analysis” in August. Until then, we need to study this issue among ourselves and try to get ready for the debate in the fall.  If you want to keep up on the agendas be sure to subscribe to Mark’s feed:

http://chicoagenda.wordpress.com/

Tags: , , , , , ,

Learn the truth about the city’s proposed phone tax hike – it’s a G-snatch!

3 Jun

Well, best meeting EVER. It just keeps getting better, Folks. A wonderful group who was there to work, that’s what it takes.

Mark Sorensen answered some questions this morning, but raised others.  There is so much about the phone tax increase measure that does not make sense. And where can we get the answers? Our city attorney seems to be making the whole thing as convoluted as possible, I don’t think we can count on her for any help. She’s not our attorney anyway, she’s there to protect $taff and council from  us. “$taff” would include herself.

The first and foremost thing everybody needs to know about this measure is that it will INCREASE our taxes. While the text of the ballot proposition, in the first sentence, claims to be lowering our tax, it is also broadening the definition of what  can be taxed, therefore, increasing our  taxes.

City Attorney Lori Barker’s first measure was so deceptive she was asked to rewrite it. The newer version is more truthful, but still pretty vague:

“Shall an ordinance be adopted to amend the City’s Telephone User’s Tax in order to: 1) reduce the tax rate from 5% to 4.5%; 2) modernize the definition of telephone communication services subject to the tax to include new technologies such as wireless and voice over internet services; 3) apply the tax to all telephone communications regardless of the type of technology used; and 4) reflect changes to federal and state law? 

Yes, the new rate will be half a percent lower – Big  Flopping Whoopie.  And, there you see it, this tax will “include new technologies such as…” Such as, when you read along in the report Barker made, includes whatever the Finance Director wants it to.

No, you can’t read the report unless you got a copy from the city clerk  before she took it off the website. I don’t know why it’s not on the website. In fact, I don’t know why there’s no records on the website right now for any meeting between December 2009 and the agenda that is posted for this coming Tuesday’s meeting. You can see the agendas on the viewer, where you watch the videos of the meetings, but no reports.  The reports are all taken off the website after the meeting, you have to ask the clerk if you want to see the reports. I just happen to have the copy she sent me before the meeting – I signed up to receive this stuff, or I wouldn’t have it.  I’d have to go Downtown and PAY to get a copy from the clerk.

They are being deceptive on this tax increase measure because they know if the voters get all the facts it will fail. They might even have to pay back the money they’ve been collecting illegally through AT&T for years.

http://semichorus.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/burbank-owes-its-cellphone-users-1001766-in-tax-refunds-that-they-refuse-to-pay/

They stand to lose big, so get ready for some pretty desperate measures and some cheap and dirty fighting.

Tags: , , , , ,

Chula Vistans beat the phone tax – now they’re suing to get back the money their city collected illegally!

16 May

Last night Ann Schwab, Mary Goloff, Andy Holcombe and Jim Walker moved forward with a resolution to tax “all forms of electronic communication imaginable, now or in the future…”

Lori Barker, who plays an attorney on TV,  defended her resolution, saying “it is impossible to include an exhaustive list of taxable services because we might leave something out…” Then they wouldn’t be able to tax that service too! So, she opted to leave an open-ended “description” that  any future Finance Director can add to without any input from the taxpayers.

Then she cited a word limit in the law – she is only allowed to use 77 words, and she was up to 75. Well, two more words would have fit – the words “texting” and “paging” – two services that will be taxed under this resolution but that Barker just couldn’t shoehorn in there! 

I think this dawg should be easy to put down – why would people vote to tax themselves when they don’t even know what they will be taxed on or how much they will pay? Barker wouldn’t answer that question either – she keeps insisting that this turkey will be “revenue neutral.” What? She’s adding cell phones that have never been taxed before, and she’s trying to tell us, the city won’t be making any extra money and we won’t be paying any more? 

This whole campaign is built on LIES.  We can and will defeat this tax.

This scenario has already played out in the little town of Chula Vista. I spent a Christmas in Chula Vista, when my dad was working on the freeway in San Diego. It was beautiful, 70 – 80 degrees.  We stayed in a motel with my dad’s coworkers and their families, and for Christmas dinner,  one of the moms made tamales in the motel kitchenette – what a scream, in that hot little kitchen!  I have never forgotten Chula Vista, and I never will. They are the town that stood up to the Utility Tax, and won.

In 2010, the city of Chula Vista put a similar proposition before their voters – making all the same lame threats about public safety, etc. The voters of Chula Vista not only put that resolution soundly in the toilet, there is currently an effort among Chula Vistans to SUE THE CITY! 

From the San Diego Metro Daily Business Report, Feb. 23, 2012:

Trial Date Set for Utility Tax Issue in Chula Vista

A trial date has been set for a class action suit seeking millions of dollars in restitution for allegedly illegal utility taxes levied by the city of Chula Vista on cell phone users within its boundaries. This follows a ruling by Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss dismissing a challenge brought by the city. The lawsuit stems from a now outdated tax — levied on users of telephones, electricity and other utilities — that was introduced in 1970 and generates more than $9 million in revenue for the city each year. An attempt by the city to amend the law with Proposition H in 2010 was defeated by voters. According to Thomas Penfield, a partner with San Diego-based Casey Gerry and co-lead counsel, the city of Chula Vista recently filed a legal objection to the suit.  “The city cited its local ordinance which said you cannot file a class action for a tax refund,” said Penfield. Penfield and co-counsel James Capretz of Orange County-based Capretz & Associates argued that municipalities are not permitted to enact their own patchwork means of claiming tax refunds. “The judge agreed with our argument and ruled in our favor – stating that state procedure overrules the local ordinance,” Penfield said. The case is now set to go to trial Jan. 18, 2013.

We’ve got some work ahead of us, but we must follow Chula Vista’s example and fight this tax.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

“to ensure that all taxpayers are treated equally…” – oh yeah, let’s make sure EVERYBODY gets stuck!

10 May

Yesterday evening I received the city council agenda packet for next Tuesday, and wow, Lori Barker has already come up with a new version of the phone tax resolution. I’m sorry, I hadn’t even gotten around to discussing how deceitful the first version was, and she’s already re-done it.

Like I say, evil never sleeps.

She didn’t really fix it, is what I’d say right off the bat – it’s worse than the dawg she dragged in last week. 

AND, they’ve agendized it in the “2’s”, meaning, they just expect to vote on it without discussion. Either a council member or a member of the public needs to request that the item is pulled for discussion. I recommend people WRITE LETTERS NOW. To think they’d try to yank this by us without discussion – WHO DO THEY THINK THEY’RE DEALING WITH HERE? A BUNCH OF SUCKERS?! 

Here’s the ballot resolution Barker brought in last week:

“Shall the City’s current Telephone Users’ Tax be amended to reduce the tax on telecommunications users from 5% to 4.5% and to modernize the definitions of telephone communications services to keep current with changes in technology and federal and state laws. “

Please note, there is not one word in there about expanding the tax to take in our cell phones, not one f-ing word. Lori Barker is a duplicitous bitch. 

So, Sorensen and Evans and some other loud mouths, myself included, rammed and railed for her to rewrite the resolution to reflect, well, The Truth.

So, here’s what she flopped out:

“Shall an ordinance be adopted to amend the City’s Telephone Users’ Tax in order to: 1) reduce the tax from 5% to 4.5%; 2) modernize the definition of telephone communication services subject to the tax to include new technologies such as wireless and voice over internet services; 3) apply the tax to all telephone communications regardless of the technology used; 4) reflect changes to federal and state law? “

Take a good look at  #2 – “2) modernize the definition of telephone communication services subject to the tax to include new technologies such as wireless and voice over internet services”

She isn’t including the whole list of new services that are being made taxable by this resolution. Here’s what she says in her report from May 1:

“They generally capture interstate and international calls, voice over internet protocol, text messaging and paging.”

Duplicitous Bitch needs to add the above bold-faced services to the ballot resolution. Her failure to do so is obviously intended. Gee, who cares if they have to pay a tax on every text message they send? Nobody uses text messages! 

And here’s a question to ask – are they going to tax the Tweeters? Tweet Tweet my ass! 

And then we have #3, where they pit citizen against citizen:  “3) apply the tax to all telephone communications regardless of the technology used.”

She actually took the opportunity to put politics IN the resolution. She is trying to put this notion in  the voter’s head that not everybody is paying their fair share. How cute – you know their PAC is going to hammer this point for the next five months.  Cause frankly, that’s all they got. 

Well, it doesn’t belong in the resolution unless they’re going to explain that this resolution will FORCE EVERYBODY TO PAY MORE, including the pawns that pay the land line tax now. 

We need to expose Duplicitous Bitch. For one thing, I wish people would write to council now and complain about the agendizing of this issue onto the 2’s, and tell them we want it pulled for discussion. Also, I’d like to point out to them, it needs to be rewritten to include ALL the services they’re adding now, and the ones that the city finance director can choose to include in future. 

Yes, that is part of the resolution to – read it online. The finance diretor, and right now, that’s the same woman who’s driven us into this ravine, can decide which new services that come available in future can be added to this tax, without a squeak from the public. 

And finally, #3 needs to be stricken unless it explains that EVERYBODY will be paying a tax they do not currently pay.

Get mad now, it saves time later. 

Tags: , , , , , ,

At least 15,000 households eligible for UUT rebate, but only 110 apply? Why?

8 May

In his May 1 report regarding the “update to the Telephone Users’ Tax,” city mangler Dave Burkland tells us that lowering the phone tax from 5 % to 4.5 % would save the average user a whopping  twenty-five cents a month.

Mr. Burkland must think we just fell off the turnip truck. What he’s not telling us, is that while they will lower the phone tax by half a cent, they will expand it to cover your cell phone, with charges depending on your usage. Oh, great! There goes my 25 cents, and then some!

There are those of us now, in fact, who AREN’T PAYING ANY PHONE TAX, and we like it just fine, thank you very much. That’s why we dumped our land lines –  compared to the convenience and reliability of a cell phone, I need a land line like a moose needs a hat rack, Mrs. Goldfarb.  My family realized, why have the additional expense of something that only seems convenient for the people who want to sell you something at dinner time?

So we dumped our land line to save money, and now here they are, coming after our cell phones! There’s no rest for the wicked Honeybabe.

Cell phones can be very inexpensive, you can pay for your actual use instead of paying a flat rate even if you don’t have much use for it. That’s why they’re great for low-income individuals and families – it’s AFFORDABLE.

This is a “regressive” tax, meaning, it hits the lower-income people the  hardest.  During the council discussion, Scott Gruendl actually had the nerve to tell us, it’s no big deal, he’s GLAD TO PAY $2.50 a month to “help my community.” 

He’s talking about the minimum charge, the flat charge. For families it adds up. There is a charge per phone – I still have my AT&T bills – our UUT on those bills was closer to $4 a month. That comes close to $50 a year – and while that may not sound like much to a guy who yanks in over $100,000 in taxpayer money out of one of the poorest counties in California, it adds up to almost $50 a year to pay for the “privelege” of owning a phone. In addition to the $1000+ that you have to pay the phone company. 

Again, imagine life without a phone. I’ll never forget how potential employers acted when my son was looking for a job and we didn’t have a separate cell phone number for him. Having your mom answering the phone for potential employers is like some kind of rat poison. They treated him  like a deadbeat! One fellow was even rude to me! While I’m disgusted with the mentality, I realize, you can’t fight it, especially when you’re the one who needs the job. Going out looking for a job without a car and a phone is like wearing a t-shirt that says, “I don’t really want this job I’m just filling out my unemployment application…” 

So, Mr. Gruendl, living like a pimp on the taxpayers’ dime, can stuff his “community” spirit as far as I’m concerned. He’s not a member of my community, although, if you ask around Glenn County, I think you’ll find, they don’t want him either!

I know they’re sensitive about this aspect of the tax Downtown because Burkland informs us that low-income people can always reclaim their money, if they’re that petty, by way of the Utility Users Tax Rebate program. Do tell Dave! 

“The refund offers a partial refund of UUT  paid on all UUT services to income-eligible participants. “

If you look at the schedule below, you see what he means by “partial” – there is a refund maximum, regardless of what the participant paid in UUT, he/she can only get so much back. And it’s kinda whacked – one person can get up to $105, but eight people can only get $198? 

Burkland ends his report with some interesting statistics regarding the Utility Tax Rebate program. “Historically, the City has refunded between $800 and $1200 in UUT-Telecom refunds to an average of 110 households per year.” 

Well,  if I actually believed for one minute that the city had set out to return this UUT money to it’s rightful and underprivileged owners, I would call that a miserable failure Dave. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 21.2 % of Chico’s roughly 86,000 residents live BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL. Do the math – that’s over 18,000 people.  If you divide that by the number in the average Chico “household,” and you find there are roughly 7,613 Chico households living BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL. This is actually more than the California average, by a quite a bit! 

But Burkland informs us, only 110 households get a UUT rebate? Well, what’s the problem Dave? 

Has anybody ever seen this program advertised beyond the city website? No, you haven’t, they don’t advertise it, they don’t even take out a notice in the paper. It is not even mentioned on the city website until the two month period during which they will give you a refund. I have had to ask the Finance Department to post it two years in a row now, and I firmly believe they would’n’t do it if I didn’t faithfully e-mail them every April and bitch about it. 

I have to ask, why isn’t the information posted all year? I mean, in order to collect the rebate, you have to keep ALL YOUR BILLS, so it would be nice if the information was out there more than a month before the collection date. 

Of course, that’s a rhetorical question, I’m just a compulsive question asker, even when I know the answer. It’s always funny to hear the answer come out of THEIR mouth. Tell the truth and shame the Devil, Flakcatcher! As if it does any good – that’s why they’re the Flakcatchers! 

I have posted all the rules and regulations for getting your UUT rebate below. Tell me they’re not onerous, and I’ll give you a wet willy. 


CITY OF CHICO
UTILITY USERS’ TAX REFUND & EXEMPTION PROGRAM
GENERAL INFORMATION
A refund or an exemption from City Utility Users’ Tax, for utility services provided may be approved when the following conditions are met:

(1) City of Chico resident files an application with the City of Chico Finance Office for a refund or an exemption.  The application is a spreadsheet on which you have to write down the amounts of UUT from each bill, twice, and add them up in different directions. Then the clerk makes you sit while he/she adds them up. Once the clerk actually found a mistake on mine – in my favor, ginchee! 

(2) The application is approved by the Finance Office as being in conformance with Section 3.56.190 and/or 3.56.200 of the Chico Municipal Code. Only one member of each household may file an application and only one application may be filed for each household.   Meaning, make sure all the bills in your household are under one name. 

(3) The combined annual income of the household in which the applicant lives for the 2011 Federal and State Personal Income Tax Year was less than the maximum annual income limits in the following schedule:  These actually seem fairly generous to me, and I can’t understand why only 110 households claim the rebate.

Household Size   Maximum Annual Income     Maximum Refund
1                                $32,900                                        $105
2                               $37,600                                        $120
3                               $42,300                                        $135
4                               $46,950                                        $150
5                               $50,750                                        $162
6                               $54,500                                        $174
7                               $58,250                                        $186
8 or more              $62,000                                       $198
(4) The applicant shall be the person in whose name the bills for utility services were rendered.  Meaning, even if you and your spouse have the same name, they will only take the application from the exact name on the bills. 

Applications for Utility Users’ Tax paid will be accepted from May 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 for tax paid between May 1, 2011 and April 30, 2012.

The application must be accompanied by:
• Proof of household income (2011 Tax Return, Disability Statement, Social Security Letter, etc.)  You can show them your tax return, you don’t have to let them keep it. And I’d use a copy with all the SSN’s blacked out if I were you.
• Copies of the utility bills including Water bills, Gas & Electric bills and Telephone bills paid by the applicant. Here’s probably the most onerous part. If you go into the office, you can just show them your bills, they don’t have to keep copies. But if you want to mail this in, it’s going to cost you in copy money and postage – good luck! 

Refunds will be processed as follows:
• No refund shall be made on any application filed or postmarked later than June 30, 2012.
• All applications for refund sent through mail will be paid with a check from the City of Chico.
• All applications for refund delivered by the applicant to the City of Chico Finance Office shall be processed the same day when possible. I think they have a rule, they’ll pay anything under $50 in cash, maybe $100, I can’t remember. This is the sweet payoff Babee – green money to exchange for sugary treats at Shuberts! 

Applicants for the Exemption Program shall have attained the age of 60 years prior to making the application for exemption. Eligibility for tax exemption for applicants 60 years or older shall be based on the maximum income for a two-person household as set forth above ($37,600 for 2011). Applications for exemption are accepted any time during the year and must be accompanied by:
• Proof of household income (2011 Tax Return, Disability Statement, Social Security Letter, etc)
• Age of the applicant as documented by driver’s license or birth certificate.

I feel they should give an exemption to anybody who’s successfully applied more than two years in a row, and then that household should have to re-submit their eligibility every five or so years. Once you’ve proven you’re eligible, they shouldn’t be able to take the tax off your bills anymore, but this way, they get to collect the interest on it all year. Remember, it’s not just you, they’re doing it to probably 15,000 or more households that are below the income requirements, that adds up to a few bucks in the bank. 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Chico Taxpayers Association discusses pending local tax increases

6 May

We had a great meeting at the library this morning. We discussed the phone tax resolution that is currently being crafted by the city attorney, as well as the sales tax increase proposal being forwarded along by Tom Lando and friends. 

Council heard a first reading of the phone tax resolution, in three versions with three rate proposals,  at the May 1 meeting last week. In answer to complaints that the language in those drafts was misleading and deceptive, council voted to send one of the proposals back to city attorney Lori Barker’s office for some editing.  Council majority (with Evans and Sorensen dissenting) chose a rate of 4.5 percent, but made no specific demands regarding the language or exactly which parts of the resolution should be rewritten. The revised edition should come back to council shortly, I’ll be watching for it.

The sales tax increase proposal is being kicked around at the Chamber of Commerce, of which Tom Lando is a member and past president. The Chamber seems to be vetting the measure, keeping a low profile and trying to get as many clouted individuals on board as possible before they bring this turkey out to greet the public. 

At today’s meeting we read over and discussed the reports made by the city attorney and the city manager regarding the phone tax, and also the proposed resolution itself. I’m going to try to post a bit of those reports day by day so we can discuss the pertinent points here, please stay tuned.

Tags: , , , , ,

The only way they’ll be able to pass this phone tax is with lies.

3 May

I still can’t believe that meeting the other night. Ann Schwab called me “nasty.” How exactly would she describe a person who lied to her? 

Because, no matter how they lie and deny, the measure that Ann Schwab, Andy Holcombe, Scott Gruendl, and Jim Walker have decided, among their little gang of four, to place on the November ballot,  is a tax increase, there are no two ways about it. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar, plain and simple. 

Ann knows what it is. That’s why she says it would be “wise” to use the figure of 4.5  percent. Andy Holcombe, who does not have enough money or support to run in November, and therefore has nobody to answer to, suggested the rate be raised to 5.5 percent. But Ann’s up for re-election, and she wants people to think she’s lowering their taxes. If I were Ann Schwab’s mother I wouldn’t  show my face in public. 

Well, in fact, this initiative, if passed will lower certain peoples’ taxes. Those folks who use AT&T, for example, are currently paying a 5 percent utility tax on that service. As was explained this past Tuesday night, some companies are collecting the tax in anticipation of the passage of initiatives like this all over California. They just aren’t giving it to the cities yet. Because? 

Because, if this initiative fails, nobody in the city of Chico will have to pay the phone tax anymore.  In other words, those who are currently paying this tax, are being taxed illegally. 

And, again, in my Pollyanna mind, I would assume the phone carriers will have to return the money they have been collecting to the customers. Hey, weirder things have happened. 

Now,  Verizon, for example,  does not collect the tax. So, anybody who has Verizon  wouild be suffering a tax increase if this initiative is passed.  Several people at Tuesday night’s meeting, including councilors Sorensen and Evans, pointed out that the language in the initiative that $200,000+  a year city attorney Lori Barker has drafted is “deceptive,” ridiculously so. District 2 supervisor Larry Wahl pointed out the use of “modernize” as a euphemism for “add a tax to it.” There is no mention that some people are currently being charged, illegally,  but some people are not.  Eventually, a motion was made that the language needs to be changed to make it clear PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CURRENTLY BEING TAXED WILL BE TAXED UNDER THIS INITIATVE. 

I’m guessing, some folks who already pay the tax will be outraged that ALL of us are not paying the tax. The answer for them is to vote NO. They are currently being taxed illegally. They need to be mad at their carriers and at their local government, not those of us whose carriers are sticking up for our rights. 

You must wonder – is AT&T collecting interest on this money they are holding? 

Of course Barker would like the initiative to pass, so she’s going to be as deceptive as we allow her. At her current salary, she will retire at over $180,000 a year, plus benefits. She needs to make sure we can pay that before she retires. Apparently she is willing to lie, cheat and steal to secure her retirement. 

Please write letters and tell them you see the deception, tell them the initiative needs to make all these points clear, and then tell them you won’t support it anyway. Be sure to write letters to the paper, let’s keep this conversation loud and in the public eye. 

The only way they’re going to get this pig to fly is with lies. We can’t let them get away with it. Write letters, write letters, write letters. 

Write to the Enterprise Record and ask them if Katy Sweeny forgot the end of the story she wrote. 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Time to get your Utility Tax Rebate!

18 Apr

Thanks very much to Lynn Thiesen, finance department $taffer, who has graciously placed the Utility Tax rebate information on the city website, and sent me a link to the city website. But I’ll give you the  link to the actual  form: 

http://www.ci.chico.ca.us/documents/UUTRefundPackage.pdf

The second page tells us who qualifies. It’s fairly generous, actually –  a family of four is allowed over $46,000 a year.  I know plenty of you are living on less than that. 

Here’s a tip – take your bills with you, they don’t need copies, they just want to look them over. Yes, I’ve had them add the bills up, and once, the gal even found a charge I had missed! 

Also, take a copy of the first page of your tax return – they want to see that figure at the bottom right – but BLACKEN OUT YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. No sense being dumb.  They might keep this copy, but they don’t need your SSN. 

The Utility Tax is one of the city’s top three revenues, along with property tax and Transient Occupancy Tax, you know, “bed tax”.  UT brings in millions a year, off your power, water, and if you have it, sewer bills. Thank you God, for septic tanks.   If I was on sewer, I’d call it, a “turd tax.” Just imagine, paying every time you go to the bathroom – GET OUT!

And now they want to re-institute a tax on your phone use. Up until a couple of years ago, the phone companies were collecting UT off your bills, but they found there was no law that really allowed them to do that, so they refused to continue until municipalities all over California rewrote their city code to allow this TAKING. The city of Chico is currently updating their ordinance, but because it’s a TAX INCREASE, it has to go before the voters. 

Wake up Snuffy, that’s YOU! 

They need to get two thirds approval from the voters to get this tax on your phone. You need to ask yourself, “what will I get?” That’s not greedy, it’s called, “survival”. 

The answer is, “nothing.” They want more money, but all we hear from Downtown is lay-offs and cuts to services. They want this money just to pay their pension obligations – YOU WON’T GET ANYTHING! But they will continue to retire at 50 on on 70 – 90 percent of their highest years’ salary, including overtime.  These people will live among us on their $100,000 + pensions, and continue to drive up the cost of everything from housing to gas to meat and eggs. 

Those of you who qualify for this Utility Tax rebate have an opportunity to go Downtown and show them what you think of this TAX INCREASE. 

I’ll be waiting until I get my bill for April usage from PG&E, then I’m going down to the Finance Office and get my money back. Anybody cares to join me, I’ll keep you posted. 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Taxing matters

9 Apr

I want to keep reminding everybody – it’s almost time to apply for your Utility Tax rebate.  You will need your bills – PG&E and Cal Water. They also want to see a copy of the first page of your tax returns – I always black out the ssn’s.  The forms should be available by the end of this month on the city website.  If you have any questions, direct them to the following city of Chico e-mail address:

ltheisse@ci.chico.ca.us

or call 879-7300.

I’m not sure about the amounts, but I think a family of four is in at just over $40,000 a year, and so on. I have not seen the requirements lately, because they don’t post this stuff on the city website until the last minute, and as soon as the  deadline comes around, they take it off. I think they should have to post this information all year round, but let’s face it – they don’t want you to know about it. They want to keep YOUR money to pay THEIR salaries. Be sure to tell them, you think this info should be on that website 365 days a year – why isn’t it?

$taff wants your money. They  have already got council to approve an initiative on the November ballot that will re-institute a five percent tax on  your cell phone, and add a five percent tax to your home phone. Show them now what you think of this grab.

I’m hoping for a happy little posse to go down to the city building with me – remember what Arlo Guthrie said at the end of Alice’s Restaurant? Well, I won’t quote, because it would get me another round of “homophobe!” from my creepy peanut gallery. The gist of it was, it’s better to confront the establishment as a group than just one lone harpy. So, let’s get our little mob up and go down there – the excitement might loosen my purse strings, and I might be up to buying the first round at Shuberts! Wooo-woo!

Let’s yak it up some more this weekend at the Tea Party Tax Day Rally – set up for Sunday, April 15, at City Plaza. Again, Wooo-woo!

Tags: , , , ,

Many thanks to Assemblyman Jim Nielsen for speaking to the Chico Taxpayers Association

3 Apr

I’d like to thank Jim Nielsen for taking his Sunday morning to come to Chico and talk to a group of concerned citizens at the library. Mr. Nielsen took our little group seriously, because we’re fighting the good fight. Thanks to everyone who showed up to listen.

We are showing Tom Lando, not to mention other chickenshits who are hiding behind Lando, that there is no support for raising local sales tax outside of their little clique.  Lando apparently has the support of  certain council members on this –  Lori Barker plopped out a paragraph about how taxes get on the ballot – but she didn’t mention ANYTHING about getting signatures on a petition.  So, I’m guessing, if Lando comes forth with an initiative, council would put it on the ballot with a 5 -2 majority.  I bet you can guess who the five would be, and I’m guessing there might even be a 6!

I’d say the only people who would support this idea are the public salary/pension takers and their hangers on.  At last count, we still got them outnumbered, but for how long, nobody knows. This might be the effort that turns that tide, Folks, let’s keep our shoulders to the wheel.

Let’s not forget, they’ve already decided to put the phone tax on the ballot, without a squeak from the public. There’s a tax that will effect everybody – not only would they re-institute the cell phone tax that was rescinded a couple of years ago, they’d add a tax on your land line!

In past it added up to about $4 on my family’s cell phone bill – might sound like chump change to somebody who skims $100,000+ a year off the public, but it’s a gallon of milk or a couple of packs of eggs as far as I’m concerned.  And, mercy, what $4 would buy at Shuberts!

The phone tax is already on the ballot, we have to start making noise about it. We have to remind people, they’d be better off giving the same amount of money to their local school or charity fund.

Giving more money to the city of Chico is like letting out a pair of pants to accommodate obesity.

Now don’t forget – it’s almost time to get your Utility Tax Rebate. If anybody wants to organize a little party to go down there together, I’d be all over that. Let’s start talking about it now.

You realize, they sometimes pay cash, and Shuberts is like two blocks away. I’m getting chocolate covered raisins, maybe some orange sticks…

Tags: , , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →