To the editor:

The voters on Mat-Su will soon decide if we wish to have a sales tax imposed upon ourselves. Some points of interest are as follows:

1. It is a regressive type of tax that falls heavier upon people of lesser means than those of higher means. Any economist will collaborate this. Do we really want to burden those who can afford it the least with higher taxes? 2. I have found in other states where I have lived that sales taxes never go down and often rise in time.

3. If the trade-off is lower millage for property owners then many out-of-state business owners will benefit at the expense of local tax payers. As an example, Wal-Mart would save over $100,000 in property taxes in the first year alone. The passage of this ordinance would bring tax relief to many multi-national businesses who now are operating in the Valley. Examples being Lowes, Home Depot, Fred Meyers, Carrs, et al. These lost property tax revenues would have to be made up by the local tax payers. These entities do not buy things here, they sell things. This is the direct opposite of my concern noted in No. 1 above.

4. A sales tax would be a non-reimbursed accounting expense burden to all business owners, unless I've missed something in my reading of the ordinance.

5. I believe one tax to support our local government compels our citizens to have closer scrutiny with how much it costs them to fund the borough. It's easy to see one number (the property tax bill) once a year and to realize how much it rises subsequently. If taxes go up too fast then people start leaning on the assembly, much to its disdain. We all know paying a little at a time is easier than paying one lump sum. However, it would be much harder (if not impossible) for us to know how much sales tax we would be rendering over a year by paying few cents at a time. It could be a little more or it could be a lot more. I personally believe this reason is why this issue has been brought forth the several times it has, and always by the assembly mind you. Sales tax proponents are cognizant of this and know it would probably mean a larger revenue stream, but alas, so do the voters. I believe this is why it has been routinely rejected at the polls and will be again. 

6. More money going into the borough means more government because it then becomes more affordable (see: economics 101). 

7. The Valley tax payer doesn't trust the assembly with a new revenue stream. Not last time and not this time.

Bill Stanfill

Palmer