To the editor:
As we end the legislative session with the prime piece of business — roads — unfinished, let’s give some thought about how we might pay for road repairs in a way that is fair to taxpayers and drivers, most (but not all) of whom are the same people. Back in the 1980s, the federal government coined the term revenue-neutral—so that any change in taxes had to be offset by another change in revenue so that there would be no net increase in taxes. That’s how we got the last big income tax reform in 1986. But perhaps we should add an important second qualification, namely distribution-neutral. That is, the change should not alter not just the total level of taxation (revenue-neutral) but also the burden on the individual South Carolina resident.
We can’t do that precisely without an overwhelming amount of information, but we can do a reasonable approximation. Here are two useful pieces of information. One is that about 35 percent of our gasoline taxes come from nonresidents, who live in states where gasoline taxes are higher (since we are close to the bottom among the 50 states). The other is there are about 4.2 million vehicles registered in South Carolina. So let’s say we wanted to raise another $400 million a year in in gasoline taxes, which would require increasing the state gasoline tax to 29.4 cents per gallon, still slightly below the national average of 30.1 cents per gallon. Of that extra $400 million, $140 million would come from nonresidents. The other $260 million would come from the state’s drivers.
Every household that owned a car would be entitled to a refund of its share of the $260 million increase in revenue, which they could claim by indicating on their income tax how many cars they own. The refund would average about $62 per car. Simple. Fair. And those who don’t buy gasoline wouldn’t be paying any more tax or getting any refunds.
What’s not to like?
— Holley Ulbrich, Clemson, S.C.
The value of development
To the editor,
You, like so many others, [Brack, “State needs to stop kowtowing to developers“] are quick to be critical of Kiawah and seldom look on the positive side of the development. No development in America is more tastefully done than Kiawah. The beautiful trees , green space, and beaches have been carefully protected. Where in America do you know of where deer, foxes , wild cats, turtles , alligators, etc coexist with humans.
When one rides through Kiawah it is difficult to see the homes , hotel, and other structures for the lush greenery that has been carefully protected. I am not certain of the numbers but Kiawah in general probably offers the area over 2,000 jobs. Not the highest paying but still jobs. The tax base for Charleston County is considerable and the citizens are, for the most part, considerate [and]law-abiding who offer minimal burden to community services. Unlike Volvo , Boeing , etc., there were no expensive state or community incentives offered. The golf courses are recognized as some of the best in the country. For 20 years, my son , Buddy, worked hard to create this masterpiece and I am proud of what he was able to accomplish.
— Dr. Charles Darby, Mount Pleasant, S.C.
Send us a letter. We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information.
- Send your letters to: feedback@statehousereport.com
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!