In the aftermath of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirming a state Commonwealth Court ruling that Pittsburgh’s “jock tax” indeed is unconstitutional – that is, it violates the state’s uniform taxation clause – Pittsburgh City Councilwoman Barb Warwick, D-Greenfield, said officials might have to discuss a tax hike.
“Obviously the decision is disappointing,” Warwick told the Post-Gazette. “I know this is something that people don’t necessarily want to hear, but I think as a city we need to really start talking seriously about the ways we can start raising revenue.”
Counselor, how about economizing services through contracting them out, freezing pay and cutting dead weight? But, I digress…
A 14-page opinion written by Justice David Wecht found that the city failed to “provide concrete reasons that would justify taxing nonresident athletes and entertainers more than resident athletes and entertainers.”
“Nonresident athletes and performers will now be subject only to the city’s 1 percent income tax,” the P-G notes.
But Warwick appears to be playing the “blame-some-other-dude” card:
“Yet again, it would be incredibly helpful if our large nonprofit partners would pony up funds to help us run the city that they benefit so greatly from,” Warwick told the P-G.
Pay no attention to the increasingly enormous contributions that Pittsburgh’s large nonprofits make to the economies of the city, region and state, right?
And here’s an important question: Why would these nonprofits “pony up” anything other than the gigunda jobs and economic impact contributions they already make to a city that is a recidivist mismanager of taxpayer dollars?
Take the very “jock tax” now stricken by the state’s highest court, for instance.
A dubious tax to begin with 20 years ago, even when it became abundantly clear that it ultimately would be found to not pass constitutional muster, the city continued to use the millions of dollars it brought in annually in its budgeting process.
Now, not only will it not be collecting an estimated $6 million for 2025 and millions, too, annually in the future, it very well could be on the hook to reimburse athletes and entertainers for about $79 million in taxes that have been paid to the city since the “jock tax” took effect in 2005.
So, in Councilwoman Warwick’s mind, given her nonprofits comment in juxtaposition with the Supreme Court striking down the “jock tax,” those nonprofits, directly or indirectly, should ride to the rescue?
That passes no sniff test that we know of. In fact, it’s the kind of governmental hubris that has kept Pittsburgh’s economy barely treading water for decades.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
