The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0722.053 2016-2018STATEMENT RELATING TO HAWAII COUNTY BILL 10,-: SURCHARGE ON GENERAL EXCISE TAX (GET) 51 E2, Albert Nakajji CP- -� 27-319 Kaieie Road Papaikou, HI 96781 waltz@hawaiiantel.net The, subject bill is opposed in its entirety. The main reasons for this position are stated below, although they do not constitute all of the reasons. Your favorable consideration to this opposition is requested. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE TAX INCREASE 1. Although it is stated that the increase amounts to very little in terms of actual dollars, it is important to keep in mind that there is a growing number of retirees, some of whom were part of the plantation era companies with very little in terms of pensions and social security benefits. This is quite unlike younger, working people who may be able to get higher paying jobs, pay raises, or even work multiply jobs to increase income. Many retirees and others on fixed income (E.G., disabled) have no way of increasing their incomes so any increase in cost directly affects how they live. We see the effects of too high cost of living particularly evident with the growing number of homeless in Hawaii. As Mayor Kim has pointed out, we have more than our fair share of such individuals. Granted, many of these individuals have other challenges, however, even not counting such individuals, the number of people who are unable to survive financially is troubling. Some believe it is a myth, a fairytale, but do not be misled. There are many in Hawaii who are teetering on the brink of poverty and do not have good options to get out of that situation. These are people who have worked hard all their lives, and are finding themselves victims to increases in cost of living, frequently contributed to by increased taxes. It is true, that there are frail and elderly who need to choose, on a daily basis, whether to eat a meal or to take a medication. They have no extra cash of any kind, and all the money they make in a month is taken up by necessities. Particularly, the excise tax does not give breaks on food or drugs, and C-Omm; Noi � z�•53 Ref. To: Ref. ®ate many elderly need to take many medications. Medicare and medicaid often do not cover the cost of the meds they need in order to stay. alive. This is not an exaggeration. S 2. The GET is a compounding tax and is applicable to every point of getting goods and services from supplier to consumer. It exaggerates the cost of goods and services, particularly harming those who can least afford it. When someone cannot pay GET, they may not go to jail, or face a fine, but they may starve. 3. It is stated that all proceeds would go to fund County transportation costs. My impression is that this is largely the bus system that is in such dire straits. It has been brought to my attention that the Federal Government has many millions of dollars to assist municipalities pay for the cost of public transportation. An examination should be made to determine how much is being received by Hawaii County and whether there can be better efforts made at getting more Federal dollars. This applies not only to transportation, but to all other aspects of government operations. Does Hawaii County have an effective grants procurement operation? If not, that should be thoroughly explored and exercised before any increase of taxes. 4. Looking at things historically, it is very easy to see that the private sector in the US (as almost every place else) has survived not by increasing cost when necessary, but more often by increasing efficiency and reducing cost at every opportunity. Unlike government, private sector companies are forced to be competitive, or they die. They cannot raise their costs whenever they want, because to do so will often allow their competitors to gain greater market share with lower cost services or goods. This is a great thing about the private sector: It forces the best productivity from people and eliminates the worst. Those who cannot/do not produce up to the requirements are either eliminated or placed into another position where they can meet requirements. This is not so with government. Government has no competition, and any time there is a suggestion to bring in competition by privatization, it is squashed (largely by the unions). The point is that the County must first exhaust all means of cutting costs and wringing out maximum efficiency of service, and thereby reducing or even eliminating the need to raise taxes. Raising taxes must be viewed as the last resort and not the first. I challenge anyone to prove that there are no opportunities to increase savings in County operations/spending. The fastest and most efficient way of gaining resources is through savings. This may take political willpower, and that is what elected office requires. OTHER THOUGHTS The arguments put forth in support of the tax increase is a feeble attempt at distracting the focus of attention which should be on creating better government management. Government should be run "like a business" from the standpoint that it must incorporate all the strategies and operational wisdom that businesses have developed over the hundreds of years. No, government should not be run "as a business",that it, to make money. Government's purpose is public service. It is to deliver excellent service at the lowest cost in order to be of greatest benefit to the citizens. Business measures its success by an analysis of cost versus profits/growth. Government must do likewise in measuring cost versus benefit, but not necessarily growth. Bigger government is not necessarily better government. It can be worse because it can become more cumbersome, slower to act/respond, encourages- "laziness", and generally cost more to maintain. Budgets must be based not on previous year numbers, but on results achieved and on anticipated needs. Needs do not always go up, and budgets should accordingly be reduced. There should be a constant striving for not only better service, but better ways of providing service. This includes, but is not limited to, providing that service in the most efficient manner at the least cost. During the close of 2017, during the budget hearings, Councilperson Eoff proposed, and the County approved, a limitation on the term of the fuel tax `increase. This was to signal the Administration that increasing taxes, and being forced to approve the increase, was unacceptable. For this, the Council is commended. Unfortunately, it seems the signal has been ignored and it may be necessary for a stronger message to be sent. It is the Council's prerogative, and role, to approve or not approve tax increases. If the Council approves the increase, there really is no need to do anything different. No need to try to find other sources of revenue (E.G., Federal grants), no need to reduce operating expenses, no need to eliminate manpower that is unnecessary, no need to more effectively manage personnel work, no need to reduce/eliminate personal use of County vehicles and time-, no incentive to change anything at all. On the other hand, if the tax increase is not approved, costs will necessarily have to be cut. Some would argue that this means a reduction in services. Logic does not necessarily follow, because increasing operating efficiencies does not lead to reduction of services. On the contrary, it may result in greater service. It may mean better utilization of personnel and elimination of waste (resources and workers' time). It takes political will. Who will stand strong for the people? People who, for one reason or another, may not be able to express their opposition, but who are hopeful that through their elected officials, their voice will be heard. Use the logic. Do not fall for the emotional or political excuses. In closing, again, I am very strongly against any form of tax increase at this point. I humbly ask that you oppose Bill 102.