We guess we’ll chalk it up to her youth and inexperience, but newly-appointed county commissioner Kelly Allen showed far too much enthusiasm for having yet another referendum on imposing an additional quarter-cent sales tax during last week’s daylong commissioner retreat on budget-related issues than the idea deserved.
“I know it’s failed four times,” she acknowledged to the rest of the board. “But to me it’s the only fair tax because right now, we’re putting it all on the homeowners.”
Well, that’s not entirely true either.
Alamance County residents, including all homeowners, are already paying a 2 percent local sales tax that applies even to food (see separate editorial this edition), although food would not be taxed by the additional quarter-cent local option sales tax.
The current 2 percent sales tax is funneled back to county government and local municipalities and is a significant part of each local government’s annual budget.
We’ve noticed a rather consistent pattern that Allen acknowledges, but she simultaneously wants to ignore.
The reality is that voters have turned down imposing an additional sales tax on themselves four times.
We think it is a waste of time, effort, and planning to contemplate yet another ballot question on the subject.
In North Carolina, voters are rarely asked their opinions on anything, but one of the few areas where they can have a say at the ballot box is on additional sales taxes.
So with varying pretexts, previous boards of county commissioners have put before voters the option to have an additional quarter-of-a-cent sales tax imposed on purchases across the county.
Granted, the local option tax, unlike the existing county sales tax, would not apply to food. But it would apply to most other purchases, large and small.
The usual rationale, or sales pitch to voters, is that a local option sales tax would – or at least could – be used to offset some of the property tax rate.
The other favorite diversionary claim is the notion that the county will reap a windfall in sales taxes from all of those out-of-county folks who patronize Tanger Outlet, Alamance Crossing, and other shopping areas in Alamance County. (Ignoring the fact that most of the sales tax will be paid by the same Alamance County residents who are paying the property taxes on their homes, farms, and other properties.)
Those are the tunes that have been heard each time the sales tax proposal has made it to the ballot, the most recent time being in 2018 when voters were asked to approve the measure as a partial method for paying for two bond packages – $150 million for ABSS and $39.6 million for ACC.
Voters agreed to bond packages, but not to the increased sales tax.
And here’s what voters can see that politicians seem to ignore: voters rarely get a choice on whether and how much they will be taxed, but when they do, they instinctively vote against a new tax, because they know that inevitably it will not be a replacement for property taxes, but only another layer of additional taxes.
County officials said at last week’s meeting that the quarter-cent sales tax would raise more than $7.6M, the equivalent of about 3 cents on the property tax rate.
If there was some enforceable method for exchanging the quarter-cent local option sales tax for a permanent reduction in the property tax rate, well, maybe, it would be a worthwhile consideration.
But there’s not, and we certainly don’t trust politicians to abide by a promise to swap out one tax for another – even if they are well-intentioned enough to plan to do so.
Commissioner chairman John Paisley, Jr. and new commissioner Ed Priola have previously told the newspaper – in responses to an issues questionnaire prior to the 2024 election – that they would oppose putting the local option sales tax on the ballot again.
Voters may want to lobby Pam Thompson, who said in 2024 she supported another go on the ballot, and Steve Carter, who has historically been sympathetic to the idea, as well as Allen, who is new to the process, but already seems to be very fond of the idea.
The other problem facing commissioners is one of timing.
The legislature has, quite fortunately, required that any referendum for increasing taxes must take place during countywide votes, i.e., either primaries or general elections of even-numbered years.
So the issue can’t even be submitted to the voters again until 2026.
But we doubt that the fifth attempt will fare any better than the previous four, which were defeated overwhelmingly.
Our view, which we believe is shared by most taxpayers, is that any time they can vote to keep their taxes from increasing, or vote against some new method of taxation, they will do so.
They have done it time and again. And even five times if commissioner Allen and any like-minded commissioners say they want to try.
