O'Malley, Legislature Plan Regressive $#!* Tax

O’Malley opts for more regressive ‘flush tax’

What Gov. Martin O’Malley billed as a 100 percent increase to most Maryland residents’ “flush tax” would become a 150 percent increase under a new proposal his administration is discussing with lawmakers. Instead of a levy based on water consumption, O’Malley (D) is now pushing a flat fee that would be more regressive, hitting low-, middle- and high-income earners nearly equally.

The change marks a reversal for O’Malley, who in touting his original plan said it was unfair to make a widow in Baltimore pay the same amount as the owner of a mansion. But after hearing from business associations and other opponents, O’Malley concluded that his plan was unworkable.

The amended bill would increase the yearly cost of nearly every resident’s flush tax — which is used to restore the Chesapeake Bay — to $75 from $30. Households that receive public assistance, such as food stamps or supplemental security income, or otherwise qualify as low-income generally would be exempt from paying the fee...

Robert M. Summers, secretary of the Department of the Environment, said the push for a consumption-based flush tax was abandoned partly to assuage the concerns of businesses.

That's interesting.  The local water co-op in our community currently collects the flush tax from the residents, and passes it on to the state.  As far as I know, (and I should), there is no mechanism in place for households on public assistance to be exempted from the tax.  I'm fairly sure there are a number of households in the service area that qualify and collect public assistance.

 

How did the original proposal work?

Under the original proposal, the 31 percent of households in those counties that use between 2,000 and 4,000 gallons monthly would have paid between $1.80 and $4.30 per month — still less than the flat monthly fee of $6.25 being considered.

And users of septic systems, which are not metered for water use, would have seen rates double to $5 per month. The new plan would put their rate, like everyone else’s, at $6.25 per month.

In our area, houses are on septic, however, we are working towards getting our water metered (trust me, it's not simple when the average cost of a meter for a household is approximately $1000, including installation.  So septic does not necessarily preclude metered water.

Nor is all water use equal in terms of its impact on infrastructure and pollution.  Water used to wash, bodies, clothes, dishes and to flush toilets does end up in sewage or septic systems, and  contributes to the nutrients issues of the bay, while water used to irrigate lawns may largely evaporate, and not contribute an equivalent dose of nutrients to the bay (or it may contribute more, if the homeowner is a heavy user of fertilizers.

My point is that even the original "progressive" plans for the $#!* tax would have inherently unfair aspects.