'User fees' are terribly regressive, The working poor pay just as much as the filthy rich

I can't think of a more regressive tax than that user fee appliedto those who work in Huntington and Charleston.

But I can think of no other way Huntington and Charleston can getthe money they need than through this tax that's called a fee to getaround the law.

If you're a single mother who works as a waitress in Charleston,you pay a dollar a week. If you're a Charleston lawyer and make$250,000 a year, you pay a dollar a week. Rich or poor, you pay thesame.

Where's the fairness in that?

Huntington has been collecting the fee for more than a year. Folkswho work in Huntington now pay $2 a week. A Cabell County circuitcourt judge has declared the fee legal since the ordinance creatingthe fee specifies that the money will be used for police and thestreets, two services that people who work in Huntington use or mightuse during their time in the city.

In Charleston it's much the same. The fee money is applied toservices that those who work in the city might use no matter wherethey live.

A bizarre state constitution calls for bizarre workaroundssometimes. And this is exactly what's up with the user fee. Accordingto the state constitution, cities can't levy their own taxes as theycan in most states, including Ohio and Kentucky.

The reason? West Virginia is a profoundly rural state. Not only dofolks seem to hate cities, but legislators who represent them fearthat cities will get too much power, perhaps more power than thestate itself.

I'm still at a loss to explain why Kentucky, which appears to beas rural as West Virginia, has allowed cities to levy their ownpayroll taxes.

It's a little different in Ohio. There are more urban areas inthat state and those urban areas probably have a major voice in theOhio General Assembly.

But back to the threat of powerful West Virginia cities: How can astate where its two major cities have about 50,000 people get toopowerful? What would they do with the power if they had it?

In Mountain Mama's case, the tail is simply too short to wag thedog.

I suspect many legislators claim there's no use putting aconstitutional amendment on the ballot allowing cities to levy taxes.It wouldn't pass, they'd probably say.

Well, it would pass if they explained to their constituents whyit's necessary for any successful state to have prosperous cities.

The history of mankind proves that the most successful societiesare those that have had flourishing cities. Without them, society isdoomed to living in the shadows of those who have thrivingmunicipalities.

That's only part of the pathology that exists in our legislativesystem, but it represents thinking that has caused us to be where weare.

It's the difference between leadership and follower-ship, betweensuccess and failure, and between accepting the way things are andleading the state toward the light.

Peyton can be reached at 522-0179 or dpeyton@davepeyton.com.