Don't Lose Your Head Tax

Seattle's repealed tax could be replaced with a flat use fee for solo car commuting.

Pedestrian Morgue FileSeattle used to have a “head tax” that charged companies for employees who drove alone to work. It was a pretty good deal and it funded important transit infrastructure in the city. But it got repealed after some griping and moaning by the Downtown Seattle Association (DSA), leaving a big hole in the city’s transit budget. A look at Oregon’s system for funding transit (a regular old payroll tax) makes me think a new and improved version of Seattle’s head tax might look pretty attractive to business, city, and commuters alike. Let’s call it a “Don’t Lose Your Head Tax” where solo car commuters pay a flat fee to do so, businesses collect it via payroll and it goes to important city infrastructure that benefits everybody.

First some details. Last summer the DSA successfully advocated for the repeal of the so called “head tax,” a $25 dollar charge to companies for each employee who drove alone to work in the city. Small businesses were exempt from the tax and the average business paid $92 a year. Small as that sum may seem, the tax generated over $4 million a year for bike and pedestrian infrastructure. The DSA obviously didn’t know how good they had it! Our neighbor to the south, Oregon, allows local transit districts to levy a payroll tax on businesses to pay for bus and rail service. Comparatively, Seattle businesses pay very little—and with the repeal, nothing—for transit.

The fact is that $92 to pay for significant city investment in alternative transportation infrastructure was a bargain. The DSA’s position on the “head tax” has always been flat out disingenuous at worst and plain wrong at best. In its effort to satisfy business interests, the Seattle City Council repealed the tax. The DSA said that the tax would hurt business, was too complicated to fill out, and didn’t actually impact the employee who drove to work but, instead punished only the business who had no control over the transportation choices that employee made. Richard Conlin also repeated over and over again that the tax was not high enough to act as a disincentive for workers anyway.

As I have written elsewhere the repeal of the “head tax” has created a $4 million hole in the Seattle Department of Transportation budget during a recession and at a time when the city is supposedly on a campaign to achieve carbon neutrality. Now the city is trying to find a way to replace that revenue to fund bike and pedestrian projects, and I have a great idea how they can do it—taking the best of Oregon’s set up.

How about we replace the “head tax”—which was a tax on workers who commute to work alone—with a payroll deduction, not based on wages but for employees who drive alone to work? The idea would be to generate the same amount of revenue for something good (pedestrian infrastructure for example) from something bad (driving to work alone) in a way that is easy and fair.

Here’s a look at Oregon’s system. In 1969, the Oregon State Legislature passed House Bill 1808 which authorized local transit districts to raise revenue through a payroll tax. By the end of that year TriMet was formed and had imposed a payroll tax. The payroll tax generates the bulk of the $211 million dollars that TriMet collects in tax revenue to fund its operations. The employer is on the hook for the payroll deduction and has to pay $6.818 in tax per $1,000 in wages. That means for an employee earning about the median income in the region—$50,000—the employer would pay about $340 annually to TriMet to pay for transit operations. In Eugene, to Portland’s south, the charge is $7 per $1,000 in wages. These payroll taxes are easy to administer because employers already have to deduct numerous federal and other taxes and charges from payroll. All a business would have to do is dial in one more in their payroll program.

Here’s my deal for the DSA. Seattle could improve on Oregon’s system. Let’s reinstate the “head tax” but, this time, we’ll collect the tax from employees who drive alone instead of their employers. It would be a use fee collected via payroll; it isn’t taxing wages like the payroll deduction for TriMet since we can’t legally tax wages in Washington. The charge per employee who drives alone to work would be a flat charge, say $25, collected on an annual basis from the employee’s paycheck. And the DSA should love the fact that this simpler method would be collecting money from the employee, not the business. And to deal with the councilmember’s concern that $25 isn’t enough of a disincentive, the charge could rise by 25 percent a year over the length of an employee’s tenure. Gradually they’d feel the pinch and maybe get on the bus or try biking to work. More importantly the city would get its $4 million—and perhaps more over time—for improvements to make it more and more convenient and efficient for people to walk, bike, carpool, and ride transit to work rather than slugging it out in long, expensive, single-occupant car commutes.

A use fee taken via payroll for sidewalks, bike paths, and transit improvements is a win for business because it’s easy to administer and they don’t have to pay it, a win for the city which would have a replacement for the lost head tax, and employees who did drive alone would get the message about alternative transportation choices on a regular basis while barely feeling the $25 fee. And the City of Seattle would be able to take a tangible step toward making the city a leader in alternative transportation. This would also go a long way toward helping Seattle meet its goal of carbon neutrality.

Photo courtesy of jppi from morguefile.com.

We are a community-supported resource and we can’t do this work without you!

Read more in , ,

Comments

  1. Matt the Engineer says:

    I don’t get the difference here. Businesses used to have to count the number of employees that drive alone, multiply by $25, and pay the tax. Now businesses will have to count the number of employees that drive alone, take $25 out of each of their paychecks, and pay the tax. If anything, that’s a bit more work. Also, it increases the incentive for fraud – before when your employer asked you if you drove to work you had no incentive to lie.Not that I’m against it, I just think I’m missing part of the argument.

  2. Jon Scholes says:

    Roger,Interesting post. Although I would say your proposal has serious social justice flaws (among others). Under your proposal, the low wage worker who is employed in Seattle (a hotel janitor for example who might start their shift at odd hours) but can’t afford to live in Seattle pays the tax, while the software engineer who resides on Queen Anne and drives their BMW everyday to and from the Microsoft campus in Redmond doesn’t pay a dime. This is a regressive tax dressed in progressive clothes. If we believe that Seattle residents are demanding more investment in bike and pedestrian improvements and Seattle residents stand to gain the most from these investments, why shouldn’t we ask them if they want to pay more for them? As a cyclist, walker, runner, one car household, father of twins often found pushing a wide double stroller on narrow sidewalks (and Vespa rider) – I’d vote in favor. Also, I believe you’ve rewritten a little history in regards to where the “job tax” revenue was being directed. It was not being solely directed to bike and ped improvements as you contend. Furthermore, the Commercial Parking tax (adopted in conjunction with the head tax) is bringing in much more revenue than originally projected (because the City miscounted the number of lots) and more than covers the revenue lost from the repeal of Seattle’s tax on jobs.

  3. Roger Valdez says:

    Hi Jon, I am so glad to see that the Downtown Seattle Association is taking on social justice issues. Does that mean a change of heart on panhandling legislation? And I do think that many in Seattle would support a major ballot issue that would put pedestrians, bikes, and buses first when it comes to funding. Would the DSA support a levy for that? And finally as it concerns “rewriting history,” I have to, of course, disagree. The DSA may have put a notch in it’s advocacy belt on the repeal of the “head tax,” but to call it a jobs tax goes beyond the pale. I challenge you to produce at least one example of a business that has hired new employees because of all the extra money they have from not having to pay the “head tax.” As I said in the post $92 doesn’t go a long way for a medium size business, but in aggregate, the revenue from the “head tax” actually paid for lots of projects that hired real workers. And I am still mystified as to why the DSA is in support of increases in the Commercial Parking Tax. As many of us said last summer, we’d be glad to let the “head tax” go for a replacement that made driving alone more expensive and using alternatives less so. Boosting the CPT and parking meter fees would be a good start. Roger–

  4. Scott says:

    Just a random thought, but what about mandatory Transit (Orca) cards. Employee/employer pays $25/month. That $25 must be used with in 90 days. After 90 days the remainder goes to the alternative transit fund. Not only does this raise funds, but it drives awareness of transit as an option. There might be some underground economy created out of this, but then again…?

  5. Sophia Katt says:

    While I am almost always in favor of taxing those who are causing a problem (i.e., you do this, you pay for it) asking an employer to pick out who drives and who doesn’t is unworkable. Imagine being said employer and please explain what you would do when a) employee doesn’t park in/near the business, b) employee tells you he doesn’t drive in and two months later you spot him driving away, c) employee truthfully says he doesn’t drive in because he doesn’t own a car and then inherits one later, d) he usually doesn’t drive in but breaks his leg and can’t walk for a month, e) doesn’t drive in but you change his responsibilities and hours which forces him to drive in, f) employee lives in an area where Metro continually changes the bus schedule and you require him to be in your place of business at a specific time regardless of the schedule, and g) well, you get the idea.What this idea communicates to me is that you may never have been an actual employer administrating actual employees.

Leave a Comment

Please keep it civil and constructive. Our editors reserve the right to monitor inappropriate comments and personal attacks.

*

You may add a link with HTML: <a href="URL">text to display</a>