Lawmaker wants to tax umpires

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

I guess this politician has never held a job that made him travel and complete work out of state. Salesmen, engineers, architects, artists, OTR truckers, train and airline employees all are just some of the many people who live in one place and work in another. It sounds like someone's crying in their beer - hey, that reminds me - Budwesier anyone? That comes from Missouri, so they can't all be bad.

[Rich]

I travel for my job, probably to at least 20 states in the last year. I only pay taxes at home. I don't have an office in those states and neither do the visiting players or umpires. It's just a money grab on low hanging fruit that don't have a vote.



[Edited by bob jenkins on Nov 3rd, 2005 at 02:13 PM]

[TBBlue]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

Rich,

I can't speak with certainty about how the players are taxed, but I would imagine their taxed in their state of primary employment.

I'm sure the umpires are paying state tax somewhere. If I had to guess, I would think it's in their state of residency.

JMO- Tim.

A lot of MLB umpires "reside" in Florida because there is no state income tax. It is deemed unconstitutional.

However, FL whacks tourists with the Restaurant, Hotel, and Rental Car taxes, plus the sinners with the tobacco and alcohol taxes. Then they go ahead and whack everybody with one of the higher gas taxes in the country.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by TBBlue (SNIPED)

A lot of MLB umpires "reside" in Florida because there is no state income tax. It is deemed unconstitutional.

However, FL whacks tourists with the Restaurant, Hotel, and Rental Car taxes, plus the sinners with the tobacco and alcohol taxes. Then they go ahead and whack everybody with one of the higher gas taxes in the country. [/B]

Yeah, my fair State of Connecticut has the highest gas tax to the best of my knowledge.

[Edited by ozzy6900 on Nov 3rd, 2005 at 08:47 AM]

[TXMike]

Looks like Mr. Roorda has had his own issues. From the official court records related to a lawsuit involving Roorda: (Roorda was, and still is, a police officer in Missouri)

The record reveals that in July 1997, Roorda attempted to try to "cover" for another police officer by filing a report that contained false statements as to what happened during a suspect’s apprehension and arrest. As a result of this false report, all charges against the defendant involved were dropped, and Roorda received a written reprimand from B. J. Nelson (the City’s Chief of Police at the time) for violating the City Police Department’s General Order 74.4 ("False Reporting"). (FN4) The written reprimand issued to Roorda stated, in relevant part: "If it is ever determined again that you have lied in a police report, you will receive a more severe punishment, up to and including termination."

On March 15, 2001, Roorda wrote a memorandum to Dale Fredeking ("Chief Fredeking"), who was then the City’s Chief of Police, (FN5) informing Chief Fredeking of Roorda’s intention to utilize twelve weeks of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") to attend to the upcoming birth of his child and asking permission to take such leave from May 22 through August 14, 2001. Roorda further asked to have this time classified as paid sick leave. On March 19, 2001, Chief Fredeking responded to Roorda by memorandum, informing him that, while he could take FMLA leave for the birth of his child, the leave would be unpaid and the City could require him to use all of his paid vacation time before receiving unpaid FMLA leave. Chief Fredeking further advised Roorda that the pertinent Departmental General Order did not allow the use of paid sick leave to attend to the birth of a child.
On May 1, 2001, Roorda met with Chief Fredeking in Fredeking’s office to discuss his refusal to grant Roorda’s request to receive full sick pay while on FMLA leave. Roorda closed the door to Chief Fredeking’s office a couple of minutes after the meeting commenced. On May 21, 2001, Roorda filed an Allegation of Employee Misconduct Report ("Misconduct Report"), in which he stated that Chief Fredeking had verbally abused and attempted to intimidate him during the May 1, 2001 meeting, which began in the Chief’s office around 11:15 a.m. that morning. In particular, Roorda alleged that "Chief Fredeking yelled and cursed at me and slammed his fist on his desk in what appeared to be an attempt to intimidate me away from my legitimate request to use sick time. The Chief’s door was open at the time and the administrative staff was on hand." The next day, Roorda filed an Internal Affairs Statement of Complaint ("IA Complaint") setting forth exactly the same complaints and allegations contained in the Misconduct Report he had filed the day before. Within the body of the IA Complaint, Roorda affirmed that the facts and information contained therein were true as follows: "I, Sgt. Jeff Roorda, do hereby affirm that the foregoing statement was given freely and without duress, and that all facts and information contained therein are true to the best of my knowledge."
On May 22, 2001, the Commander of the Department’s Division of Internal Affairs, Detective Sergeant Richard Shular, was assigned to investigate the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint filed by Roorda. During the course of his investigation, Sgt. Shular interviewed Roorda, who, upon being asked if he had any other evidence that might support his allegations, "whether it be of a paper nature or any tape recordings or anything," replied that he needed to confer with his attorney. After doing so, Roorda acknowledged having tape-recorded his May 1, 2001 conversation with Chief Fredeking and later provided the cassette audio tape, which had been in the possession of his attorney, to Sgt. Shular. Roorda subsequently admitted that, on the same day (May 1, 2001), he had also tape-recorded conversations between himself and other Department personnel, including a secretary (Carol Shaw) and Chief Fredeking’s administrative assistant (Lieutenant Terry Schweitzer), without informing them that he was doing so. After interviewing all other persons involved in the incident complained of by Roorda in the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint and reviewing all of the evidence available to him relating to the incident, Sgt. Shular, in a report dated June 4, 2001, stated that there was no evidence of any kind to support the allegations made by Roorda against Chief Fredeking in either the Misconduct Report or the IA Complaint. In particular, Sgt. Shular concluded that the tape recording of the May 1, 2001 meeting demonstrated that Chief Fredeking did not slam his fist on his desk, did not yell at Roorda, and in no way attempted to intimidate Roorda. The audio tape also revealed that while Chief Fredeking did at one point use some coarse language ("bull****" and "crap" ) to describe his overall impression of Roorda’s unauthorized request to receive full sick pay while on FMLA leave, (FN6) he did not yell and curse at Roorda as alleged by Roorda in the Misconduct Report and IA Complaint. Most of this was further corroborated by Ms. Shaw, who was working at her desk located immediately outside Chief Fredeking’s office before, during, and after the May 1 meeting. Due to his past disciplinary record, the seriousness of the false reports filed by Roorda, and the other Departmental General Order violations he had committed, Sgt. Shular recommended that Roorda be terminated.
The City terminated Roorda on June 20, 2001, and he then appealed to the Board. The Board found that in willfully and secretly tape-recording his May 1, 2001 conversations with Chief Fredeking, Ms. Shaw, and Lt. Schweitzer without proper prior authorization to do so, Roorda violated the Department’s General Order 14.3.12 ("Unbecoming Conduct"), for which dismissal is an authorized penalty. (FN7) The Board also found that in knowingly making false statements and allegations in both the Misconduct Report and the IA Complaint, Roorda violated General Order 14.2.4 ("Truthfulness"), an offense that is also punishable by termination of employment. (FN8) The Board further specifically found that Roorda’s testimony during its hearing was "not credible and was not worthy of belief," while finding the exact opposite regarding the City’s two primary witnesses against him, Sgt. Shular and Ms. Shaw. The Board ultimately concluded that Roorda "was disciplined and terminated based upon sufficient and credible evidence, and the entire record supports termination for just cause as set forth in the Arnold Police Department’s Policy and Procedure Manual." The Board thus sustained the City’s action in terminating Roorda. Other facts will be discussed later as necessary to decide this appeal.

[jicecone]

Certainly looks like a very good Resume for Mr. Roorda's career as a politician. God, he may be President some day.

[mattmets]

Originally posted by ozzy6900
Yeah, my fair State of Connecticut has the highest gas tax to the best of my knowledge.

[Edited by ozzy6900 on Nov 3rd, 2005 at 08:47 AM]

Ozz....I checked it out....we're 9th.

http://www.insurance.com/Article.asp...ices/artid/157

[Rich]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I travel for my job, probably to at least 20 states in the last year. I only pay taxes at home. I don't have an office in those states and neither do the visiting players or umpires. It's just a money grab on low hanging fruit that don't have a vote.



[Edited by bob jenkins on Nov 3rd, 2005 at 02:13 PM]

OK, what needed to be edited? I don't even remember what I had posted.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by mattmets

Ozz....I checked it out....we're 9th.

http://www.insurance.com/Article.asp...ices/artid/157

Damn, this sucks - we can't be first at anything here in CT!

[GarthB]

Originally posted by mattmets

Ozz....I checked it out....we're 9th.

http://www.insurance.com/Article.asp...ices/artid/157

Ozzy was addressing the highest gas TAX. The site you referenced speaks of the highest gas PRICES. Two different animals.

[Tim C]

Garth's point is VERY important.

If you notice Washington is slightly behind Oregon in the survey. But that doesn't mean anything with taxes.

In Oregon we cannot pump our own gas. The gas MUST be pumped by an attendant. In Washington you can pump your own gas.

This means Oregon's "gas price" is less than Washington BEFORE you add labor for pumping. This translates to Washington TAX RATES being higher than Oregon.

BTW, only Oregon and New Jersey think their drivers aren't smart enough or safe enough to pump their own gas.

Tee

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

OK, what needed to be edited? I don't even remember what I had posted.

You quoted a post that I deleted, so I deleted your quote.

[bkbjones]

Car rental tax is 18.5%, which is slightly less than 50%. If you rent it at the airport, you pay another 10% to 12% "airport concession fee." So...don't rent one at the airport.

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

See "rental car" and "hotel" taxes for GREAT examples. Try renting a car in Seattle once -- the taxes are 50% of the rate.

[Rich]

Originally posted by bkbjones
Car rental tax is 18.5%, which is slightly less than 50%. If you rent it at the airport, you pay another 10% to 12% "airport concession fee." So...don't rent one at the airport.

Sorry, I fly into SeaTac, I'm renting a car at SeaTac. Should I hitchhike to an off-airport Hertz location or something?

I can't believe you're saying I'm exaggerating by saying it's 50% by saying hey, it's only 30.5%. Does that sound any less criminal?

Why should Car Rental Tax be 18.5%? Then 12% airport rental tax, too? So I rent a car for a week and the base rate is $300 and the city gets $90 of this? Hey, build another freaking stadium while you're at it.

It's an EVIL tax for those of us who travel regularly. Cities should just stick their hands out when I fly in. I mean, look at the mayor's rationale in this article. At least he doesn't pretend:

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/new...l/12343512.htm

And the MOST expensive city I've ever seen was renting at IAH (Houston Intercontinental). There the taxes and fees are 70% of the rental cost according to a Travelocity survey done 2 years ago:

http://tinyurl.com/92fuh

--Rich



[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Nov 4th, 2005 at 02:32 PM]

[bkbjones]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Sorry, I fly into SeaTac, I'm renting a car at SeaTac. Should I hitchhike to an off-airport Hertz location or something?

I can't believe you're saying I'm exaggerating by saying it's 50% by saying hey, it's only 30.5%. Does that sound any less criminal?

Why should Car Rental Tax be 18.5%? Then 12% airport rental tax, too? So I rent a car for a week and the base rate is $300 and the city gets $90 of this? Hey, build another freaking stadium while you're at it.

It's an EVIL tax for those of us who travel regularly. Cities should just stick their hands out when I fly in. I mean, look at the mayor's rationale in this article. At least he doesn't pretend:

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/new...l/12343512.htm

And the MOST expensive city I've ever seen was renting at IAH (Houston Intercontinental). There the taxes and fees are 70% of the rental cost according to a Travelocity survey done 2 years ago:

http://tinyurl.com/92fuh
--Rich
[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Nov 4th, 2005 at 02:32 PM]

Ummmm...I didn't say you were exaggerating.

And if I had to guess, I'd say the off-airport car rental companies, which regularly run their shuttles through the councourse, do far more business than the on-airport car rental companies.

And, yes, it's all robbery. I have been extorted in Houston at both Bush and Hobby...and at LAX, Orange County, Sacramento and many others.