Math > Your Bullshit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get a life... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bill.N. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > He made them up. I mean that literally. The
> > > usual figure quoted is that nonresident sales
> > make
> > > up about 28%, but a couple of sources put it
> > > slightly higher.
> >
> > The often mischaracterized 28% is a Board of
> > Tourists number that refers to numbers of
> people,
> > not amounts of money. The non-residents who
> will
> > pay the tax -- tourists, commuters, and
> business
> > travelers -- spend more money per meal than the
> > average person. A rational expectation for the
> > share of actual revenues to be released from
> these
> > people would be in the 33-35% range.
>
> That's exactly wrong. Once AGAIN, the numbers are
> taken directly from a very broad economic model,
> Travel Economic Impact Model (TIEM), which
> estimates travel
expenditures (not people
> as you continue to incorrectly state) which they
> pulled from the Virginia Tourism Corporation aka
> the U.S. Travel Association.
>
> The calculation can be found on page 4 of
> Attachment A to the County Supervisor's memo (aka
> the meals tax "white paper") here:
>
>
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news2/proposed-meals-
> tax-what-to-know-now/
>
> It is as follows:
>
> $2.852 billion total expenditures from the TIEM
> data above * 20% guesstimate for the percentage
> representing food-related expenditures = $570.4
> million * .04 meals tax = the $22.8 million number
> given for meals tax revenue which happens to
> roughly correspond to 22.8% of the ~$100 million
> total revenue estimate ($96 million specifically).
>
>
> That is the
ONLY derivation of the number.
> There is no other. So that part of your BS is
> done.
>
> The only people-related number given is for net
> in-/out-commuters. That has its own problems in
> the way that it's calculated and used including
> significantly that it completely ignores the rest
> of about 600,000 people in the county beyond that
> who eat multiple meals on a daily basis x ~365
> days/year.
>
>
> >
> > > The truth is WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THE
> MEALS
> > TAX DOLLARS
> > > ARE PAID BY NONRESIDENTS because nobody has
> > gotten the kind of
> > > data needed to make that estimate.
> >
> > LOL! And we have no idea what the high
> > temperature will be tomorrow either. Take a
> > statistics course or something.
> >
> > > In the absence of hard data the County's
> numbers
> > should be
> > > considered to be at the optimistic end.
> >
> > I prefer to consider your posts to be worthless
> > dull-brained bullshit. Because experience has
> > taught me that most of them are.
>
>
> We may not know what the exact numbers will be but
> we can make some rough estimates and judgements of
> the quality of the analysis based on what we do
> know.
>
> The TIEM number used as the basis for the Board's
> calculation is not appropriate as it is used.
> Without going into all of the reasons for that, I
> can demonstrate that it is not and the magnitude
> by which it is not using Arlington as an example
> for which we have the same TIEM data and actual
> data for its meals tax revenue.
>
> On the same basis using the same TIEM data source,
> Arlington benefits from about $3.1 billion in
> annual travel-related expenditures (i.e., the same
> top-line number used by Fairfax in its estimate).
> Note that's $248 million MORE than Fairfax's.
>
> Using the Board's same method of estimation:
>
> $3.1 billion * 20% = $620 million * .04 = $24.8
> million.
>
> Yet Arlington's actual
TOTAL revenue (i.e.,
> including all of tourists, commuters, and
> residents) from it's meals tax was only $37.1
> million.
>
> So, rather than the assumed ~22% of estimated
> meals tax revenue that the Board is assuming for
> Fairfax, on the same basis that would represent a
> whopping 67%(!) of the $37.1 in total ACTUAL meals
> tax revenue for Arlington.
>
> Or looked at another way assuming that the Board's
> 22% is correct, Arlington SHOULD be generating
> roughly 3X the meals tax revenue that it actually
> is.
>
> In other words, the TIEM number significantly
> overestimates the level of expenditures.
> Primarily that's due to the nature of the
> TIEM-derived number itself which, while fine for
> its own uses, implies way too much in the way of
> expenditures for use as the Board does.
> Particularly so when simply trying to back 20% of
> it into a financial calculation based on county
> sales tax data (the basis for which also screwy in
> its own way). Also significantly, there is no
> attempt made to differentiate taxable vs
> non-taxable food expenditures for either. So
> their top-line numbers are all fucked up from the
> start.
>
> Now if you want we can run through some similar
> calculations using the same data as it's given for
> in-commuters vs residents using Arlington's
> actuals (or Alexandria, Fairfax City, etc.) to
> solve for some of the unknowns and extrapolate to
> Fairfax County. Where that all will shake out is
> that based on their numbers at ~$100 million the
> Board's estimate appears to be off one way or
> another in the neighborhood of about $31 million.
> Either it's way too high (possible since all that
> they did was to take gross sales tax numbers for
> "food and drink places" and multiply by 4%), or
> we'd have to roughly double annual revenue from
> tourism and in-communting (highly unlikely), or
> residents will make up the difference.
That is good information. The meals tax is clearly a win-win. I will definitely vote yes.