With looming budget holes that won’t be filled by the property tax system, the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners this week asked the question: What if there were another way?

County Controller Mark Pinsley floated a possible solution last month by penning a report detailing a proposed intangible personal property tax that proponents say could generate more than $25.5 million annually by taxing Lehigh County residents who own stocks, bonds and other assets.

At a public hearing on the idea Wednesday night at the old Lehigh County Courthouse, emotions ran high, with many expressing skepticism, and even outrage over the idea.

“This is a slap in the face. To have the money that I worked hard for and privately invested to be taxed again,” said Michael Siegel, a 36-year resident of the county and manager of Lowhill Township.

Others thought the idea should be explored further.

“Do not think of this as a wealth tax. Think of it as an investment in the future of Lehigh County,” Christopher Huber of Coopersburg said. “Not addressing the need to diversify our revenue streams in this county will only lead to greater and greater hikes on our property taxes and cuts on our social services.”

At the start of the hearing, Commissioner Sarah Fevig noted that there is no pending legislation on the intangible personal property tax, commonly called a “wealth tax,” and that the hearing was just an exercise to learn as much as possible about the option.

Lehigh County Executive Josh Siegel confirmed that he does not intend to call for a wealth tax in his 2027 budget proposal.

In his report, Pinsley proposed a flat 4 cents-per-mill tax — 0.4%, or $4 per $1,000 of asset value — on selected intangible financial assets. Without new revenue or cuts, Pinsley claimed, Lehigh County could be forced to increase property taxes as much as to 21% in the next budget cycle.

There was no tax increase in this year’s county budget.

Lehigh County had a similar wealth tax in the early 1990s, but it was repealed after court challenges and criticism that it wasn’t fairly collected.

“Pennsylvania desperately needs a workable progressive tax system,” Commissioner Geoff Brace said. “The intangible personal property tax has a history which clearly demonstrates that it is not that. Due to the limitations constrained by the courts and Pennsylvania legislature, it’s practically unworkable. That’s why it was abandoned by every county that ever had it in Pennsylvania.”

The proposal received pushback from several others on the board. Commissioners Ron Beitler and Antonio Peneda penned an opinion column this week along with former Lehigh County Executive Phillips Armstrong decrying the proposal, saying it was illegal and misleading. While the plan seemed aimed at the wealthy, the trio wrote, it would affect small businesses and savers of all income levels.

Lehigh County should focus on controlling costs, delivering core services and encouraging economic growth, they wrote.

“This is not a bold new idea. It’s a recycled bad idea that every county that once had it walked away from,” they said. “Taxing savings discourages saving. Taxing investment discourages investment. Taxing small business ownership discourages growth, expansion, and job creation.”

Although there was no vote on the wealth tax idea, Commissioner Jon Irons said the conversation leaded up to the hearing was valuable feedback on what constituents want from their leaders in local government.

“There is a lot of pain out there. The social system that many of us grew up with is falling apart, and there is a huge exacerbation of wealth inequality across the country,” Irons said. “I believe the people closest to the pain should be closest to the power, and that’s what’s happening in this conversation.”

Pinsley did not speak at the hearing. Earlier this month, he said the report was not a tax “plan,” but rather a starting point for a discussion about the county’s budget, services and “who ultimately pays when costs go up.”

“My office did not create a tax plan, and I am not asking the county to adopt one, but rather to review a method of assuring ordinary people don’t have to pay the lion’s share of any additional tax the board may need to raise,” he said. “The budget problem, however, remains. I remain hopeful that the commissioners will look for ways to resolve our current funding deficit without resorting to a property tax that continues placing the burden on ordinary people.”

Commissioner April Riddick thanked Pinsley for starting the conversation. She said she feared cuts in services would affect the county’s at-risk communities if new funding streams aren’t found.

“We don’t want more taxes coming, but the reality is we have to have some kind of revenue coming in. Is it the best idea? Maybe not. But at the same notion, we know that we’re going to be coming up on a deficit soon,” Riddick said.