Comments on: DANIELS PROMISES MAJOR PROPERTY TAX REFORM

By: Geesh

Geesh — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:44:12 +0000

Hello, what’s wrong with you people can’t even concentrate and keep to the subject- No wonder we have a mess in Indiana.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:07:32 +0000

Actually the city sets the amount that is paid into insurance. So when you get a raise, oh Barty Boy lets you endure more of the cost and the city pays less. The insurance company just sets a flat rate plan for the city and they contribute a certain percentage and you the rest. Same thing as stated earlier regarding raises and a very good point. I would like to see the person who posted $61000 was high ( even though police aren’t payed that)walk from 30th and capitol to 38th at 2:00 in the morning and then come back with an opinion on salary. Oh thats right they wouldn’t make it back!!

By: varangianguard

varangianguard — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:05:20 +0000

Jay, Where did you get that piece of incorrect propaganda?

All school systems, including IPS, have a sliding scale based on degree and years in system. The only possible exceptions would be for “hard to find” math and/or science teachers. Second year teachers probably still make in the 20’s somewhere. Hardly a highly renumerative career.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:54:45 +0000

RE: last post..the raises are effective Jan 1 of each year, prior to that, in November our health insurance carrier raises it’s rates for the next year. (do you think they know we are getting a 3% raise)????????????
Then after a raises goes into effect, there are more taxes to be paid, and a % of that raise automatically goes in to the retirement fund.
And I’ve probably missed something that eats in to that 3-5% raise. I wish it was $60k..

By: Indylawdog

Indylawdog — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:01:26 +0000

Ref the IMPD claim of $60,000 for a 3rd year patrolman, that is WAY TOO HIGH!!! I will only make a base of about $51,000. The closest I will get to $60,000 a year is in 2010 when the contract that gives us nothing raises my base up to $58,000. Keep in mind though it may sound nice, but over the course of a 4 year contract my annual raises in percentage terms was 2007(0%), 2008(3%), 2009(4%) and 2010(5%). The total of all that is 12% over 4 years which some might think is nice, but remember that inflation kills about 3% a year, so I will make exactly the same as I do now 3 years from now. Add in the added costs passed on to officers from the city for our health/dental benefits (and I use the term loosely) and we once again loose money over the life of this contract. The mayor hates his police and treats them like crap. I hope and pray Ballard wins just to get a shot at a fair contract from the city instead of Bart’s crap.

By: Buzzy Whitlow

Buzzy Whitlow — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:57:50 +0000

To the posters asking about IMPD salaries: I have 30 years of service with IPD; my W2 for 2006 says $49,604. In addition to base salary, that includes extras such as car duty pay, uniform allowance, overtime, etc. Whoever tells you that 3d year patrolmen are making $51K, $60K, or any other outrageous sum is LYING.

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:06:04 +0000

after 2 yrs IMPD make about 51k. seems a little high, but remember the average ips teacher makes that much for working only 9 months.

By: Biased Observer

Biased Observer — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:21:56 +0000

Off the subject, but as I understand it 3rd year IMPD officers will be earning $60,000. Can anyone verify?

By: RB

RB — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:56:59 +0000

Although that sounds encouraging-you can’t help but wonder why he chose Governor Kernan and Justice Shepard, two people who have had a direct hand in the mess of property taxes. Kernan and the Democrats that pissed away a 2 billion surplus and can’t account for it except that “roadkill mop” says “We gave it to the people” and Shepard who gave us market based assessments mess of a system so that government could go on with its unaccountable spending ways. hmmmm

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:35:45 +0000

Abdul, if you get a chance, ask Gov. Daniels what percentage of the property tax increases are attributable to increases in local government spending.

I read in the South Bend Tribune an estimate by legislative economist, Larry DeBoer, that, of the average 24% increase in property taxes, only 6% had to do with increases in local levies. The rest had to do with tax shifts from business tax payers to residential tax payers and from State government down to local government.

I think Gov. Daniels is side-stepping the inconvenient fact that his “balanced” State budget happened in good measure by shifting State obligations down to local government.