Loading ...PUT UP OR SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP
The critics are already coming out of the woodwork to attack Governor Mitch Daniels’ property tax reform/reduction plan.
The plan would reduce property taxes by 35 percent by 2009 by capping a home’s property taxes at one percent of its assessed value, raising the sales tax one percent, the state would assume the costs of child welfare and school operation costs and putting in place local control board to keep tabs on county spending.
For those of you who want to be big critics, I will concede one point. The devil is always in the details and those will have to be hashed out. However, now is the time to put up or shut up.
If you want property taxes eliminated, bring a plan to the table that actually adds up.
If you don’t like the one percent increase in the sales tax that would allow the state to take more than $900 million of the property tax rolls, what’s your plan?
If you don’t want the state to take over school operation costs or child welfare because you’re worried locals won’t have as much control over those programs, what’s your plan?
If you think the spending caps are too rigid for local governments and they need more flexibility, what’s your plan?
If you have one, great. Bring it to the table and let’s have an honest discussion.
Otherwise will you politely go somewhere and sit down and be quiet and allow mature, responsible adults to solve this state’s problems.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Amen!
October 24th, 2007 at 8:59 am
My only question (so far) is why the Governor felt compelled to assemble a plan of his own when there were already two other groups working on tax reform?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Just for discussion, how about we make the State pay for all state mandates and allow local government to decide upon the mix of property, sales, and income taxes appropriate for the locality.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
i’m ok with this program, but first show me the cuts in spending and the downsizing (merging) of goverment
October 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Question: what happens if you get a responsible City-County Council and a responsible mayor and they actually cut spending? Does this plan help our taxes go down? (I think it does)
But now there will be no motivation for schools to become more economically responsible.
I agree with Doug. The state should take over the child welfare.
I would like to see all local spending (including schools) controlled by either the county government or the city government, whichever is smaller structure is that entirely encompasses the taxing district. Then let those governments make the call on the mix of taxes as well as the amounts. In that case, if your taxes go up, you know who to hold accountable.
I would also like to see the state completely stop property tax subsidies. I would like to see them stop all education funding and then decrease the sales and income taxes appropriately to give the localities room to take over those costs.
October 24th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
A big “Yea” for the Gov!
I believe no one else has said or done anything.
Maybe the reason is if the problem is ignored it will go away and the accountability goes with it.
October 24th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Overall, I like the plan (esp. the 1% cap and referendums for school spending), except for the state taking over child-welfare - why should the state’s taxpayers be forced to bail out marion county of its child-welfare problems?
I’m not sure that the idea of moving to county-based assessment will make the position “non-political.” I do not understand why Indiana cannot totally abolish assessors altogether and merely charge property taxes based upon the buyer’s purchase price plus a small % inflation factor - and not penalize people for the equity accumulating in their homes until and if they transfer the property? Any thoughts on what’s wrong with this idea? This way, a home purchase can predict, perfectly prior to purchase, how much a home (and the imbedded property tax) will cost him throughout his/her ownership of the home. This new proposal, even with a 1% cap, could still lead to people being taxed out of their homes depending upon the subjective “assessment” of value of the home. The problem with subjective assessments is that they take predictability out of home purchases/ monthly budgets - precisely the problem putting seniors out of their homes in marion county right now.
October 24th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
great plan and good to see the GOP solidly behind it and even Bauer saying it is a good start. the naysayers seem to be the business lobbyists. well they got theirs when the inventory tax was abolished. sorry, no double dipping pat kiley.
the child welfare is a state program so that is why they are taking it over. it corrects a long standing issue. they needed to either take it over or leave it to the counties to decided what to fund. it is the stuff lawsuits are made of.
for those who don’t think the school and welfare problems apply to you, your donut counties are growing at quite a clip. more schools requiring capital project, more diversity of income and workforce demanding services. it won’t all be six figure families using it as a bedroom community anymore. support a cap while you can.
October 24th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
“I do not understand why Indiana cannot totally abolish assessors altogether and merely charge property taxes based upon the buyer’s purchase price plus a small % inflation factor - and not penalize people for the equity accumulating in their homes until and if they transfer the property?”
Nothing wrong with your idea WCC, it makes much more sense to me. It’s a more fair way to tax property, and it doesn’t punish people for adding a new deck or finishing their basement (which they spent tax dollars doing).
October 24th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“I do not understand why Indiana cannot totally abolish assessors altogether and merely charge property taxes based upon the buyer’s purchase price plus a small % inflation factor - and not penalize people for the equity accumulating in their homes until and if they transfer the property?”
Theoretically, this is a good idea, however not all real estate transactions are based on fair market value. A few examples of where properties may be purchased at a fraction of property value: one family member selling property to another family member, property purchased at a sheriff’s sale or other auction, etc. The tax assessment is “cheated” in these situations, not to mention creatively structured commercial real estate transactions.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I was just out in California last month looking for real estate opportunities and the realtors out there told me that Californians pay 1.25% of their home’s selling price in property tax. According to them, it does not matter if your home appreciates or you improve it, your property tax bill will not go above the 1.25% of your original selling price. When you do sell it, hopefully with a substantial gain, the new owner will pay property tax at 1.25% of the price they paid for the home. Sounds like a good deal and gets assessors out of this completely. Yes, there will be those who creatively structure transactions or whose transactions do not provide the same benefit as the property next door (friends or relatives who buy or sell from one another at a discount), but by and large the vast majority of taxes will be fairly distributed amongst property owners in a manner proportionate to their original purchase price.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Jill Long Thompson, you’re on notice: STFU. It’s profligate City for generations, and yet we’re to believe it’s Mitch’s fault that all this is happening now? Puh-leez.
Varangianguard, It’s called “leadership.” Look into it. Why should Mitch have waited, exactly? Oh. To avoid criticism of lack of leadership at the expense of thoughtfulness. I see. There’s so much of that from the Bauers, Long-Thompsons, Schellenbergers, et al. Mmm Hmm.
I think that instead of raising the total retail sales tax, we should initially implement a 1% grocery tax for those not on public assistance. Make it permanent, make it impermissible to ever raise it above that 1%. But the shift to consumption is in the right direction.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
“My only question (so far) is why the Governor felt compelled to assemble a plan of his own when there were already two other groups working on tax reform?”
Duh — Can you say “politics”? Every politician on BOTH sides of the aisle will want to take credit for solving the problem of the decade, and every one will attack the plan of another. A politician’s number one job is to get re-elected.
I commend the governor, as I did David Orentlicher, for proposing SOMETHING. I see some scary loopholes, like a potential political plum in an appointed assessor, and the danger that down the road the whole thing can be tinkered with enough for property taxes to start spiraling upward again. But we have to start somewhere, and it’s better than the mess we have now.
And at least one education organization has already sent its members a scare e-mail warning that the plan will submit building projects to a referendum by the COMMUNITY! Horrors — the people who pay the bill may get a say! Expect a lot more resistance from those who might have to become accountable.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Great start, Abdul. Bold move by the Gov, but I’d be curious to hear from your Marion County friend, T.J., if his GOPers will really have the backbone to stand behind their man Mitch. I bet they strip the proposal of the school building referendum, the 1% cap, will increase the sales tax and stick with appointed assessors! ha ha…..you’re right, the devil will be in the details. The Governor has certainly moved this in the right direction…and moved it incredibly nicely. Let’s see what his colleagues do for him now.
October 25th, 2007 at 4:30 am
I had dinner a few weeks ago at the Rathskeller in downtown Indy and Rep. Bauer sat next to me. The Critter on top of his head kept moving and I became sick and had to leave. It was an ugly experience.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Gosh. Who to believe? Birdy or anonymous 10:28?
I go with anonymous 10:28. I do know one or two things about the theoretical underpinnings of “leadership” and most politicians wouldn’t practice most of those traits if you led them on a halter.
For one thing, real leaders innovate. Innovate means to develop ideas ahead of the curve. No politician in this state has done that with taxes.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I like the plan. I think the Gov did some good work here.
I’m worried that most of the state legislature is far more controlled by churches and businesses instead of citizens. I’m afraid the proposed legislation will get mired down with different business groups trying to vie for sales tax exemptions on their businesses or guys like Rep. Drozda appending an abortion ban to the finance plan.
October 25th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Not sure why we weren’t told the numbers, but I would like to know why property tax repeal replaced with other tax would not work.
I think the public deserves to know what property tax repeal plans were looked at and why it was determined they did not produce enough revenue. We all need a chance to crunch the numbers. We should not be asked to take a politician’s word for it that something is true.
I love spending caps and referendums. The public needs as many mechanisms in place as possible so that we can be in control of our state and our money.