Thompson Calls Tax Caps “Gimmicks”
Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Jill Long Thompson this week called the property tax caps passed by the Legislature “gimmicks”.
Thompson made the statement while participating in a candidate forum in Indianapolis on Sunday.
She said she supports capping how much property taxes can increase, but she says the caps passed by the legislature were a bad idea.
Thompson reiterated her call to reform Indiana’s tax code, but was short on specifics.
I have a message into House Speaker Pat Bauer to see if he agrees with Thompson’s assessment of the bill his chamber passed 3-to-1.
I’ll let you know what he says.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:07 am
She still in the race???
October 21st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Tax caps are a band-aid and sold by our legislature as historic, but it is an historical blunder. JLT has it right as gimmick, but not for the correct reason. The road to Constitutionalize caps without first seeing how effective they may be is a knee-jerk quickfix to end their short session. Secondly, why enslave property owners to a feudal system of annual payments to big brother just to keep your home? This is constitutionalized ransom. The state loves it and wants you to love it too. Every homeowner deserves the right to own his property free and clear; not lease it from the government thru annual blackmail under threat of annual eviction. Acceptance of this kind of sophisticated slavery where your home is always bound by the shackle of government and your pocket is annually picked or else, is a sad commentary of the tunnel vision from our Indiana lawmakers who seem more obsessed with who can marry who, immigration, and daylight savings time. We need new blood and new thinking; not reconstituted ransom notes.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:21 am
I respect patriot paul, Melyssa, et al, re property tax reform. Maybe big pix, long-term, property tax is to be the correct path. Given the myriad of failures (see Kernan-Shepard) on different parts of different levels of government (all pointing figures at “the other guy”), I don’t know that a better compromise could have been reached in the political reality of Indiana.
October 21st, 2008 at 9:22 am
sorry “…long-term, REPEAL OF property tax…”
October 21st, 2008 at 9:28 am
Pretty soon she will be saying that property taxes are patriotic.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:04 am
I was always taught that it was “patriotic” to obey the law even as you work to change it. I am a Dem voting for Mitch because I think he is desperately trying to bring the state into the 21st century. I hate the new property tax burden and am very afraid that the pols of both parties will conspire to find some kind of reason that the 1% cap can’t be permanent. I think Mitch will hold their feet to that fire, though. As for property taxes in general, they are a way of funding neccessary government services and within reason are as good a way as any. We just need to debate the appropriate amount of money and what it is used for. For example, the elimination of 1000+ township trustees would be a good start at stopping unneccesary expenditures. Consolidation of all of the school corporations in Marion County would be another.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:02 am
The ‘cap’ isn’t a ‘gimmick,’ it is a lie. A one-percent cap of… what? Whatever they want to make it.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:08 am
While JLT seems unclear as to the reason; capping a VARIABLE (that which is subject to change, historically upward: annual trending, “market value” assessment system), is a gimmick. As assessments annually trend (constitutionally failed by design, to meet any standard of market value which is a transaction and nothing else), and are increased year after year (i.e., from $100K to $120K to $150K, etc.); how do so called caps, protect the taxpayer? It’s not difficult to understand.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:53 am
Patriot Paul has it right. Isn’t it interesting how tax bills aren’t out before the election?
October 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Well, don’t tell that to Mayor Peterson who lost because the tax bills were out. I just hope that people remember on election day that it is insanity to keep electing the same people expecting different results. Vote anit-incumbent.
October 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Except maybe Mitch…. since I don’t know where that JLT is coming from. :)
October 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
The deal made by the last legislature wasn’t a gimmick. It was an outright lie to taxpayers.
Go ahead and ask the toupeed speaker what he thinks. His view is inconsequential…it’s about the 50th such deal he’s made with the devil.
Every year, these clowns convene in Indianapolis with one goal: come back next session. They live for another session. They push important decisions off and spend their time on stupid social issues that have little real relevance.
Judge Thomas Fisher of the Indiana Tax Court ruled the former property tax system was unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to fix it. IN 1999! They waited eight years, until the absolulte last minute, and screwed the pooch for meaningful tax reform.
When you’ve been here long ehough to see that kind of legislative dodging, Abdul, we’ll see how you feel.
A pox on their houses. Their ridiculous delays cost us all, and in the pinch to get something done, they passed a law with only one meaningful component: a 1% cap on overall property value.
But the myriad problems for school and state budget funding, and for taxpayers facing real hardship…well, they got the bum’s rush. All that, and a rise in the sales tax. Did you all forget that little gem thrown into the mix? Governmental malfeasance worse than Bowen, and that’s bad.
But hey, not to worry! Bosma, Bauer, et al will be back next year!
Party on, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Bosma. And shame on both of you.
Jill’s campaign may have been difficult to watch at times, but on this score: she hits a home run. Probably too little and too late, but she’s right.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
It seems as though MA residents are taking their state tax issues seriously – there’s gonna be a vote to eliminate State income taxes:
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/forbes/2008/1027/021_2.html
October 21st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Please DO let us know what Pat Bauer has to say, Abdul. That is, IF he’s dumb enough to say anything this close to election day. He’s already told us he won’t call for a vote on the issue. Trying to contact local candidates to see where THEY stand is also a challenge — Ed Delaney has never responded to the question of whether he would support an amendment on the caps, Teresa Lubbers sent her usual curt and convoluted response about what she did LAST year and never answered the question, and we have not found a way to contact either Adam Nelson or Todd DeGroff. Steve Keltner replied in support of eliminating property taxes, but I’m not certain whether he would support the amendment or not.
Patriot Paul is right in principle, but the caps will at LEAST provide some relief while we continue to fight that fight. Let’s face reality — if it ever happens, it will be a long way down the road and a lot of people on low or fixed incomes will lose their homes when the next wave of increases hits. If we have no constitutional protection, you KNOW it will hit. Along the lines of “love your neighbor, but don’t cut down your hedge” — let’s hedge our bets so we aren’t all homeless before we succeed in freeing ourselves from this feudal yoke!
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 am
The so-called property tax relief passed last year was no more than “smoke and mirrors” aand sales taxes were increased by 1% to supposedly relieve the extradinary tax increases. It didn’t work and we got a 1% increase of another tax as well. Please ask JLT or our man Mitch to make enough time to console all the citizens who will lose their homes to tax foreclosure. REPEAL ALL PROPERTY TAXES and replace the revenue with a “sales tax” on all services including legal, accounting, and consulting services. I think that a 3% consumer tax(goods and services) would more than create enough revenue for state and local government.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 am
Uh huh..yeah, let’s amend our Constitution yet AGAIN based upon yet more lies.
-
Government and the media mislead about 77 percent of voters into ratifying the abolishment of the ‘inventory’ tax. In return for this abolishment, homeowners were told that government could (would) exempt their homes.
-
We all know how that went. To add insult to injury, the government began their ‘phase-out’ of the inventory tax two years BEFORE the Constitution was amended to ALLOW this.
-
Indiana courts had ruled that the General ASSembly didn’t have the authority AT ALL to exempt the so-called ‘inventory tax’.
-
Hey, why let the Constitution and the courts stand in the way of politicians and other bottom-feeding government bureaucrats?
-
The same lie can be affixed to the federal income tax act. THIS affront to liberty was sold to the people as affecting about 1 percent of the population.
-
How much of the U.S. population is currently embraced by our tax code as implemented? More than 1 percent?
-
DAVE has it right in his post #8.
-
We don’t need property taxes to support local government. Government INSISTS on taxing our property as a ‘stable’ form of revenue.
-
If a homeowner becomes unemployed, said homeowner is still ‘liable’ for property taxes. This is why govenment doesn’t want to move to some form of other tax for the support of local government — if you are unemployed, you are not paying any (or very little) income tax. Your discretionary spending is also curtailed – thus affecting sales taxes (aka voluntary tax).
-
The People should NEVER loose their homes to government via taxation. NEVER!
-
I was strongly against the 2004 amendment to Article 10. I am equally against this proposed amendment. It will cement this tax within our Constitution.
-
We should be working towards abolishing the property tax on private homes for the support of government. We should insist that government be faithful to the language, spirit and intent of the Indiana Constitution, and not constantly be working on ‘work-arounds’ to circumvent our organic law.
-
How many people have already lost their homes to the property tax? How many might have kept their homes if this tax were at least reduced by 50 percent or more? This leads into….
-
Taxation to support the ‘common (public) schools’. Taxation of your home to support public schools is offensive to our Constitution. Read the funding methods contained in Article 8, then get mad!!
-
Remember the lies from the last amendment from 2002 and 2004, and get even more angry!
-
Every fracking incumbent should be voted out. Every.Last.One !!
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 am
The constitutional property tax caps in Senate Joint Resolution 1 must be passed to keep local governments from using the Distressed Unit Appeals Board to increase the 1% homeowner property tax cap the General Assembly passed this year. The exact same version of SJR 1 that the General Assembly passed this year must again pass in 2009. We the people can then vote in 2010 to make the 1% homeowner property tax cap a permanent part of the Indiana Constitution that cannot be bypassed by any legislature or court. We need SJR 1 to get permanent property tax relief from our recent sales tax increase. SJR 1 is a giant step down the road to additional property tax reform.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 am
148 of the 230 Governor and Genaral Assembly candidates have publicly declared their position on constitutionalproperty tax caps. Thier positions, as well as contact information, can be found at http://www.finplaneducation.net/2008_general_elections.htm
Marion County State Representative and State Senator elections this November 4 will help determine the fate of the constitutional property tax caps in Senate Joint Resolution 1.
Never has it been so easy for Hoosier working families to identify those candidates who care about our state and local tax burdens. Our State Representatives and State Senators must vote next year to approve the constitutional property tax caps in Senate Joint Resolution 1.
The State Representative and State Senator candidates who are part of the property tax reform solution because they support SJR 1 include Ed Angleton, Robert W. Behning, Brian C. Bosma, John J. Day, Jon Elrod, David N. Frizzell, Phillip D. (Phil) Hinkle, Steve Keltner, Ken Kern, Teresa Lubbers, L. Jack Lutz, John Meuser, Chad D. Miller, Patricia Miller, Michael B. Murphy, Adam E. Nelson, Lawrence T. Newman, Cindy Noe, Chris J. Swatts, Brent Waltz, and R. Michael Young.
State Representative and State Senator candidates who are part of the property tax problem because they oppose SJR 1 include John F. Barnes, Jean Breaux, Barry Campbell, Todd DeGroff, Stephanie DeKemper, Edward O. DeLaney, Pamela Hickman, Timothy J. Huber, Shayne Merritt, Terry Rice, Mary Ann Sullivan, and Greg Taylor.
Even more disturbing are Jeb Bardon, John L. Bartlett, Michael Cesnik, William A. Crawford, Terry Gingles, Lee Ann Mengelt, Gregory W. Porter, Cherrish S. Pryor, James Rainey, Ray G. Shearer, and Vanessa J. Summers. They do not respect their voters enough to publicly say whether they will vote for SJR 1 next year.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Thank you, Watchdog!!
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Robert. I am in agreement with much of what you say. I think that the Indiana General Assembly is the worst legislature in the country and this whole property tax fiasco is laid right at their feet. But I can not understand why capping the property tax is a bad idea. Sure, the property value is a variable. But I would rather have a one percent maximum rate on an increasing value than have both an increasing value and an increasing rate, like we have now. And it seems to me that a locked rate in the constitution would be more difficult, if not impossible, for those fools to bypass. Also, you inspired me to look at the Indiana Constitution again. While Article 8 does not delineate residential property tax to support schools, Article 10 does not seem to limit the use of the property tax that way. Of course the arcane language makes it a little difficult to understand. What am I missing?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Watchdog. Thanks you for your help with this. I think it is one of the most important issues in the election. High property taxes are an issue across America the receives little attention but has a huge affect on the housing market slump.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Hello Tom – I’m happy to see your interest in our Indiana Constitution.
-
The funding methods for our Common (public) schools are contained within Article 8 Section 2. Not the commandment in the first sentence of Section 2:
-
“The Common School fund shall consist of…”
-
“SHALL CONSIST OF”
-
That is powerful language, and it was used for a purpose. The Delegates at the Constitutional Convention spoke much of education. Our original 1816 Constitution spoke to education, but provided no public funding. This so-called “evil” was remedied with the 1851 Constitution.
-
If you’ve studied our Constitution, you will note that there are provisions that are worded in general language, and some that are quite specific. Section 2 of Article 8 is quite specific when laying out the funding methods for the common schools
-
Also, one cannot dismiss the powerful commandment contained within the first sentence…”SHALL CONSIST OF”.
-
This is not ambiguous language. It was placed there for a purpose. It is clearly LIMITING language, clearly stating WHAT shall be used to support the common schools.
-
As you now know, the ONLY mention of any property tax used to support the common schools SHALL BE “Taxes on the property of corporations, that may be assessed by the General Assembly for common school purposes.”
-
Thus, the General ASSembly ‘may’ assess a tax on corporations for the support of our common schools. Or, they may not.
-
However, the General ASSembly does NOT have any authority AT ALL to tax your home for the support of the common schools.
-
If the INTENT of the Delegates who drafted the language in Section 2 was to give government carte blanche, they certainly could have done so.
-
That they did NOT clearly shows their intent to LIMIT the funding sources to certain, specific sources.
-
Article 10 simply commands that there will be an ‘ad valorem’ tax assessed and collected certain classes of property. Article 10 also COMMANDS that government “SHALL provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation and SHALL prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, both real and personal.”
-
As we all KNOW, government cannot seem to accomplish this.
-
Constitutions simply CANNOT be in conflict with themselves! Ask Abdul. Article 10 could NOT authorize a tax on property for the support of common schools when Article 8 clearly does NOT authorize such a tax.
-
Taxes collected under Article 10 are for the general support of government. If government is using ANY form of revenue OTHER THAN what is described in Article 8 Section 2, then government is usurping the will of the People who RATIFIED the language employed in Article 8.
-
Now, can government simply pass some legislation allowing government to tax your home for the support of the common schools? Sure, they ‘could’ — BUT; would such legislation be Constitutional? What does OUR Constitution say about this?
-
Article 1 Section 25: “NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”
-
Thus, government can NOT pass any law authorizing the taxation of your home to support the common schools, as this would be repugnant to our organic law, our Indiana Constitution. Any Constitution trumps legislation. While any grade school child SHOULD know this, our Indiana Code also cites this simple fact:
-
IC 1-1-2-1
Hierarchy of law
Sec. 1. The law governing this state is declared to be:
First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state.
Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions.
Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section.
-
Indiana Code even states that laws issued by government cannot be “inconsistent with such constitutions.”
-
I hope that the above is of some small help to you. I believe that there are link at the Indiana Historical Society to view the Journals of the Debates of the 1850-1851 Constitutional Convention. Enjoy !!
October 24th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Following is a link that trys to explain the various funding sources for our Common Schools.
-
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~acorntree/history/delaware-co/thomasbhelm/helm-school-funds-6.html
October 24th, 2008 at 6:59 am
More research tools availabe from the Digital Collections of IUPUI. You can research from the actual Constitutional Convention Journals from this site.
-http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2FISC&CISOSTART=1,21
October 24th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
In legal hierarchy remember to consider Article I Section 25 of our Indiana Constitution.
Laws depend upon constitutional authority; they do not create authority. Only the constitution creates authorization. So most of our laws written “pursuant” to the constitution are themselves illegal, as they depend upon authority never granted.
http://www.horningforgovernor.com/
http://wedeclare.wordpress.com/
October 24th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Thanks to Watchdog Indiana for post 18 that names names regarding our elected officials stance on state property tax caps in SJR 1.
.
Thanks to Taxpayer for post 14 describing the responses we also get from Senator Lubbers: “curt”, “convoluted”, and “…didn’t answer the question”. We can’t even get her to acknowledge a problem with our emergency rooms being overrun. Competing Libertarian candidate Steve Keltner has a solution for this based on legislation passed in Colorado, and other good ideas to boot.