Comments on: Thompson Calls Tax Caps “Gimmicks”

By: Taxpayer 834512

Taxpayer 834512 — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 03:56:36 +0000

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.

By: Andy Horning

Andy Horning — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:25:00 +0000

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/

By: Robert-NW Side

Robert-NW Side — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:59:15 +0000

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

By: Robert-NW Side

Robert-NW Side — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:51:17 +0000

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

By: Robert-NW Side

Robert-NW Side — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:09:11 +0000

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 !!

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:09:15 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:05:24 +0000

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?

By: Taxpayer

Taxpayer — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:53:47 +0000

Thank you, Watchdog!!

By: Watchdog Indiana

Watchdog Indiana — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:49:54 +0000

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.

By: Watchdog Indiana

Watchdog Indiana — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:41:36 +0000

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.