Put On Your Tax Caps
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that in 2010, Indiana lawmakers will pass putting property tax caps on the ballot for the November election.
“Wow, Abdul, you really did go all out on that one!” Tell me about it.
Seriously though, I base this assumption on some new data from the State of Indiana concerning property taxes. The average Hoosier property taxpayer pays about 30% less in property taxes than he or she did in 2007.
In Marion County, about 90% of property taxpayers saw some decrease in their tax bills between 2007 and 2009, 83% of that had decreases between 20 and 60%. Because of that I frankly don’t see how lawmakers (i.e. House Democrats) can vote against putting tax caps on the ballot without suffering serious political consequences.
Already Democrats have to deal with the political climate of mid-term elections which doesn’t favor the party in power. In addition, Republicans have fielded or will field between 20-30, mostly credible, challengers for the House of Representatives. And while there may not be much political capital in voting for tax caps, there are consequences for voting against them.
The one ace that I believe House Speaker Pat Bauer does hold in his hand is the desire to put caps on assessments as well. As much as I have always supported tax caps, I have always thought homeowners could use the extra protection of caps on assessments; absent the home being recently sold which would determine the new assessed value.
Of course the big criticism of caps is that is puts local governments in a vice. Although there are a lot of people in local government around Indiana that I respect, I’ve never fully bought that argument either. The Legislature has given the locals plenty of tools to make up for loss revenue and local governments have dragged their feet on consolidation and reform, which would immensely help them deliver services in a more efficient manner.
A committee vote on the tax caps could could come this week in the House of Representatives. And as much as some House Democrats may dislike the notion of tax caps, they dislike the notion of Speaker Brian Bosma even more.
*Editor’s note: I did not talk about property tax repeal because that is not going to happen because I live in this place called the real world.
December 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
What's “real” about a GA that ignores the existing cap known as Article 13?
December 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I can't believe that TA and the rest have not commented yet. :)
December 13th, 2009 at 11:09 am
The constitutional amendment in the identical bills HJR 1 and SJR 1 has TWO important components.
One well-publicized component is that the property tax caps would be enshrined in the constitution where thay cannot be changed by the General Assembly and courts.
The second lesser-publicized component of the constitutional amendment is that property tax assessments and deductions are made constitutional – they are not constitutional now because of the “uniform and equal” clause contained in Article 10 Section 1.
BOTH components of the constitutional amendment are equally important. If the constitutional amendment does NOT become part of our constitution, the circuit breaker credits created by the caps WILL be sucessfully chalenged in court. Part and parcel of this circuit breaker challenge will be the court elimination of ALL credits and deductions that are not “uniform and equal.” The property tax savings that Abdul refers to are primarily the result of the $45,000 homestead standard deduction and the 35% supplemental homestead deduction.
Without the constitutional amendment, the courts will eliminate BOTH the legislative-only caps AND the homestead deductions – THERE WILL BE A PROPERTY TAX EXPLOSION!!!!!
December 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Property taxes are unconstitutional period. True ownership comes from not being taxed on property or income but rather buying goods and services. The Indiana Legislature, Governor, and Courts are completely wrong and out of bounds for even taxing people in this way and should stop peddling our money like it is their own. The real populist uprising will start soon when the US dollar collapses and a revolution will incur. It is not a good time to be in politics unless that person is dedicated to restoring our liberty back to the principles set for in both the Indiana & US Constitution. We are 3 months away from seeing the collapse happen as banks are severely under capitalized, their stock prices too high (go look at their PE ratios and if you see it over 10, then it's a bad investment), and that market to market accounting was suspended thus keeping their balance sheets artificially high & through fractional reserve banking methods with heavy investments in the Dubai experience and other commercial real estate ventures will collapse banks like dominos. Anyone who can not see this happening does not have any understanding on how the market works and are living in a fantasy. This house of cards is going to fall fast and you better start stocking up on food and ammo for we are on the cusp of a whole new experience.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Abdul,
Your property tax calculations include a one time adjustment from selling casino licenses at the two horse tracks.
My neighbors and I certainly did not see a decrease in our property taxes from Marion County in our last bill. The assessors have already found several loopholes. The property tax caps appear to have become a goal instead of a restriction for our assessors.
Don't forget that property tax reform was not free. Property tax reform was designed to be implemented over several years, if ever, while the offsetting increase in the state sales tax was increased immediately.
Politicians are counting on voters having a short memory when they defeat the property tax caps in the dark of night.
December 13th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Mark my words. This constitutional cap gets added and it will eventually end up being the biggest heist of our money ever perpetuated on Indiana's people by the filthy snakes embedded in our capitol.
If Indiana's politicians obeyed the constitution, we would not be in this mess! Property taxes are not meant to fund schools…PERIOD! Only corporation taxes are to be used to fund schools written and this FACT is written in such plain English that any normal person who can read can understand it.
NEVER did the politicians address the public's concerns concerning our state's adherence to Article 8. Once during a 2007 town hall inside the legislator's hall at the State House I heard local realtor Mike Rowe directly ask the panel to explain why our state government was in violation of the Indiana Constitution Article 8. He directly confronted that dirt bag Bill Crawford about it on live television. Crawford acted like he never heard Mike and ignored his question. Mike is technically Bill Crawford's boss! How dare he!
Aaron Smith is a taxpayer watchdog fraud. And I'm not alone in that opinion! This is a shameful trick being played on the public.
Our property tax system is broken and the ONLY reasonable solution is repeal of homestead taxes to be replaced with a TRANSPARENT form of taxation.
December 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
You are wrong Aaron Smith and you are a fraud as a watchdog. If you were really a watchdog for us, you would be working toward a solution that involved ELIMINATING this broken system entirely. Instead you play along and advocate the “solutions” created by the very snakes that led us here.
December 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Good reporting Abdul. Thanks again.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Watchdog Indiana supports the Jeff Thompson Property Tax Replacement Plan. The property tax paid by individuals is replaced by variable local income taxes. See http://www.finplaneducation.net/property_tax_re.... The constitutional amendment in HJR 1 and SJR 1 is a pragmatic step that can be taken now to protect homeowner property tax relief until the Thompson Plan garners support.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Aaron, we both know as soon as they pass this “pragmatic step”, as you call it, there will be no chance for repeal.
Our legislators won't do a damned thing more. Would you be willing to wager your house against my home that they will. Because I would bet that they don't do a damned thing more.
Some of us watch the past behavior of the legislators in order to determine what they are likely to do in the future. You act as if they can be trusted, when in fact as evidenced by their behavior, our legislators (with very few exceptions) are not worthy of the public's trust.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The caps are designed to lull the public back to sleep so that the raping of our citizen's wealth by our legislators can continue without question and pesky PR problems like homeowners in the streets with pitchforks will not impede the heist of our wealth by politicians.
A citizenry mobilized by anger and unfair taxation is the only chance we have for repeal. We both know political pressure doesn't happen when the citizens are pacified. The caps are meant to pacify the public with the vast majority of the pubic being deceived into believing that the caps are the long term solution.
You are participating in this political deception and sham, Aaron. The best thing that could happen to further our opportunity to force repeal of property tax IS a “property tax explosion” for that would bring out the public anger to get the job completed.
History is a great teacher, Aaron. I encourage you to watch the past actions of our politicians more closely in effort to better predict what their future behavior if you really want to be a watchdog for the citizenry.
As of today, you are more the watchdog for the politicians against the citizenry.
Oh…and it wouldn't hurt you to study the traits of the sociopath either, because that is what most of Indiana's politicians are. Know what you are dealing with.
December 13th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Aaron you are full of b.s.
December 13th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Aaron can't answer the question about Article XIII. Abdul dodges it too. Aaron claims to not inhale this smoke but isn't the repeal of Article XIII the real goal? What is wrong with talking about the Elephant in the Room? Would it be that Legislators are thieves and oath breakers? Anent Honest Abe's point earlier the wise would understand that he was alive and well when Indiana adopted Article XIII in protest against the politicians of that era.
December 13th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Okay people, humor me. How does Article 13 apply here?
Here is what it says…
Section 1. No political or municipal corporation in this State shall ever become indebted, in any manner or for any purpose, to an amount, in the aggregate, exceeding two per centum on the value of the taxable property within such corporation, to be ascertained by the last assessment for State and county taxes, previous to the incurring of such indebtedness; and all bonds or obligations, in excess of such amount, given by such corporations, shall be void: Provided, That in time of war, foreign invasion, or other great public calamity, on petition of a majority of the property owners in number and value, within the limits of such corporation, the public authorities in their discretion, may incur obligation necessary for the public protection and defense to such amount as may be requested in such petition.
Show me in Indiana where a municipality's indebtedness has exceeded two percent of the value of the taxable property within its boundaries?
This should be good.
December 13th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
And Abdul…while you are at it, please tell us how Indiana's politicians are running our state in compliance with Article 8?
December 13th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Amending our Constitution requires to more steps. I'm hoping it fails.
The solution to this property tax mess is readily=-available to the legislature. They're too freaking lazy to tackle it because it's heavy lifting.
Again, I say: amending the Constitution is difficult for reason. This is not sufficient grounds to amend that sacred document. No issue that can be fixed via regular legislation should see the light of day in Amendment form. Ever.
Unless we want to become California–referenda galore on every ballot. Lord help us.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
*two more steps
December 13th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Taxpayers are racked with all manner of leasing schemes by municipal corporations; more long term debt than expense.
Abdul, that's a good challenge or suggestion regarding the GA's systematic failure to comply with Article 13. Please get some folks on the show to help with the math, including an updated accounting of the state's total bond indebtedness (info that should be readily available to the taxpaying public, on a county by county, jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis). Consider inviting people like Indiana Policy Review's Craig Ladwig, Economist Bill Styring, Dr. Matt Will, etc., on your show, to identify violations of the state's constitutional debt limit.
December 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Now THAT would be a show not to miss!
December 14th, 2009 at 5:48 am
“Of course the big criticism of caps is that is puts local governments in a vice”.
.
Whatever are you saying here? That property tax caps are going to force local governments (gasp!) into one of the following “businesses”: prostitution, illicit drug sales/manufacture, or illegal gambling?
.
Unless perhaps, you meant to type “vise” instead of “vice”?
.
As a marginal typist myself, I find typographical errors to sometimes be unintentionally hilarious, or perhaps just a glimpse into the mind of the typist. lol
December 14th, 2009 at 7:18 am
“I am not going to talk about property tax repeal because I live in a place called the real world”
At one point in our nations history slavery sounded like a good idea, and Im sure someone said ” I am not going to talk about abolishing slavery because I live in a place called the real world”.
I am willing to talk about repeal because I live in a place called Marion county.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:51 am
While it is fun to slam local government, just wonder which of the services provided by local government are the majority of the population ready to forego. Various safety activities–police, jails, fire, street lighting, etc.,infrastruture–streets, county roads, sewer, drainage, etc., Building and santiation codes and enforcement? schools for every student no matter financial ability, or learning ability, or handicapped or not; and on and on—-perhaps what we do is have a massive referendum in every local unit and voters will decide what services will be offered and which will be dropped. Now also need to get that pesty state and federal government to not mandate anything–education, safety standards (then no need for FEMA, EPA, etc. so we save greatly on those costs)—boy it will be fun going back to the basic with everyone responsible for their own safety (all areas), do what you want freely with your property, able to defend with your six gun, life as it should be without restraint.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Good luck with that because no one who will make a decision regarding this issue will be.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Of course local governments could work on consolidation and reform and try to get the taxpayers the biggest bang for the buck.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I can totally agree with that but to hear some rant and rave there is inherent evil in local government's existence and of course by extension to government at all. Would grant that many reforms might be good to put in place (will not say “could” since that takes both the will of the governing and the governed), but have spent a great many years working in and around governmental units and while do see some major concerns it does not rise the level of wiping out everything as so often it seems the thrust is by some.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:22 am
I'm willing to forego the following:
1. At least 3/4 of our school administrators
2. Any and all sports funding
3. The county's unused real estate holdings
4. Subsidies for wealthy real estate developers
5. A library debacle we did not need
6. Any and all arts funding
7. The $375,000 salary paid to the ICVA president
Shall I go on because I can.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Did not express anything I would have opposition to—I am not from Marion County so will make statements a bit more general including: use local voting to decide what people are willing to pay for (concern is that may have issue of beneficiaries out voting those paying for things); eliminate township boundaries/government; drop county boundaries is virtually every respect; school consolidation on a larger scale; consider only one police force in an area (county or whatever), drop county jail system and have on different basis; one plan commission for an “area” whatever size would work (with unknown factor of what “local level” of governing in wise) with the same for economic development, library (which as you note have serious management problems in every area of the state–spend fast, spend often, build palaces, etc… And on and on but do believe consolidation of many government functions (and as stated need to define what that should entail).
December 14th, 2009 at 9:20 am
The lack, of attention, ready transparency in disclosure / accounting of public debt & the GA's enforcement of Article 13, a real live existing cap, makes a mockery of updated proposals for “new & improved caps.” Should citizens thank the GA for the new Chia Pet?
December 14th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Melyssa, honey….you're on the right track, with some exceptions:
**Sports Funding: In the form of modest tax abatements or subsidies, I'm OK with it, because it brings huge dollars to our metro area. But it's way out of control.
**School Admins: Yep. More like 7/8. And: open up their ranks–let folks form different professions move sideways into school admin with a modicum of in-service training in “school budget-speak.” As long as that training is not provided entirely by the existing school admins, who speak a certain language that cna only be heard by those who hear those high-pitched dog whistles.
**We cannot go back on the library, but it is beautiful, so we need to take good care of it.
**Arts funding: You're just wrong here. We need some. Not a lot, but some.
Add to the list:
**Public Safety Director. It is an expensive position we just don't need…another layer of government.
**Almost all non-public-safety take-home cars: a complete and utter waste of money.
**HR functions at the county level. They should hire it out. They're lousy at it, and they could screw up a 2-car parade.
And, overall: work on more regional solutions. There are economies in public safety, jails, transportation, animal control, etc. Common sense should not end at the county border.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:29 am
According to the CAFR, Indiana is @ 20% in debt. That's why they want to eliminate Article XIII. Its sort of like burglars lobbying to ban alarm systems and shot guns.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I'm not sure I can humor Abdul because he went to law school and had his thinking slanted by would be philosopher kings who profess the Socratic method without knowing much of Socrates or Aristotle for that matter. Ran into Honest Abe the other day who was also a lawyer who learned his craft without benefit of a law school. He has been following this particular thread and wondered why one would go on a wild goose chase to instruct what might be the invincibly ignorant. Abe had been hanging with a fellow named Occam who is the current patron saint of Gilette Corporation whose major product has to do with facial hair. So, Abe says, “I've been gone awhile, Pascal, but tell me, does the whole still equal the sum of its parts?” Suspecting a trick, imagining I was back in Law School enduring bad philosopies encased in Prosser, I told Abe that I was pretty sure that the Law of Relativity had not altered that ago old perception. Abe noted that he was not familiar with the Constitution of Indiana since when he lived in Indiana it didn't amount to much but he seemed to recall something like property in Indiana was to be assessed in a uniform manner. Well, times have changed, sez I, on account we don't have, since Kernan's midnite ride, assessor who have any idea of how to propertly asses property but, sez I, I think we don't have the curse of property classification and property is supposed to be assessed uniformily. Then says Abe, that being the case, and the whole being equal to the sum of its parts and all, why would any property EVER be assessed for more than 2% of it's value? If it were, then what does your Article XIII mean?
December 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Pascal, are you by chance related to Kin Hubbard or his offspring, Abe Martin? Mighty fine writin'.
Abdul, this whole Constitutionally-mandated-debt thread is getting out of hand. Any idea how we can get back to, uh, reality?
December 14th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“And, overall: work on more regional solutions. There are economies in public safety, jails, transportation, animal control, etc. Common sense should not end at the county border.”
In other words, steal more people's money to provide for thing _you_ want. Typical.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
John, I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. You''re marginal with your own words–but stick to them, OK?
Regional approaches can work for complicated problems. For instance, does each and every metro county have to build its own jail, transportation system and animal control facility? If efficiencies can be found, we should have at it.
Now, John, that doesn't sound anything like your interpretation, does it?
December 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“For instance, does each and every metro county have to build its own jail, transportation system and animal control facility?”
I think they do. I mean are we going to force Shelby County officers to drive to downtown Indy to drop off a prisoner? In every county in the metro area, the jails are centrally located, which seems to make sense to me. Not only that, with jail over crowding, why would one shut one facility in say Boone County, only to open up another one in downtown Indy. Sounds like that would benefit Marion County more than Boone County. As far as animal control, the solution is simple: Put more animals to “sleep” quicker. How would combining any of these functions save any real money? So you don't have a jail commander in Hancock County, but that position would like just mean another Major slot that opens up in Marion County to run jail #3. Not only that, now we have Hancock Co. and Greenfield police spending a lot more time and gas running prisoners to somewhere in Indy. This means more wear and tear on vehicles, more money for gas, and since it could add another 30 minutes (minimum) onto an arrest, the need for an additional deputy to patrol the county or officer to patrol McCordsville, Fortville, Greenfield, etc..
The only way you save money is by eliminating positions and forcing those left to do more. You can pay those doing more additional wages, _but_ if the pay increases end up matching the wages of the eliminated position…you have essentially saved nothing.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Jails serve two purposes. They house folks who cannot make bail, or have no bail because they're judged to be dangerous, while awaiting trial. And they house some folks serving their sentences…until the DOC can take them.
The folks whose trial is not imminent, could easily be warehoused in a lager facility that combines multiple counties' prisoners.
Ditto with animal control facilities.
And the efficiency would eliminate some jobs.
There nee dot be buying co-ops, too…for office supplies, gasoline, gravel…all the things counties use on a daily basis. It's the one thing school administrators figured out long ago. They have co-ops to bid on insurance, professional services, and many other items.
Open up your eyes. There are efficiencies out there, which do not stop at county borders. We Hoosiers love government. We've got too much of it.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Couldn't “decreases” in Marion Co bills be the result of statistical fudging due to reassessment; related, delayed billings & collections, not due or payable between 2007-2009, a portion of which is due next year?
Are those “decreases” based upon 2007's grotesquely inflated assessments or those of years prior (2005, etc.)?
Isn't Article 13 an existing cap?
December 14th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
It would be useful to see the calculation method upon which 2007-2009 “decreases” are based.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Or TA….we could do what I call the Aunt Bea's jail. Once when Mayberry's jail was overcrowded, Otis had to stay at Sheriff Taylor's house.
Aunt Bea made him clean the gutters, wash windows, mow, pretty much constant house chores.
Otis preferred being locked in a cage better than Aunt Bea's jail. LOL.
So if we really want to be efficient we make them do work while they are incarcerated. For sure they could clean government buildings. W
December 14th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Ditto…ditto…ditto.
“*Editor’s note: I did not talk about property tax repeal because that is not going to happen because I live in this place called the real world.”
Where would we be now if people didn't buck the 'status quo' ?????
December 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Indy Aries…that's a good question. If no one bucked the status quo and remained within the cage that Abdul calls “the real world”, we would still have slavery, there would not be a black president, and I seriously doubt if women would be allowed to vote.
Fortunately some people are self-actualized to the point that they will speak the truth and not let the fact that our general assembly is overrun with self-serving politicians get in their way of seeing outside of the sociopath constructed cage they would like for us to live within forever.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I want to bring back the 'County Farms', a la Article 9 Section 3.
“The counties may provide farms, as an asylum for those persons who, by reason of age, infirmity, or other misfortune, have claims upon the sympathies and aid of society.”
If you were able to work, you WORKED.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Anyone remember who the legislators and media sold the last Constitutional amendments on property taxes?
Remember the LIE that, if the People would let the government abolish the so-called 'inventory tax', that government (would, may, could, will, etc) exempt their private homes from property taxation.
77 percent of the mopes in Indiana bought into the lie. We were told that the lost revenue from the inventory tax would NOT be shifted onto the homeowners.
IMMEDIATELY upon abolishment, the tax burden shifted.
Abdul…NO ONE should lose their HOME because they could not pay a 'tax' (rent) to keep 'their' property. NO ONE.
I've been beating the Article 8 funding drum since 2001-2002 — I've also been beating the Article 10 drum in the same time frame.
Hey, I am still waiting on some elected mope to tell me why taxes on my private home are being used to support public schools.
I'm still waiting to hear why taxes on my home are being used to fund 'school transportation costs', yet our Indiana Supreme Court has consistently found that there is NO Constitutional-right to free school books.
So, if there is no Constitutional-right to free school books, how is there a 'right' to free school transportation ???
December 14th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Caps are not a step to elimination and in fact are a brickwall to elimination. If we are going to tamper with the Constitution, then lets stop the government abuse and incompetence for those in charge of this very expensive waste to keep running this broken system unrepaired by patchwork. It is more trouble than it's worth and when angry taxpayers took to the streets in 2007/8, that's hardly keeping general tranquility. We have been dealing with this debacle for decades and caps are not a 2nd best. Only total repeal of this albatross will eliminate the semi-annual extortion on homeowners. Will caps eliminate this threat of still paying into a system that doesn't solve the problem? Will caps solve the threat of homeowners being annually threatened with foreclosure and eviction through failure to pay into a corrupt system? How many times have our homes been used as collateral by the bond bank? And yes, the CAFR exceeds the state's debt limit, but you'll find few legislators wanting to talk about it.
Abdul, you're initial claim: “I did not talk about property tax repeal because that is not going to happen because I live in this place called the real world,” is not on the same page as most Hoosiers who overwhelmingly wanted abolishment in the last 2 years of polling. Secondly, if we stayed with your logic, then those of your pigment would not be considered fully human.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Paul, you are right! I was hoping to see Abdul respond to Melyssa about where in Article 8 of the Indiana Constitution does it say the government can tax private property from non-businesses.
Abdul, will you answer this question and stop avoiding the issue?
Let's start dealing with this issue directly and pressure our government to follow the Constitution or resign. I am in a church with over 500 people and after learning about what our government is doing by taxing our properties which is against the law, we are wanting to get involved in raising money and protesting against ANY candidate who does not support a complete repeal of all property taxes and a return to the Constitution.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Welcome Indiana to the second coming of California Government Fiscal Policy. Were riding the wave.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:48 am
In Abdul's 'reality', words such as “SHALL CONSIST OF” (Article 8 Section 2) mean nothing to a LiaR (Lawyer in a Robe). Our Constitution specifically lays out the ONLY Constitutionally-authorized methods of supporting/funding our public schools.
“The Common School fund shall consist of…” Nope, no wiggle room here. Want an example of 'wiggle-room' ??
“There shall be a State Superintendent of Public Instruction, whose method of selection, tenure, duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law.” — Article 8 Section 8
This allows the General ASSembly to legislate on ALL matters concerning the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The only mandate being that there BE a State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
LiaRs and politicians are hitting homeowners for property taxes to support the public schools, when NO SUCH FUNDING IS AUTHORIZED in our Indiana Constitution.
Want to use property taxes from private homes? Then amend our Constitution…don't simply ignore it, or change it by judicial fiat, or spend a lot of time trying to finds inventive ways around Constitutional restrictions.
As of RIGHT NOW, in all of the universe, the ONLY Constitutionally-authorized methods of funding our public schools is contained in Article 8 Section 2.
“The Common School fund SHALL CONSIST OF the Congressional Township fund, and the lands belonging thereto;
The Surplus Revenue fund;
The Saline fund and the lands belonging thereto;
The Bank Tax fund, and the fund arising from the one hundred and fourteenth section of the charter of the State Bank of Indiana;
The fund to be derived from the sale of County Seminaries, and the moneys and property heretofore held for such Seminaries; from the fines assessed for breaches of the penal laws of the State; and from all forfeitures which may accrue;
All lands and other estate which shall escheat to the State, for want of heirs or kindred entitled to the inheritance;
All lands that have been, or may hereafter be, granted to the State, where no special purpose is expressed in the grant, and the proceeds of the sales thereof; including the proceeds of the sales of the Swamp Lands, granted to the State of Indiana by the act of Congress of the twenty eighth of September, eighteen hundred and fifty, after deducting the expense of selecting and draining the same;
Taxes on the property of corporations, that may be assessed by the General Assembly for common school purposes.”
Hmmm….”Taxes on the property of corporations…”
I don't see ANYTHING like this concerning my private home. Do you?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Samantha…Abdul has never supplied a cogent answer to me, and I've been hitting him up with Article 8 since he came to town.
He had Chief Justice Randall Shepard on his show 2 or 3 years ago, and gave a really wishy-washy interview. Abdul REALLY flubbed the public school funding question to Shepard. Did Abdul do this on purpose?
He is an attorney. You decide.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:39 am
Wow, Guest, are you SURE that's what you want? Prop 13 did them in, literally and figuratively.
We don't need Amendments. We need legislators who spend less. It's really pretty simple.
Melyssa, I think the jail work system you're talking about, used to be called “trusties.” Those who could be “trusted” were let out of jail, in orange jumpsuits, with supervision, to do menial chores. I'm all for it. With one caveat—not everyone in jail is convicted yet. No one should be forced ot do something until they're convicted. It's still America.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Legislators who spend less? How about Legislators who spend less than the Constitution's clear language commands? As far as liberal spending California goes-that is what happens when you don't enforce an Article like our Article XIII. Their Prop 13 is the only thing that keeps their legislature from the piecemeal theft of California homes. The legislators of both Indiana major parties would love to steal your homes and make you rent them. Oh, do some folks think they are already renting their own property?
December 15th, 2009 at 7:24 am
HJR 1 opponents are trying to make the case that Proposition 13, which passed on June 6, 1978, is somehow responsible for the current budget deficit woes of California’s government units. There is research on all sides of Proposition 13 where you can find strong support both for and against constitutional property tax caps. The fact of the matter is that Indiana is not at all like California – California has sustained government overspending by relying on overly-optimistic revenue projections, while Indiana’s government units have done a pretty good job of adjusting and living within their revenue means. It is nonsense to look at California’s budget woes as a reason to oppose HJR 1.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Keep up the good work Abdul.
School Details Deep Cuts After Failed Referendum
Cuts Include Schools, Bus Drivers, Athletics
http://www.theindychannel.com/education/2196845...
WRTV Channel 6 News
POSTED: 10:42 pm EST December 14, 2009
INDIANAPOLIS — Schools will be closed, athletics slashed and bus drivers will lose their jobs — that's the grim outlook from Franklin Township Schools officials as the district tries to trim more than $4.5 million from its budget.
School officials outlined that plan at a school board meeting Monday night. Superintendent Dr. Walter Bourke said the moves are difficult, but necessary, 6News' Ericka Flye reported.
While some teaching positions will also likely be cut, school officials said their goal was to maintain class size and the overall quality of education.
A standing room-only crowd was dealt an emotional blow at the meeting when they learned the proposed budget cuts include closing two schools — Acton Elementary and Wanamaker Elementary.
Sarah Hoffman, a teacher at Acton, had a tearful plea for board members.
“I'm hoping that you guys will really reconsider keeping us together as a community and look for other ways to appropriate funds,” Hoffman said.
Bourke said the district must make drastic cuts because voters failed to pass a property tax referendum in November that would have given the district an extra $9 million.
The superintendent said the public had many opportunities before Election Day to learn about the consequences of not passing the referendum, yet it was soundly defeated with a relatively low voter turnout.
“We held over 20 community meetings and told everyone who attended,” Bourke said.
In addition to school closures, some bus schedules would be reworked and cut and 44 bus drivers would lose their jobs.
Kitley and Edgewood Intermediate schools would be restructured. High school boys and girls golf would be cut, along with gymnastics. At the middle school level, golf, swimming, diving and cheerleading would be cut.
The proposal also requires high school bus riders to pay a ridership fee of at least $375.
Bus drivers said they're worried about their future, and parents with children who ride buses are concerned, too.
“Without the buses, I don't know how my child would get back and forth to school,” said one parent.
School officials urged the public to post additional comments on its Web site, where board members will review them.
The board is expected to vote on recommendations at a meeting in late January.
In Lawrence Township, the school system will make up a budget shortfall by closing a middle school.
As planned, Craig Middle School will close, and all sixth-graders will go back to elementary schools.
Seventh- and eighth-grade students will move to the two remaining middle schools.
The district is trying to close a $3.2 million deficit it faces next year.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:37 am
“Paging Dr. Matt Will, Craig Ladwig, Dr. Styring. Please report to the forum for clarity on the application of Article 13.”
December 15th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Proposition 13 is actually one of the major causes of California's debacle. The cap system forced assessments of affordable housing to increase substantially contributing to 2 things. Remember when California Counties were flirting with bankruptcy. First, property tax (government) revenues shrank significantly (if not drastically) which led to the second point, causing a domino effect throughout the realestate markets by doubling if not tripling property values to make up the difference. Wait, within 15 years (if not sooner) property tax assessments in Indiana will increase well beyond what anyone would have expected due to Mitchs Tax Caps.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Otis wasn't convicted yet…just had to work at Aunt Bea's all day with a hangover! It was priceless.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:45 am
In 2003, Joel Fox, the author of California's prop 13, was the special guest of a tea party rally, held under an October sky on lawn of the War Memorial Mall.
It's very doubtful that Mr. Fox would now view Prop 13 as an adequate protection from the vagaries of a GA; special interest firewalls & referen-damnation.
If applied; Indiana's existing article 13, should provide citizens with adequate Constitutional protection without any further “tinkering” by the GA.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Howard Jarvis was the author of California's Proposition 13. His book I'm Mad As Hell is a good read.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“We need Legislators who spend less” is the comment of both a liberal and a relativist both of whom cannot view reality correctly and so imagine things. In TA's garden there are unicorns, elves, fairies, and “legislators who spend less”. Remember about TA, “”She got out because every damned one of those ethical complaints had teeth.”-TA declaring a fact that wasn't a fact but a falsehood. I don't feel today or any day, like letting lies pass by without retraction. TA ! Retract your lie?
Presumably, TA finished reading Sarah Palin's book and so knows that he mispoke. As wired as he is, he must be on the liberal network and have access to all those ethical complaints being gone over by AP'S thirteen fact checkers. So, he knows the truth of the matter but he can't bring himself to confess his error or speak truth to reality.
Liberals are funny that way. Legislators who spend less is relative to what? What are they spending less of? Realists who know the propensity of all governments to expand seek through Constitutions to limit governments. Realists don't lie or confuse stupidity with reality. Article XIII is clear, has plain meaning to anyone who can read. It sets a clear limit to government theft, a bright line, clearly understood by a literate people rightfully without trust in government and liberals, and other fools.
Anyone putting their trust in the Indiana Legislature would fall in that latter catagory. Anyone thinking TA is truthful needs to see a shrink. Mature folks confess their errors easily, rigidly ideological timeservers have a larger problem and so cannot. “She got out because every damned one of those ethical complaints had teeth.”-TA declaring a fact that wasn't a fact but a falsehood. I don't feel today like letting lies pass by without retraction. TA ! Retract your lie?
If we start with just this small one we can move on to the other areas where your feet are not quite on the ground.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
AS: Thanks for making the correction, Fox was the president of Jarvis' taxpayer assoc.
“New caps” are constitutionally awkward, when you consider that the GA has completely ignored Article 13, a real live existing cap.
Has anyone considered that compared with Article 13, new hyper-factored caps (1/2/3) are quite likely a tax increase (not to mention constitutionally questionable)?
December 19th, 2009 at 2:11 am
AS: Thanks for making the correction, Fox was the president of Jarvis' taxpayer assoc.
“New caps” are constitutionally awkward, when you consider that the GA has completely ignored Article 13, a real live existing cap.
Has anyone considered that compared with Article 13, new hyper-factored caps (1/2/3) are quite likely a tax increase (not to mention constitutionally questionable)?