Looks like Brian Howey and Mark McGrady get it. Nice to see someone else understands our Constitution, and read the Key Motors court decision.

******************************************
Why is Indiana governmental status quo OK?
by Brian Howey

Fountain County Prosecutor
Mark McGrady asked, “How does
the legislature's new budget bill,
which will eliminate the inventory
tax over time, pass constitutional
muster? Article 10, Section 1, of
the Indiana Constitution basically
says all property must be taxed,
with certain exceptions (and inventory
is clearly not one of the exceptions).
There is even an Indiana
Court of Appeals case that seems,
to say exactly that”

In the case of State Board of Tax
Commissioners v. Key Motors
Corp., the opinion reads, “Thus, the
Legislature does not have the authority
at all to exempt so-called
inventory personal property.”

McGrady said, “Either I am
missing something, or the legislature
just passed a tax increase that
was largely justified by the elimination
of the inven(ory.'tax, and,that elimination
is unconstitutional.”

Styring noted, “There is a constitutional
problem with doing anything
with the property tax on inventories
by a mere statute. The
problem is that Article 10, Section
1, is pretty darn specific. You can't
exempt or partially exempt any
type of property except by constitutional
amendment”

Styring added, The upside is
that I'm pretty sure we're going to
have to revisit this whole tax/budget
issue pretty soon (I don't think
it hangs together), and that would
be well before any court would get
around to zapping this provision.”
So, what's your opinion, dear
Hoosier citizen? Write a letter to
your editor. Let's have a big ol' discussion.
Be bold. Challenge the
status quo.

**************************************
OPINION – Kokomo Tribune, Page A6, 05 Nov 2004

Ballot was confusing

THE ISSUE: The state constitutional amendment questions
OUR VIEW: Most of the blame for the public ignorance of the questions falls on the legislature.

A lot of voters had a tough time answering the questions on the back of the Indiana ballot Tuesday, mainly because they were being asked to amend a very important document – the Indiana Constitution – without having heard any debate on the issue.

The first question was the one which drew the most attention – which isn't saying much. It basically gave the Indiana General Assembly the authority to exempt broad classes of property from property taxes. Business property, owner-occupied
residences and business inventory may all now be exempted from property taxes.

The way the ballot question was worded made it sound like a great idea. After all, who wouldn't like to get out of paying property taxes on their home? If the question had added: “…and shift those taxes onto other people,” it might have made a few more voters think twice.

The legislators claim to have had a good reason for the amendment, mainly that they were trying to protect the tax restructuring of 2002 from court challenges. But it's our contention – and the contention of several Howard County government elected officials, the Indiana Farm Bureau, the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute, Indiana University economist Morton Marcus and others that the question was too broadly written and gives the legislature too much power.

We have an issue with the shoddy way the constitutional amendments were put forth to the people.

Some of the blame falls on our shoulders – the news media. Hoosier journalists knew about the questions for years, but didn't exercise the necessary critical thinking to fully examine the possible ramifications of the question.

Some of the blame goes to citizens. People are spending less time getting involved with civics and news about government. There are various reasons offered as to why this is, but people have to be informed to be able to vote in their
own interest.

Most of the blame, however, goes to legislators. They had a moral obligation to explain to their constituents what the amendments were for and their possible effects. They failed to represent our interests. They could have sent out mailers; taken out TV advertisements; done editorial board interviews. Instead, they quietly put the questions on the ballot, apparently hoping no one would notice until they'd passed.

We need a full explanation from our legislators on how they intend to use their new constitutional powers, and whether or not Hoosier taxpayers are going to be socked with another massive shift of the tax burden.

One of its sponsors, Republican Sen.
Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said the
amendment would legitimize what lawmakers
already have done through exemptions
and deductions for homeowners
and a phase-out of the inventory tax.

Without it, Kenley said, some tax breaks
might not withstand legal challenges – and
lawmakers might be reluctant to make further
updates to a system that is more than
150 years old. The constitution now exempts
some property from taxation, including
schools and churches, but not homes,
business equipment or inventory.

“It's part of a bigger process of redesigning
our tax laws,” Kenley said.
******************************
Hmmm…” Republican Sen. Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said the amendment would legitimize what lawmakers already have done through exemptions and deductions for homeowners and a phase-out of the inventory tax.”

So, this is how it's done, huh?? Let's violate our Constitution, then down the road, we will try to legitimize our actions via Constitutional amendment.

I wonder what they would have done if Question 1 had failed????

Where is my exemption? I'm still paying taxes on my private home.

Looks like Brian Howey and Mark McGrady get it. Nice to see someone else understands our Constitution, and read the Key Motors court decision.

******************************************
Why is Indiana governmental status quo OK?
by Brian Howey

Fountain County Prosecutor
Mark McGrady asked, “How does
the legislature's new budget bill,
which will eliminate the inventory
tax over time, pass constitutional
muster? Article 10, Section 1, of
the Indiana Constitution basically
says all property must be taxed,
with certain exceptions (and inventory
is clearly not one of the exceptions).
There is even an Indiana
Court of Appeals case that seems,
to say exactly that”

In the case of State Board of Tax
Commissioners v. Key Motors
Corp., the opinion reads, “Thus, the
Legislature does not have the authority
at all to exempt so-called
inventory personal property.”

McGrady said, “Either I am
missing something, or the legislature
just passed a tax increase that
was largely justified by the elimination
of the inven(ory.'tax, and,that elimination
is unconstitutional.”

Styring noted, “There is a constitutional
problem with doing anything
with the property tax on inventories
by a mere statute. The
problem is that Article 10, Section
1, is pretty darn specific. You can't
exempt or partially exempt any
type of property except by constitutional
amendment”

Styring added, The upside is
that I'm pretty sure we're going to
have to revisit this whole tax/budget
issue pretty soon (I don't think
it hangs together), and that would
be well before any court would get
around to zapping this provision.”
So, what's your opinion, dear
Hoosier citizen? Write a letter to
your editor. Let's have a big ol' discussion.
Be bold. Challenge the
status quo.

**************************************
OPINION – Kokomo Tribune, Page A6, 05 Nov 2004

Ballot was confusing

THE ISSUE: The state constitutional amendment questions
OUR VIEW: Most of the blame for the public ignorance of the questions falls on the legislature.

A lot of voters had a tough time answering the questions on the back of the Indiana ballot Tuesday, mainly because they were being asked to amend a very important document – the Indiana Constitution – without having heard any debate on the issue.

The first question was the one which drew the most attention – which isn't saying much. It basically gave the Indiana General Assembly the authority to exempt broad classes of property from property taxes. Business property, owner-occupied
residences and business inventory may all now be exempted from property taxes.

The way the ballot question was worded made it sound like a great idea. After all, who wouldn't like to get out of paying property taxes on their home? If the question had added: “…and shift those taxes onto other people,” it might have made a few more voters think twice.

The legislators claim to have had a good reason for the amendment, mainly that they were trying to protect the tax restructuring of 2002 from court challenges. But it's our contention – and the contention of several Howard County government elected officials, the Indiana Farm Bureau, the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute, Indiana University economist Morton Marcus and others that the question was too broadly written and gives the legislature too much power.

We have an issue with the shoddy way the constitutional amendments were put forth to the people.

Some of the blame falls on our shoulders – the news media. Hoosier journalists knew about the questions for years, but didn't exercise the necessary critical thinking to fully examine the possible ramifications of the question.

Some of the blame goes to citizens. People are spending less time getting involved with civics and news about government. There are various reasons offered as to why this is, but people have to be informed to be able to vote in their
own interest.

Most of the blame, however, goes to legislators. They had a moral obligation to explain to their constituents what the amendments were for and their possible effects. They failed to represent our interests. They could have sent out mailers; taken out TV advertisements; done editorial board interviews. Instead, they quietly put the questions on the ballot, apparently hoping no one would notice until they'd passed.

We need a full explanation from our legislators on how they intend to use their new constitutional powers, and whether or not Hoosier taxpayers are going to be socked with another massive shift of the tax burden.

One of its sponsors, Republican Sen.
Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said the
amendment would legitimize what lawmakers
already have done through exemptions
and deductions for homeowners
and a phase-out of the inventory tax.

Without it, Kenley said, some tax breaks
might not withstand legal challenges – and
lawmakers might be reluctant to make further
updates to a system that is more than
150 years old. The constitution now exempts
some property from taxation, including
schools and churches, but not homes,
business equipment or inventory.

“It's part of a bigger process of redesigning
our tax laws,” Kenley said.
******************************
Hmmm…” Republican Sen. Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said the amendment would legitimize what lawmakers already have done through exemptions and deductions for homeowners and a phase-out of the inventory tax.”

So, this is how it's done, huh?? Let's violate our Constitution, then down the road, we will try to legitimize our actions via Constitutional amendment.

I wonder what they would have done if Question 1 had failed????

Where is my exemption? I'm still paying taxes on my private home.

PUBLIC QUESTION 1: Shall Article 10 Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended to allow the General ASSembly to make certain property exempt from property taxes, including (1) a homeowner's primary residence: (2) personal property used to produce income, and (3) inventory? Yes/No
–Logansport Pharos-Tribune – October 31, 2004, Page E1

Let's see….has a phase-out of the property tax for private homeowners begun? No? But, they did it for the inventory tax…2 YEARS before it was ratified!

Government made certain that the manner in which Public Question 1 was phrased would mislead voters into believing that those reprobates on the GA would exempt their private homes from property taxation.

Imagine that!!! Finally, actually OWNING your property. Home taken away 'cause you couldn't pay all or part of the 'rent' to government? Not anymore.

Opppsssss…..guess that's still a pipe-dream, huh.

Boy, I'm sure glad that the THIRD item on the ballot was abolished. I'm real happy about that. Government only lied about 66 percent of the Question.

He knows.

General Assembly members say
the amendment would draw businesses
into Indiana, as well as provide
relief for homeowners.

State Sen. Connie Lawson said it
also will protect many Hoosiers
who are already receiving tax
breaks that are not constitutional.

“The reason it needs to be done,
in my mind, is because the General
Assembly needs to be able to give
exemptions,” she said.

“It was brought up that the constitution
doesn't really allow for that
It says all property shall be taxed.”

Lawson said the language means
relief programs are unconstitutional
and could be overturned by a court.

Programs such as veterans relief
and relief for the elderly could be
overturned, raising property taxes
for those individuals, she said.

“Many of my constituents already
have these kinds of exemptions, but
this will assure it cannot be overturned
and ruled unconstitutional,” Lawson said.

If voters allow the General Assembly
to approve the amendment, Lawson said
taxpayers would not see a rise in taxes
to offset the exemptions.