|
|
Post by parson on Jan 25, 2008 9:11:29 GMT -5
Let's see,
Property taxes are doubled
That total is reduced by 30% (maybe)
Sales tax is increased by 1%
Equals giant tax cut!!
Can somebody help me with this? I don't seem to get it!
parson
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 25, 2008 9:25:15 GMT -5
Eliminate the property tax on primary residences - period!
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 25, 2008 9:47:01 GMT -5
Eliminate the property tax on primary residences - period! Yeah That! |
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jan 25, 2008 10:09:15 GMT -5
Eliminate the property tax on primary residences - period! Nuff said!!!!!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Jan 25, 2008 10:31:59 GMT -5
At least it's a step in the right direction. I'm not happy that they struck out the referendum for school classrooms though. I'm around this school construction all the time in my line of work. I don't consider spending millions of dollars on Taj Mahal- like entrance ways to be of any benefit to academics.
|
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Jan 25, 2008 11:57:38 GMT -5
Taj Mahal entrances,  , Well I would say that the covered walk way to the local high schools sure beats what we had when I was a kid. Wooden steps, wood door, coat hooks, and a coal stove in the middle of the room. Okay Okay that all BS. What we really had was a set of double doors and a set of steps up to the first floor. Because the basement class rooms all had above ground windows for sun light. Back to taxes. 200 % increase followed by 30% decrease is still a 170% increase. 1% added sales tax may more than compensate for that 30% decrease by years end. And that's just normal everyday type spending not counting getting hair brained and buying a boat or cross bow or a huge gun safe. Well then again those are kind of necessities to aren't they? |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier Hunter on Jan 25, 2008 12:07:53 GMT -5
Eliminate the property tax on primary residences - period! I say "dbd870" for governor! |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 25, 2008 13:47:13 GMT -5
Eliminate property taxes altogether, on everything.
Some politicians claim the "numbers just don't add up" to raise the sales tax enough to eliminate the property tax entirely......I don't believe them.
The property tax needs to be assessed, billed for, collected, accounted for regarding seeing that the bills are marked PAID, and distributed in part to the state, which then shuffles some of it around and send it back to the counties as property tax relief for various areas and groups.
Who does all this stuff? Government employees at three levels: township, county, and state.
How many people are we paying to do all this paper shuffling and money dealing? Lots.
The governor's proposal tries to clear up some of it, but it's slapping lipstick on the pig. Putting a state-appointed assessor in each county rather than a bunch of township assessors sounds like it has the potential for some improvement, but when you consider that the state appointed assessor will still need to actually do the assessment procedures, they will need a staff that will probably need to apply about the same number of hours of effort as the local assessors did, and possibly more.
Capping the percentage sounds good at first, as it will mean the hand in your pocket that you're watching right now will have to leave more in there. But it will still be there ready to grab some more in the future when the "fair market value" of your place goes over a million, even though you won't be able to sell it for $200K. Is there a provision that the state will buy your place for that "fair market value" if you want them to? I didn't think so.
And even if the property tax does end up costing you less, it will still have all the cost of operation that it had before. You'll still be paying all those paychecks for assessment, billing, collecting, and distributing that money. The efficiency of the tax is what it takes in divided by what it costs to operate the system. The less the system takes in without seriously reducing the costs, the more inefficient the system becomes. If the tax collects a million dollars, and we pay a hundred thousand out in costs to administer the tax, it would be ninety per cent efficient. If we keep the same administrative cost, because we're still doing the same jobs to administer the tax, and we only collect half a million because we've reduced the rate, then we'll have a system that's eighty percent efficient, because one dollar out of five collected is spent on the effort. Is that progress?
By far the most efficient tax to collect is the sales tax. It's the fairest, because everyone who spends their money on retail products other than groceries or prescription meds pays the tax.
I personally think it should be expanded to include services, groceries, and probably the prescription meds as well. I think the rate could be kept at six percent or maybe raised to seven and the amount would be more than enough to replace the property tax revenue if we first deducted the amount we're spending now to administer the property tax from what we now call the revenue from that tax. Let's see an honest accounting of total cost of the current system, including the cost of the hours spent at each county courthouse in the state by the County Assessor's Office, the County Treasurer's Office, etc., on duties needed to make the current system operate. Only when that amount is deducted from the total property tax intake, can we see whether the system is worth keeping.
We see the retailers crying that if the sales tax is raised, they'll be hurt by people going to the surrounding states to make thier purchases. Hmmm...wonder how many will actually travel even twenty miles to the appliance store in the next state to save one or even two percent on their sales tax? If the item is $200 and the sales tax rate there is two percent lower, they could save a whopping four bucks on the purchase. The gas to get there and back in even a small car will likely cost a dollar or so more than the savings. Can't see this as much of a realistic argument.
Balance that against the additional tax we'd collect from non-Hoosiers who happened to spend their dollars here, and I bet we come out ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Jan 25, 2008 16:08:48 GMT -5
Eliminate the property tax on primary residences - period! Sadly, that would only shift the tax burden. It would only be charged someplace else, as they`re not going to lose that money, they`ll make it up some other way. |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 25, 2008 16:19:07 GMT -5
Eliminate the property tax on primary residences - period! Sadly, that would only shift the tax burden. It would only be charged someplace else, as they`re not going to lose that money, they`ll make it up some other way. No doubt that is how it would play out; that's still preferable to the current situattion. What needs to happen is vote all these gluttons out and put in people who actually believe in limited government. |
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Jan 25, 2008 16:21:48 GMT -5
Sadly, that would only shift the tax burden. It would only be charged someplace else, as they`re not going to lose that money, they`ll make it up some other way. No doubt that is how it would play out; that's still preferable to the current situattion. What needs to happen is vote all these gluttons out and put in people who actually believe in limited government. Remember how the Dems blasted Bush when he said that too many people in Government believe that tax money is rightfully theirs to spend, instead of rightly ours? |
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 25, 2008 17:30:42 GMT -5
"Eliminate property taxes altogether, on everything. "
I agree, then maybe a lot less farms would be sold off to developers because that type of tax could not be paid. Hmmm, more farmland kept as farms means more places to hunt, fish, etc. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Jan 25, 2008 19:09:28 GMT -5
Taj Mahal entrances, , Well I would say that the covered walk way to the local high schools sure beats what we had when I was a kid. The entrances I'm talking about are three story atrium's, perfectly suitable for privately owned hotels, but a waste of taxpayer money in a school building. One school district in Hancock county shot down plans for a recent expansion after residents learned that their property taxes would increase 33% to fund it. The office furniture included $7,000 for a desk! These school administrations have had a blank check for far too long in this state and most of what they spend it on is not academia. I heard one rumor that several school board members in a metro Indy district were not even aware that bonds taken out for school construction had to be paid back! The debt alone on school construction bonds across the state is staggering. Approximately 70% of your property tax money goes directly to your local schools and that's where the battle to keep taxes down begins. |
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jan 25, 2008 19:57:27 GMT -5
Huntington county was one of the last counties to go to an elected school board. All you read in the paper was how this new elected school board would cut spending and hold the superintendent accountable. Its been about 5-6 years now since the elected board took over and its business as usual. We spent close to 66 million dollars to build 3 new schools, they spent over 60K of tax payers money to fight a local group of tax payers who filed a lawsuit to stop the buildings. The public was told the old schools were in such bad condition it was un-safe for children. Right after the new schools were built they sold the buildings to developers to make senior apartments in them. Our school system buget is over 56,000,000.00 year and 70% comes from local property taxes.
Since our state government took off the business inventory tax a couple years ago we as property owners get to make up the difference that business no longer pays. It was a stunt to get more businesses to come to Indiana..... did it work? Are we paying less taxes now?
Now your state officials want to increase the sales tax to make you think you will be paying less property taxes. Think that will work?
Ive been thinking I might sell my house and move into an apartment because its getting cheaper to rent than to own. h.h.
|
|
|
|
Post by parson on Jan 26, 2008 9:20:03 GMT -5
Why is there never any substantive talk of reining in spending? Any legitimate house cleaning of FSSA alone would just about do away with any need for more taxation! A good look at the waste in educational spending would even allow a cut in taxes!
I oversaw a child care facility for a few years and was, both, amazed and angered at the fraud involved in the system. Try and report it and nobody want to know! After all, their salaries and expense accounts depend upon their keeping the allocated budget maxed out.
Turn any housewife, who has to balance a checkbook, loose in government, and the common sense reality of living within means would clean up a lot of the mess; but ask an entrenched politician about cuts, and essential services and school lunches are brought up as the only areas in which cuts would be possible!
It seems that the old addage is right, especially in the realm of politics: "No one will ever go broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public!"
Maybe during this election cycle we can change that!
parson
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Jan 26, 2008 10:59:33 GMT -5
Maybe Parson.............maybe.
BTW-I love the avitar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 26, 2008 14:52:19 GMT -5
I do think that discussions like these on the net are helping. The subject matter is too complicated for the watercooler or even the coffee break area. The only place that many of us will get to engage in any sort of serious discussion of such a subject is on here, or another site.
I think that in many ways, these sites are a replacement for the letters that people wrote to each other, long ago. Your thoughts and opinions on a subject, written out in black and white, and presented to other people for their reactions, when they've had time to read and consider. We've been pretty much without that type of communication for a couple of generations.
It's quite different from the one-liners on the bumper stickers or even the solutions that can be adequately covered in a candidate's thiry-second commercial on TV. Some problems just won't be solved by ten-second soundbite answers.
It may show up most in the area of the voters becoming more aware of the factors they should know about in making their choices in the fall. At least we can hope so.
Restoring this tempo of communication has to be a good thing.
|
|
