Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
February 14, 2009
I hate to say it, but he has a point.
Yes, it's important that we take steps to turn around the economy. But it's absolutely just as important that we know what steps we're actually taking.
May 11, 2008
Politicians, Promises, and Proper Choices
Way back when, there used to be a course called "Civics." That was before my time. At Thomas S. Wootton High School, in Maryland, outside Washington DC during the Carter Administration, the class was called "Government," and its teacher was Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart was right out of a Robert Heinlein novel; he was a decorated veteran who lost an arm during "The Big One." He didn't discuss it with us, but my dad learned that he had been hit 27 times by machine gun fire. He had a mechanical arm that ended not in a hook, but a rubber hand. He used it mostly for effect, occasionally adjusting it so he could glare at us from the front of the room with crossed arms. And he had opinions; he wasn't afraid to tell you his point of view, or to contradict "common knowledge." His job wasn't just to teach us how Government worked, but how we were supposed to make it work.
THE LESSON: Politicians and their Promises
"Any politician who tells you they will lower taxes," he declared, "is lying to you. Period. Taxes have never been lowered in all of human history, and anyone who tells you different is also lying."
The son of the Congressman from a southern state raised his hand. "But Mr. Stewart, I know that they just passed a law that lowered the tax on (whatever the heck it was). My dad voted on it."
"Did they really?" Mr. Stewart set his arm so he could clasp it behind his back as he paced around the classroom. "I'm sure it LOOKS like they did. But read through it, and you'll find that they replace the lost revenue with usage fees. And guess what? Now you're paying more."
With click and a twist, he crossed his arms again. "That's how it works; they tell you they'll lower a tax on, say, gasoline. Then they add a surcharge that the distributor has to pay to cover inspections costs, and that cost is passed on to you. Or they create a new tax on something else. You're duped into thinking that you're paying less because it doesn't show up as a tax on gasoline, but it's only been hidden somewhere else. Your tax load will never, ever go down."
He repositions his arm, hooking the rubber thumb into his trouser pocket while he paces. "The thing is, the government has to pay for its services; there are things that only it can do: national defense, law enforcement, regulation of weights and measures, and so on. And there are things we have chosen for government to take care of: education, social welfare, and environmental regulation."
"Take the highway system, for example. We discovered the need for an interstate highway during World War 2. But it needs to be maintained. Let's say we decide to cut taxes, and actually for once the taxes get lowered. Now there's less money to do things. What gets cut? Maintenance. Maybe not completely, but let's say we spread the work out. Instead of re-surfacing every 10 years, we do it every 25. That's less jobs for road builders, asphalt suppliers, and so on. More people on unemployment. But the roads end up being in worse shape, so you wind up paying more to bring them back to a safe condition. Now it's an emergency instead of maintenance. Now it has to be replaced, and before you can replace it, you have to remove it. So now we're spending three or four times what we would have paid for upkeep in the first place, and our taxes have to go up to cover it."
"So lowering taxes is simply not a realistic approach. So, who can tell me why anyone would promise to do something they can't possibly do? I'll tell you."
"To get elected. Plain and simple. They tell us what we want to hear. Politicians are counting on you to not examine the facts to discover the truth; they rely on your ignorance."
He shrugs his shoulder to unlock the joint, and folds his arm back up to glower at us from the front of the room. "And that's why we're here; so you can learn to see the truth. Politicians lie to get elected. It's up to us to learn how to see the lie. The only way to get honest leadership is to make sure you don't elect the people lying to you. So when a politician promises to lower or abolish taxes, you know that they are lying to you. Vote for the other guy if you want honesty."
"And if you vote for the guy who is blatantly lying to you, you deserve the government you get."
Mr. Stewart was right out of a Robert Heinlein novel; he was a decorated veteran who lost an arm during "The Big One." He didn't discuss it with us, but my dad learned that he had been hit 27 times by machine gun fire. He had a mechanical arm that ended not in a hook, but a rubber hand. He used it mostly for effect, occasionally adjusting it so he could glare at us from the front of the room with crossed arms. And he had opinions; he wasn't afraid to tell you his point of view, or to contradict "common knowledge." His job wasn't just to teach us how Government worked, but how we were supposed to make it work.
THE LESSON: Politicians and their Promises
"Any politician who tells you they will lower taxes," he declared, "is lying to you. Period. Taxes have never been lowered in all of human history, and anyone who tells you different is also lying."
The son of the Congressman from a southern state raised his hand. "But Mr. Stewart, I know that they just passed a law that lowered the tax on (whatever the heck it was). My dad voted on it."
"Did they really?" Mr. Stewart set his arm so he could clasp it behind his back as he paced around the classroom. "I'm sure it LOOKS like they did. But read through it, and you'll find that they replace the lost revenue with usage fees. And guess what? Now you're paying more."
With click and a twist, he crossed his arms again. "That's how it works; they tell you they'll lower a tax on, say, gasoline. Then they add a surcharge that the distributor has to pay to cover inspections costs, and that cost is passed on to you. Or they create a new tax on something else. You're duped into thinking that you're paying less because it doesn't show up as a tax on gasoline, but it's only been hidden somewhere else. Your tax load will never, ever go down."
He repositions his arm, hooking the rubber thumb into his trouser pocket while he paces. "The thing is, the government has to pay for its services; there are things that only it can do: national defense, law enforcement, regulation of weights and measures, and so on. And there are things we have chosen for government to take care of: education, social welfare, and environmental regulation."
"Take the highway system, for example. We discovered the need for an interstate highway during World War 2. But it needs to be maintained. Let's say we decide to cut taxes, and actually for once the taxes get lowered. Now there's less money to do things. What gets cut? Maintenance. Maybe not completely, but let's say we spread the work out. Instead of re-surfacing every 10 years, we do it every 25. That's less jobs for road builders, asphalt suppliers, and so on. More people on unemployment. But the roads end up being in worse shape, so you wind up paying more to bring them back to a safe condition. Now it's an emergency instead of maintenance. Now it has to be replaced, and before you can replace it, you have to remove it. So now we're spending three or four times what we would have paid for upkeep in the first place, and our taxes have to go up to cover it."
"So lowering taxes is simply not a realistic approach. So, who can tell me why anyone would promise to do something they can't possibly do? I'll tell you."
"To get elected. Plain and simple. They tell us what we want to hear. Politicians are counting on you to not examine the facts to discover the truth; they rely on your ignorance."
He shrugs his shoulder to unlock the joint, and folds his arm back up to glower at us from the front of the room. "And that's why we're here; so you can learn to see the truth. Politicians lie to get elected. It's up to us to learn how to see the lie. The only way to get honest leadership is to make sure you don't elect the people lying to you. So when a politician promises to lower or abolish taxes, you know that they are lying to you. Vote for the other guy if you want honesty."
"And if you vote for the guy who is blatantly lying to you, you deserve the government you get."
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Over the years, I have seen this lesson proven again and again; George H.W. Bush promises to veto a tax increase, and doesn't. Florida lowers taxes on some things, only to raise them on others. Taxes get abolished, and are replaced by "fees" or "licenses" that cost more than the taxes did.
And in the rare case where a tax is lowered and the revenue isn't replaced, we end up having to re-instate them later at a much higher rate to repair the resultant damage. We pay more in taxes now than in any point in our history - even while Bush's so-called tax cuts were in effect.
So here we are, over a quarter century past Mr. Stewart's lecture. Now, as then, we face rising fuel costs due to problems in the Middle East (another lesson we didn't learn).
So here we are, over a quarter century past Mr. Stewart's lecture. Now, as then, we face rising fuel costs due to problems in the Middle East (another lesson we didn't learn).
With three real candidates vying for position, two of them have chosen to lie to us.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain both state that they will push to suspend the Federal Tax on gasoline this summer, so that the cost of gas will come down for consumers. But as numerous sources point out, there's no guarantee that suspending the tax will lower the cost to consumers; it's far more likely that gas distributors will pocket all or part of the difference to make up for the drop in sales they've experienced as people cut back on their driving.
And even if distributors do pass on the entire savings, those taxes are supposed to pay for things; road repair and maintanence, for instance. Mr. Stewart's own prophetic example. Have we forgotten the people who were killed in the Minnesota bridge collapse so quickly? And there are hundreds of roads and bridges in need of immediate repair to make them safe, and thousands more that are degrading.
And even if anyone really thinks that allowing our roads to fall into ruin is a good idea, there's still the matter of the ever-increasing deficit. We're already billions of dollars in the red; we can not afford to run that debt up further.
The time to fight rising fuel costs was 20 years ago; that boat sailed when the Reagan Republicans decided that setting better fuel economy standards wasn't a worthwhile endeavor. It's rather sad and pathetic that the average vehicle was more fuel efficient 15 years ago than they are today.
As Mr. Stewart pointed out to us all those years ago, the promise to lower the tax is a false one; it won't lower your costs, and it will likely hurt the country.
TAKING A STAND
So here we are, two politicians vying to be the Democratic candidate for President who will run against Republican John McCain.
Until now, I've been vacillating. If I could choose anyone in the world to be President, it would be Joe Biden. But he's been out of the running for months now. Obama is inspiring, but doesn't have a lot of experience. Clinton has the experience, but radical conservatives hate her guts and shouldn't we be done with Presidents who polarize us to that degree? But we did well under the last Clinton adminstration, but she supported the war in Iraq.
Barack or Hillary. Hillary or Barack. I couldn't decide.
And then Clinton promised something no one can deliver, and Obama pointed out the truth.
So the choice is now obvious. "When a politician promises to lower taxes, they are lying." I can vote for the liar, or I can vote for the one who isn't lying to me.
I'm voting for Barack Obama.
And even if distributors do pass on the entire savings, those taxes are supposed to pay for things; road repair and maintanence, for instance. Mr. Stewart's own prophetic example. Have we forgotten the people who were killed in the Minnesota bridge collapse so quickly? And there are hundreds of roads and bridges in need of immediate repair to make them safe, and thousands more that are degrading.
And even if anyone really thinks that allowing our roads to fall into ruin is a good idea, there's still the matter of the ever-increasing deficit. We're already billions of dollars in the red; we can not afford to run that debt up further.
The time to fight rising fuel costs was 20 years ago; that boat sailed when the Reagan Republicans decided that setting better fuel economy standards wasn't a worthwhile endeavor. It's rather sad and pathetic that the average vehicle was more fuel efficient 15 years ago than they are today.
As Mr. Stewart pointed out to us all those years ago, the promise to lower the tax is a false one; it won't lower your costs, and it will likely hurt the country.
TAKING A STAND
So here we are, two politicians vying to be the Democratic candidate for President who will run against Republican John McCain.
Until now, I've been vacillating. If I could choose anyone in the world to be President, it would be Joe Biden. But he's been out of the running for months now. Obama is inspiring, but doesn't have a lot of experience. Clinton has the experience, but radical conservatives hate her guts and shouldn't we be done with Presidents who polarize us to that degree? But we did well under the last Clinton adminstration, but she supported the war in Iraq.
Barack or Hillary. Hillary or Barack. I couldn't decide.
And then Clinton promised something no one can deliver, and Obama pointed out the truth.
So the choice is now obvious. "When a politician promises to lower taxes, they are lying." I can vote for the liar, or I can vote for the one who isn't lying to me.
I'm voting for Barack Obama.
April 12, 2008
Florida Budget Priorities
Since the idiots in Tallahassee our elected officials seem to be having a problem understanding what their priorities should be, I thought I'd put together a list for them to refer to. So here they are, in order of importance.
EDUCATION
This must be Number One, before anything else on a rational budget. You can't thrive in the world without an education. You need a good education to get a good job, or to understand the world around you. To solve our problems we must understand them; and the problems we'll face tomorrow will only be more complex. Our schools must not be treated as a baby-sitting or warehouse service; our children must grow up to be the leaders of tomorrow. We must prepare our children to face the problems facing them, and that means fully funding our schools. Remember, in a few decades your children will be taking care of YOU.
PUBLIC SAFETY
We must be safe. If you do not understand this, you should not be in public service. We need to know that our laws will be enforced, and that help will come in an emergency. Our police and fire departments lay their lives on the line for us, the least we can do is make sure they have the equipment they need to do that job. A police officer shouldn't be alone on patrol. Firefighters need to have gear they can rely on, and paramedics need to have the supplies they need to save lives. We also need to ensure that they can pay their bills, and that their families are provided for if the worst should happen. Cutting their budget is like cutting off your arm or leg, or that of someone you love.
WATER
Without clean water, you have nothing. We must stop dumping sewage in our oceans; this contaminates our oceans and destroys our fisheries. We must stop further destruction of the Everglades; most animals know better than to destroy their own homes, and it's time we learned at least that much.
We must carefully regulate the use of our fresh water supply; we can't continue to squander drinking water on our lawns, golf courses or the estates of a privileged few. We're literally flushing our most precious resource down the drain. NOW is the time to ensure that we'll continue to have fresh water in the future. With prudent management, we should never have to worry about the taps running dry.
TRANSIT
Apparently some of you missed the 1970s and the two crises that should have alerted you to the fact that the supply of oil is finite. We should have been building our cars and trucks with an emphasis on efficiency; instead, you've allowed Detroit to foist bulky and inefficient SUVs on us. The result is that instead of building up a reserve of decades that would have stabilized both supply and price, you've left us at the mercy of foreign powers. Gasoline is rapidly climbing towards $4 a gallon on average. It's becoming too expensive to drive our big, gas-guzzling cars, and even the more efficient cars are becoming increasingly costly to operate.
Yes, it's great that we're starting to see hybrids that get greater mileage, but not everyone can afford them; and even if we could, we still don't know how long the batteries will last and how much they'll cost to replace.
No, we must stop focusing on accommodating automobiles; we must not expand their infrastructure, we must not widen our highways, or add new routes. It's time to get cars OFF the road. And we do that by giving would-be motorists better options; and that means buses and trains.
It's time to design transit systems that WORK. We can't look at the broken half-formed poor excuse of a system now in place and claim that it teaches us anything. Learn the lessons Tri-Rail teaches us: once the double-tracking allowed trains to run every half-hour during rush hour, ridership shot up. People will use public transit if it is reasonably convenient for them to do so. This has been proven around the world time and time again. We are no exception to that. It's no longer viable to use the excuse that other places had it longer, or that it was cheaper then: it really wasn't. It used up just as much resources then as it would now.
We need to act now to solve tomorrow's fuel crisis. Our economy will collapse if people can't afford to get around town. Businesses are already seeing a drop in patronage as people stay home more. People on the lower half of the economic scale may soon have to choose between putting gas in their tank or putting food on the table. Some are already there.
CONCLUSION
The simple-minded Republican solution of cutting taxes will not get us out of this mess. Neither will hand-outs. We need to set clear and logical budget priorities, and exercise prudent administration of our tax monies.
We shouldn't underwrite businesses that make enough to pay their own way; our sports franchises make a lot of money for themselves, they don't need a dime of tax money. Expenditures at the state level must reflect value for the entire state; at the same time, the state needs to make sure that a fair proportion of funds return to their county of origin.
The legislature needs to stop wasting our tax dollars debating bad law, such as the bill forcing women to pay for ultra-sounds before having an abortion; our legislators are not doctors, and have no business dictating unnecessary medical procedures. It's wasteful and a clear abuse of power. How much has this stupid debate cost the taxpayer so far? Such behavior will not get us out of our budget mess, and should be stopped immediately.
There's a lot I left out of my budget discussion; that's because we need to concentrate on the four areas I laid out above. Everything else must be dealt with AFTER these four key areas.
The next time we're adding frivolous amendments, we should consider adding practical ones: preventing budget cuts in the areas outlined above except under very proscribed and specific circumstances.
EDUCATION
This must be Number One, before anything else on a rational budget. You can't thrive in the world without an education. You need a good education to get a good job, or to understand the world around you. To solve our problems we must understand them; and the problems we'll face tomorrow will only be more complex. Our schools must not be treated as a baby-sitting or warehouse service; our children must grow up to be the leaders of tomorrow. We must prepare our children to face the problems facing them, and that means fully funding our schools. Remember, in a few decades your children will be taking care of YOU.
PUBLIC SAFETY
We must be safe. If you do not understand this, you should not be in public service. We need to know that our laws will be enforced, and that help will come in an emergency. Our police and fire departments lay their lives on the line for us, the least we can do is make sure they have the equipment they need to do that job. A police officer shouldn't be alone on patrol. Firefighters need to have gear they can rely on, and paramedics need to have the supplies they need to save lives. We also need to ensure that they can pay their bills, and that their families are provided for if the worst should happen. Cutting their budget is like cutting off your arm or leg, or that of someone you love.
WATER
Without clean water, you have nothing. We must stop dumping sewage in our oceans; this contaminates our oceans and destroys our fisheries. We must stop further destruction of the Everglades; most animals know better than to destroy their own homes, and it's time we learned at least that much.
We must carefully regulate the use of our fresh water supply; we can't continue to squander drinking water on our lawns, golf courses or the estates of a privileged few. We're literally flushing our most precious resource down the drain. NOW is the time to ensure that we'll continue to have fresh water in the future. With prudent management, we should never have to worry about the taps running dry.
TRANSIT
Apparently some of you missed the 1970s and the two crises that should have alerted you to the fact that the supply of oil is finite. We should have been building our cars and trucks with an emphasis on efficiency; instead, you've allowed Detroit to foist bulky and inefficient SUVs on us. The result is that instead of building up a reserve of decades that would have stabilized both supply and price, you've left us at the mercy of foreign powers. Gasoline is rapidly climbing towards $4 a gallon on average. It's becoming too expensive to drive our big, gas-guzzling cars, and even the more efficient cars are becoming increasingly costly to operate.
Yes, it's great that we're starting to see hybrids that get greater mileage, but not everyone can afford them; and even if we could, we still don't know how long the batteries will last and how much they'll cost to replace.
No, we must stop focusing on accommodating automobiles; we must not expand their infrastructure, we must not widen our highways, or add new routes. It's time to get cars OFF the road. And we do that by giving would-be motorists better options; and that means buses and trains.
It's time to design transit systems that WORK. We can't look at the broken half-formed poor excuse of a system now in place and claim that it teaches us anything. Learn the lessons Tri-Rail teaches us: once the double-tracking allowed trains to run every half-hour during rush hour, ridership shot up. People will use public transit if it is reasonably convenient for them to do so. This has been proven around the world time and time again. We are no exception to that. It's no longer viable to use the excuse that other places had it longer, or that it was cheaper then: it really wasn't. It used up just as much resources then as it would now.
We need to act now to solve tomorrow's fuel crisis. Our economy will collapse if people can't afford to get around town. Businesses are already seeing a drop in patronage as people stay home more. People on the lower half of the economic scale may soon have to choose between putting gas in their tank or putting food on the table. Some are already there.
CONCLUSION
The simple-minded Republican solution of cutting taxes will not get us out of this mess. Neither will hand-outs. We need to set clear and logical budget priorities, and exercise prudent administration of our tax monies.
We shouldn't underwrite businesses that make enough to pay their own way; our sports franchises make a lot of money for themselves, they don't need a dime of tax money. Expenditures at the state level must reflect value for the entire state; at the same time, the state needs to make sure that a fair proportion of funds return to their county of origin.
The legislature needs to stop wasting our tax dollars debating bad law, such as the bill forcing women to pay for ultra-sounds before having an abortion; our legislators are not doctors, and have no business dictating unnecessary medical procedures. It's wasteful and a clear abuse of power. How much has this stupid debate cost the taxpayer so far? Such behavior will not get us out of our budget mess, and should be stopped immediately.
There's a lot I left out of my budget discussion; that's because we need to concentrate on the four areas I laid out above. Everything else must be dealt with AFTER these four key areas.
The next time we're adding frivolous amendments, we should consider adding practical ones: preventing budget cuts in the areas outlined above except under very proscribed and specific circumstances.
January 27, 2008
Florida's "Amendent 1" a Loser (updated)
There's a problem with the way property taxes are calculated in Florida; it's completely, unequivocally UNFAIR.
And "Amendment 1" does not change that. It doesn't change that at all.
So what does it do? It not only perpetuates the inherent unfairness, it extends it.
Our tax laws are unfair because they create huge gaps between what one person is paying, and what a neighbor in an identical home is paying. Equal properties should result in equal taxes; everyone should be paying their fair share. But in Florida, long time homeowners are NOT paying their share. And so the burden goes onto their neighbors who came here more recently.
This is a result of the so-called "Save Our Homes" initiative. This dismally stupid amendment limited the amount of value that a homestead property could increase on the tax rolls each year. The limit is defined as three percent OR a figure equal to the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less.
Now, I know that SEEMS like a good thing. And if you don't plan on living into the future, it is. But time passes, and property values in the REAL world increase. Or skyrocket.
You've owned your home for ten years. Your neighbor moved in five years ago, and he paid twice what you did, because housing cost do that. He pays a property tax based on that market value of twice your original purchase price; you're paying a fraction of that because SOH artificially reduces the value of your home for tax purposes.
So you own your home; NOW you want to move. The problem is that you've been paying a tax rate WAAAAAAY out of touch with the real world; even if you're downsizing, the price of home is way up; even if you find a house that is equal to your old home's assessed SOH value, the tax rate will be many times what you were paying on your old house. Suddenly, it's cheaper to stay in an oversized house.
Amendment 1 offers a band-aid, but doesn't really solve ANYTHING. What it does it let you take your SOH tax break with you - sort of. The Sun-Sentinel explains this:
Someone buying the house for the first time would have to pay taxes based on the full value of $800,000.
But none of this addresses the taxes paid by non-residents; the snowbirds.
While homesteaders have had paltry increases based on a fictional 3% increase in property value, non-resident property owners have faced double digit increases every year. Someone has to pay for infrastructure, and it's not the people who LIVE here.
"Save Our Homes" is a classic case of "fuck you, I've got mine!" The so-called "amendment 1" simply increases how much the rest of us are being fucked.
Anyone who supports SAVE OUR HOMES or Amendment 1 is saying "FUCK YOU. I don't care about anyone other than myself. I got mine, FUCK YOU. I'm not paying for fire departments or police departments or hospitals or schools or anyone. I'm barely contributing to society at all. FUCK YOU."
At this point, it's time to offer the sensible alternative.
The PROBLEM with our property tax system is that it's based on VALUE, not SIZE. Value is not a set variable; it can be fiddled with. I can reduce my property's value by not painting it, or allowing it to crumble. Value can depend on things outside my control; or as they say, 'location, location, location!'
I say we scrap that system entirely. No more Fisher Island billionaires getting exemptions because they claim they've been "over valued." No more issues of leaving a big home for a small one but paying a lot more taxes.
Property tax should be based solely on the size of the property. It should use the land and the square footage of the building as the metrics to calculate the base tax rate. Everyone would be paying their fair share, and you would not have the disparity of taxation when you sell one house and move into another.
Amendment 1 does not solve any problems at all; it only expands a very bad system. Vote against it.
And "Amendment 1" does not change that. It doesn't change that at all.
So what does it do? It not only perpetuates the inherent unfairness, it extends it.
Our tax laws are unfair because they create huge gaps between what one person is paying, and what a neighbor in an identical home is paying. Equal properties should result in equal taxes; everyone should be paying their fair share. But in Florida, long time homeowners are NOT paying their share. And so the burden goes onto their neighbors who came here more recently.
''I'm standing in my backyard right now looking in my neighbor's house, which is essentially the same,'' said [Stanley C.] Chamberlin, of North Palm Beach, last week. "My neighbor pays about $8,000 in taxes and I pay $23,000, and it's just not fair.''
- Miami Herald, January 27, 2008
This is a result of the so-called "Save Our Homes" initiative. This dismally stupid amendment limited the amount of value that a homestead property could increase on the tax rolls each year. The limit is defined as three percent OR a figure equal to the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less.
Now, I know that SEEMS like a good thing. And if you don't plan on living into the future, it is. But time passes, and property values in the REAL world increase. Or skyrocket.
You've owned your home for ten years. Your neighbor moved in five years ago, and he paid twice what you did, because housing cost do that. He pays a property tax based on that market value of twice your original purchase price; you're paying a fraction of that because SOH artificially reduces the value of your home for tax purposes.
So you own your home; NOW you want to move. The problem is that you've been paying a tax rate WAAAAAAY out of touch with the real world; even if you're downsizing, the price of home is way up; even if you find a house that is equal to your old home's assessed SOH value, the tax rate will be many times what you were paying on your old house. Suddenly, it's cheaper to stay in an oversized house.
Amendment 1 offers a band-aid, but doesn't really solve ANYTHING. What it does it let you take your SOH tax break with you - sort of. The Sun-Sentinel explains this:
"For example, if the owner of a $400,000 home, with an accumulated Save
Our Homes exemption of $300,000, moved to a house valued by the
property appraiser at $800,000, the new house would be assessed at
$500,000 for tax purposes. This would be retroactive to homes sold in
2007."
But none of this addresses the taxes paid by non-residents; the snowbirds.
While homesteaders have had paltry increases based on a fictional 3% increase in property value, non-resident property owners have faced double digit increases every year. Someone has to pay for infrastructure, and it's not the people who LIVE here.
"Save Our Homes" is a classic case of "fuck you, I've got mine!" The so-called "amendment 1" simply increases how much the rest of us are being fucked.
Anyone who supports SAVE OUR HOMES or Amendment 1 is saying "FUCK YOU. I don't care about anyone other than myself. I got mine, FUCK YOU. I'm not paying for fire departments or police departments or hospitals or schools or anyone. I'm barely contributing to society at all. FUCK YOU."
At this point, it's time to offer the sensible alternative.
The PROBLEM with our property tax system is that it's based on VALUE, not SIZE. Value is not a set variable; it can be fiddled with. I can reduce my property's value by not painting it, or allowing it to crumble. Value can depend on things outside my control; or as they say, 'location, location, location!'
I say we scrap that system entirely. No more Fisher Island billionaires getting exemptions because they claim they've been "over valued." No more issues of leaving a big home for a small one but paying a lot more taxes.
Property tax should be based solely on the size of the property. It should use the land and the square footage of the building as the metrics to calculate the base tax rate. Everyone would be paying their fair share, and you would not have the disparity of taxation when you sell one house and move into another.
Amendment 1 does not solve any problems at all; it only expands a very bad system. Vote against it.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)