Posted on 04/18/2019 11:59:45 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
REAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AMENDMENT
Governmental financial impositions of any year with respect to any housing unit and its curtilage without water frontage shall not exceed the value of 1/500th of an ounce of gold per square foot of finished living space and linear foot of public road frontage.
EMPLOYMENT/INCOME PROTECTION AMENDMENT
Federal/state employer/income taxation may be levied at no more than 24/20ths of the rates of January 1, 2019 on persons/entities having an annual income of less than the value of fifty ounces of gold.
Federal/state employer/income taxation rates/rate thresholds may be changed by no more than 1/20th in any year.
The first would mean that owners of a 2,200 square foot house and 100x100 lot wouldn't have to pay more than about $5,980 in annual property taxation. That's clearly ample.
The second would mean that people making under about $65,000/year wouldn't have to pay much more income tax than they now do.
The caps are referenced to gold to adjust for monetary inflation.
Other possibilities under my review include:
Governmental financial impositions with respect to personal property shall be limited to sales and existing types of domestic excise taxation.
No governmental financial imposition or tax rate substantially greater than that of January 1, 2019 may be placed on any necessary product or service.
If you see a problem or have an additional suggestion, please post it.
Bear in mind that each proposed constitutional amendment must be of a nature that many Democrats in the House and Senate and in the state legislatures would have to support it or lose reelection.
City folk.....(sigh)
“24/20ths”
Huh?
I see your point.
But we don’t need, nor could we get a constitutional amendment for this.
Very specific! Might be a good way to go about this.
Nut may be good to be more roundabout...
say, require rptoperty taxes to be approved by two elected local boards/pfficials and/or not take effect until after subsequent election.
I initially used 120%. Then I used 6/5ths. I finally went to 24/20ths to match up with the 1/20th annual change allowance.
One would not want the federal government to tax 147% (27% +120%) of their income.
Will have lots of unexpected affects. Artificial pressure on gold commodity prices for one.
“we don’t need”
Take a look at the bills Senator Bernie Sanders is sponsoring.
Take a look at the bills Senator Susan Collins is sponsoring.
“nor could we get a constitutional amendment for this.”
We lost the House over property taxes.
The Democrats will lose the House unless they cap real property taxation.
Let’s fight to win California, New Jersey and New York.
As for income taxation, failure to support the amendment would mean the elected official is in favor of raising income taxes substantially on the under $65,000/year crowd.
These proposals are good politics, and badly needed.
Affects, effects, grammer cops charge!!!
“Artificial pressure on gold commodity prices for one”
If gold goes up, property taxes could go up, but more income would get protected.
If gold goes down, property taxes would sometimes go down, but less income would get protected.
They sort of balance each other with respect to gold pricing.
Are you trying to say that you’re calling for a maximum tax rate of 20%?
“City folk”
Let’s say you own five acres, which is about 500 feet of road frontage. That about $1,300/year.
If you have roads on two sides that would be about $2,600/year.
Taxation on estates will never be cheap again.
My cap on government greed doesn’t prohibit cheaper and fairer methods of property taxation.
“Are you trying to say that you’re calling for a maximum tax rate of 20%?”
No.
These amendments are meant to protect the middle and working class.
Tax protections for the really high income folks simply won’t fly politically.
As one commenter noted, we might not be able to get even these modest caps.
“elected local boards”
These tend to get packed with people who want expensive government.
Get over yourself.
Well, whatever you’re trying to say, you might find a better way of saying it.
I have a BS in math and an MBA, and what you wrote makes very little sense to me.
...what you wrote makes very little sense to me.I'm 52/37ths sure is makes no sense.
“REAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AMENDMENT”
Real property taxes may not be based on property values, real, estimated, assessed or otherwise.
Localities have costs. Those cost have nothing to do with the property values of the residential or commercial units in them and in no way do property values make for any equitable manner of distributing the taxes a locality needs to collect to meet its service obligations.
Each service obligation, be it general local asministration, police, courts, fire & safety, roads, water, sewage, storm drains and the like have some unit of measure of the residents and businesses that would most equitably apportion the localities costs.
As a simple example, the localities cost for roads is based on the miles coverded by the roads - the more miles of roads, the greater the cost generally. It has been commonly given that “road frontage” is a benefit, both residentially and commercially. A oorner residential property is usually valued greater than the exact same house that is not on a corner. Businesses properties with greater road frontage than duplicate businesses in the same local with less road frontage are generally valued greater. The number of miles of residential fronted roads and commercial fronted roads requires no more than additing them up. A propery owner’s equitable share of local road costa can be calculated as a factor of their road frontage, divided by the total road frontage for their category times a rate set by the locality.
For All the other components of the localty’s costs analogous ways can be found to divide up the fixed costs proportionately among the local benecificiries of a service - and not all services necessarily have the same beneficiaries. Water bill should always be based on water consumed. No sewer connection, no sewer costs. No kids in school should mean no school costs. Number of households and number of businesses should be able to be used to split - evenly - those things that are general costs and apply equally to all - general administration, police, fire & public safety, and local courts. Every unit, household or business just pays their equal share.
A property tax bill would then be a composite of the different, proportinately distributed costs.
The entire edifice of “property tax assessments” and property tax rates based on such assessments would vanish.
Yes, I know, these taxes would not be “progressive”. And yes, it also would mean that no locality would be due greater tax from you just beause markets say the POTENTIAL value of your property (if you were to sell) has gone up. Both the former and the latter would be good things.
Too complex, and too tied to a commodity (gold).
“We lost the House over property taxes.”
No. We lost the House because the media was focused 24/7/365 on the Dims’ agenda of Trump and the “collusion” hoax - from January 2017 on, and the media and that agenda ran on the presumption that Trump WAS guily of collusion and Mueller would fined him so. Minus the 22-23 months of that anti-Trump hoax, and all the hate that spewed from it, we may not have lost the house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.