Posted on 05/23/2005 7:35:32 AM PDT by KeyesPlease
Soaring property taxes are a top worry in state legislatures across the country, where lawmakers are trying to appease disgruntled homeowners and, in some cases, courts that are demanding change in the system so schools are more equitably funded.
Some states are weighing plans to lower taxes. Others just want to keep them from rising too fast. Still others are aiming to substantially change the tax system and find another way to help pay for schools that closes the quality gap between wealthy and poor communities.
"People are facing being taxed out of their homes," said Ted Harris, a 69-year-old retiree living on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, whose taxes climbed from $2,200 in 1990 to $12,000 last year. "Government simply swallows the money and finds lots of reasons to spend that money."
From Texas to Illinois to Pennsylvania, lawmakers are weighing property-tax caps, limits, exemptions and other ways to ease the burdens for homeowners — whose tax bills are the down slide of home values increasing. Proposals to change the system have become part of the gubernatorial campaigns in New Jersey and Virginia.
In most states, cities, counties and municipalities rely upon property taxes to pay for much of local government and schools.
In response to widespread complaints, Nevada — the fastest-growing state in the country — signed into law last month a cap on property taxes, limiting growth to 3 percent a year on all single-family, owner-occupied primary residences, with a higher cap of 8 percent for commercial property and second homes.
Legislatures are debating bills in many states, but so far:
Texas legislators agreed to lower property taxes for schools, with the state picking up a bigger share of the education load..
New Jersey legislators are moving forward with plans to ask voters to approve a constitutional convention that would take on changes in the property-tax system, heeding arguments that taxes have gotten out of control.
Illinois lawmakers are debating a plan to swap higher income taxes for lower property taxes.
Pennsylvania last year legalized slot-machine gambling with some of the money to cut local school property taxes.
I am also from Texas, but 30 years ago I came here from New Jersey. At that time they were debating the same issue they are debating today. How to fund schools without using property taxes. They got the Legislature to pass an income tax by telling people their property taxes would go down. They also passed the lottery to fund education. They then passed legalized gambling for Atlantic City. Here we are in 2005 and they are looking for another way to give education more money to spend with another method of taxation. BTW property taxes haven't gone down. The income tax has gone steadily upward, and even though I live in Texas, I pay income tax on the house I inherited from my parents which my 84 year old Uncle still lives in in NJ., inaddition to property taxes.
Oh, yes, I forgot about the sales tax.
My point is this, they've tried all of the methods of taxation on the East Coast. Unless the legislature in Texas is really, really, creative, how else do you think we can fund our education system?
It seems to me that it's like pounding sand into a rat hole.
I've spent 40 years as a certified Secondary Teacher. I'm licensed to teach and have taught in both New Jersey and Texas. I taught ESL in Texas. I had no books, no room to teach in, and no curriculum. I had nothing. I bought my own materials, and created my own curriculum. This was in 1994. The school system was also paying me less than a beginning teacher was paid since I hadn't received my certification in ESL as of yet. The teaching situation at my High School was pathetic. Science teachers didn't have enough books. There wasn't enough money for the basics, yet the Administration building was a 5 story Taj Mahal complete with any number of bureaucrats all filling out paper work for unfunded Federally mandated educational programs. That's where your tax money is going. Compare the size of the bureaucracy today with what it was in 1965 when I first started teaching. I bet it's 100 times larger.
Why? Because the Federal Government got involved. I don't believe we even had a Federal department of Education in '65. The class rooms haven't changed all that much. Throw in a few computers, throw out the Pledge of Alligence and you have a class room in 2005. Kids today aren't as educated as they were in '65. We're just spending a whole lot more money on things that don't benefit the student.
Voting for democrats isn't going to help. They're the reason we're in the mess we're in. They controlled Texas and the Federal governmet for over 60 years. I sometimes think we have to wipe out the entire system and start over. All you need for a good education is a willing student and a person willing to teach with mutual respect, and everything else is secondary.
"Are county governments in Missouri responsible for property assessments? In NJ, assessment responsibility is reserved to the municipality. Munis must assess at least once a decade"
Can't speak for Missouri, but in NC, both municipalities and counties are responsible, with separate property taxes and rates for each. Live in a city, pay city and county tax. Property tax re-evaluations are required every eight years at a minimum, which does not prevent a more frequent schedule, annually in some rare cases. In Greensboro, for instance, property taxes are generally around $1.18 per hundred dollars of assessed value, .55 of which is municipal, the remainder being county. Still fairly cheap by the standards of most high-growth areas. Appreciation in property values is also considerably lower, for a variety of reasons, though.
Most of the cost of education in personell. Most school districts average one administrator per teacher. The average administrator pay is three times the average teacher pay. The solution to funding education is right there.
Voting for democrats isn't going to help. They're the reason we're in the mess we're in. They controlled Texas and the Federal governmet for over 60 years.
Damning the democrats again isn't productive. We all know what they are. And they are out of power anyway. But the republicans are merely perpetuating the democrat's policies, and doing something the democrats never dared to do: Introduce an income tax under the cover of darkness.
The democrats created a problem. The republicans are escalating it into a crisis. They are essentially proposing to accelerate an already exploding tax burden, and throw even more cash at schools whose primary problem is too much cash. Yes, you read that right. The problem with schools is that there is so much money involved that they are attracting con artists into school administration. No school superintendent is worth half a million a year given the abysmally low quality of the education product.
School administration is a complete failure. They spend tens of millions on extravagant buildings and salaries for administrators, and shortchange teachers and classrooms.
Wisconsin is also neck deep in the property tax debate. First, the income tax was going to offset the property tax...but prop taxes kept going up....then the increased sales tax....still, property taxes went up....the lottery....didn't do a darn thing...the school aid forumula changes...still taxes went up. Unless there are strict, and as the opposition likes to call them "artificial" spending controls on our elected officials, they will spend and spend and spend some more. And that includes those Republicans who like to mostly pretend they are for limited government. In Wisconsin we are trying to get the weak-willed lawmakers to get serious about the constitutional Wisconsin Taxpayer Bill of Rights"...which limits spending to the rate of inflation plus new growth. Which means, every year the government gets to spend MORE, just up to a certain point. Can't get any lawmakers serious about getting it done. Here in Madison, the culture of tax and spend and don't ask questions is so overwhelming that our school district which has spent MORE money for fewer students, hired MORE staff for fewer studetns...and opened and built MORE facilities for fewer students....is back with their hand out, demanding more money for the kids. Nevermind that around 90% of the total operating budget costs if for salaries and benefits. It's for the kids! Can't pay your taxes? Sorry, remember as you sell your home because you can't pay those taxes that it's for the kids.
And people can feel good to know their lotto money goes to education.
Every time you lose, you get a little smarter.
And yet, there is little to no disparity when these same minority kids go to poorly funded Catholic schools.
Strange, isn't it? Must be, the teachers are actually teaching the fundamentals instead of 'feelgoodism', and the parents are actually riding herd on the kids so that they behave and learn.
What does that mean? Are you in favor of increasing taxes? Do you think a 16% increase in tax over 5 years is OK? How about a 46.9% increase in the same period is that still OK with you? If a property is owned by a business does that make it OK with you to plunder the business for tax loot?
Property taxes and specifically, Prop 13, is one of the few good reasons for living in California.
I think Fast Eddie Spendell got what he wanted. None of the rural or suburban school districts will go for the plan - they don't even know how much money slots will pull in yet!
Since the rural/suburban districts won't go for it, he can channel all of the money into the Philly rat hole.
They could let the balances accrue and be paid out of the proceeds upon sale.
How about "Seniors should not have to pay any school related tax?" After all, they don't have any kids in school.
"Do you know what inflation is? If incomes and prices are increasing 20% over 5 years, no, I don't have a problem with taxes going up 16% over the same time period."
Increasing the tax RATE, on TOP of an 800% increase in property value over a 20 year period, which is reflected in the tax value, would seem excessive to those who are not Democrat. What this says is that a mere 800% over 20 years is not enough to pay for (fill in the blank, usually something emotional, as in "it's for the children").
Nope....because people who don't drive shouldn't have to pay for road improvements, etc..
The other side of the coin on the property tax issue is that these seniors own homes worth $1 MILLION plus, while they probably paid $150K for it 15 -20 years ago.
I can understand how a fixed income could have consequences...not being able to tap the equity to pay the taxes, etc..
There is no disparity because the schools are selective about admission and dismissal policies. They don't have to accept every single individual that comes in the door. Students that select a private school over public school tend to be more motivated. Parents who pay for private school are more motivated to ensure the kids succeed. The students are not representative of the general population.
San Diego has many private schools both secular and parochial. The private school results are typically much better than the public schools.
By the way, the city is definitely not collecting 8x as much in taxes now as it was in 1985. There are a lot fewer children and poor people living here, so we've closed a bunch of schools and spend less on services. We have half the firefighters we used to. On the flip side, health care for city employees and for people who can't afford to pay at city hospitals has far outpaced inflation. As it has in the private sector, too--health insurance is expensive and getting moreso.
The house I owned in Mira Mesa (purchased in 1983) was assessed around $1200 per year in property taxes. I purchased it in 1983 for $105,000. I sold it in 2001 for $242,000. Today, it would sell for $500,000. The property taxes on that 1337 sq ft house would be outrageous now.
The house I purchased in Idaho for $179,000 in 2000 is 3900 sq ft on 1/3 acre. I pay $3150 per year in property taxes. That is with an exclusion on the first $100,000 because I live in it.
I just purchased a 2nd house in Pocatello in February. It is 2068 sq ft. Purchased for $82900. I won't get an exclusion as it isn't my primary residence. I'll still be able to subtract mortage interest, property tax and maintenance from gross rental receipts. It will be cash flow negative this year owing to the need to upgrade the windows before renting it. I expect a positive cash flow next year.
By this snotty comment I take it that you're in favor of increasing taxes at the rate of inflation. You've conveniently ignored:
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.