How would YOU vote on this? (Indiana Property Tax Ballot Measure)

[KCIndy]

Here in Indiana, next month's ballot is going to include a Public Question (Ballot Measure) in which the population of the state is going to vote whether to amend Indiana's Constitution.

The question is whether Indiana's property taxes be capped at one percent for residential property owners, and caps of two percent for agricultural land and three percent for some commercial/non residential properties.

The full text of the measure (it's short!) can be read here:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Indiana_Property_Tax_Cap_Amendment,_Public_Question_1_(2010)

Basically, by putting state Constitutional caps on property taxes, it makes it impossible for the state government to hike said taxes whenever it overspends and gets in a pinch.

Personally, I'm caught between the practical opportunity to put a severe limit on property taxes that will be almost unbreakable by the state, and the entirely idealistic (and utterly UNrealistic) notion that we need to abolish property taxes completely.

How would you vote?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes.

Abolition of all property taxes is a laudable next step.

Get what you can

 

[fisharmor]

Well, unfortunately your state constitution explicitly calls for property taxation, so I'd echo that you should take what you can get.
After making the system live within its means for a while, you can surely make the argument that reducing its means the last time didn't change anything, so getting rid of the tax would only be logical.

 

[Krugerrand]

I'd be suspicious.

Are all property-based taxes included in this? In PA we have two property taxes. One to the county and one to the school district. Legalized (state-controlled) gambling was passed on the promise of reduced property taxes ... but it left the property based school taxes unchanged.

Does the measure sufficiently prevent circumvention of the law? Can other "fees" be changed to be on a sliding scale based on property value? What stops the government from inflating the assessed property value?

 

[libertybrewcity]

Yes, as long as property taxes aren't currently higher than those rates.

 

[KCIndy]

I'd be suspicious.

Are all property-based taxes included in this? In PA we have two property taxes. One to the county and one to the school district. Legalized (state-controlled) gambling was passed on the promise of reduced property taxes ... but it left the property based school taxes unchanged.

Does the measure sufficiently prevent circumvention of the law? Can other "fees" be changed to be on a sliding scale based on property value? What stops the government from inflating the assessed property value?

Government is always going to be sneaky and crooked. When Indiana voted to allow a state lottery back in the late 80s, we were promised a bunch of stuff that never happened at that time, either. ("We'll get rid of excise taxes, more cash for education...." blah blah)

Just like trying to put out a fire, there will always be another hot spot to stamp out.

Overall, I see the cap on property taxes being a step in the right direction. I just hate to vote for ANY tax, but since the property tax already exists, I think bringing it down is a step in the right direction. Getting rid of it would be a Herculean task to follow, just like getting rid of the sales tax (which actually went UP as a result of the '07 property tax fiasco - long story).

 

[TonySutton]

Cap the property tax this year and then cap the income tax next year. After that start looking for ways to close any loop holes.

 

[Krugerrand]

I'd like to see billboards asking "At what percentage of taxation do you become a slave of the state?"

 

[TonySutton]

If God can survive off 10% I would think the government in total (local, state, federal) should be able to survive off less than 10%.

I would prefer it to be zero but shooting for that is unrealistic at this time.

 

[surf]

generally these taxes are based on "assessed" (sp?) values, and this can be a very bad thing. property taxes are a main source of gov't theft here in Washington, and the assessed value of my home is far more than i could sell it for.

also, when RE values rise gov't will build elaborate city halls, fire stations, public toilets, libraries, etc. when RE values drop you will be stuck with a bloated gov't whining about not having funds.

when RE values rise those that are on the edge will see their property taxes rise forcing many to sell.

limits are good, but be weary of the legislature finding ways around this to keep "revenues" flowing into the gov't.

 

[Krugerrand]

generally these taxes are based on "assessed" (sp?) values, and this can be a very bad thing. property taxes are a main source of gov't theft here in Washington, and the assessed value of my home is far more than i could sell it for.

also, when RE values rise gov't will build elaborate city halls, fire stations, public toilets, libraries, etc. when RE values drop you will be stuck with a bloated gov't whining about not having funds.

when RE values rise those that are on the edge will see their property taxes rise forcing many to sell.

limits are good, but be weary of the legislature finding ways around this to keep "revenues" flowing into the gov't.

of course, the wealthiest have the monetary and legal resources to contest and lower their assessments. The poorer are stuck with what they get.

 

[oyarde]

I vote cap it .

 

[Krugerrand]

I'm leaning towards the cap. You've got the tax, so it's not a new one. You've got it now without a cap. I'd think a cap is at least an improvement.

 

[oyarde]

of course, the wealthiest have the monetary and legal resources to contest and lower their assessments. The poorer are stuck with what they get.

In KCIndy's state you can challenge the assesment at no cost .

 

[KCIndy]

In KCIndy's state you can challenge the assesment at no cost .

Hurrah for Indiana!

 

[oyarde]

Hurrah for Indiana!

I filed on mine this summer . They raised my assesment two consecutive years to about 20, 000 more than I could sell for.

 

[Humanae Libertas]

We have a similar prop here in CA (PROP 13), that passed over 30 years ago.

I'd say go for it, even though property taxes is taxing people for owning a house or property and paying the government rent. So in reality, no one really owns property unless you don't pay any taxes.

 

[Krugerrand]

In KCIndy's state you can challenge the assesment at no cost .

You can challenge in PA as well. However, my school district keeps attorneys on staff that do nothing but attend hearings (or initiate appeals when they want more money) to fight for higher assessments. So, unless you hire your own attorney and fork out some cash, you won't get a lower assessment.

 

[KCIndy]

UPDATE: Well, I did the "early voting" thing because I'm probably going to be out of town on Election Day. I voted yes. It still feels uncomfortably close to voting for a tax, but as others here have stated, it's a first step. Once we put limits on it, we can work on killing it completely.

Any fellow Hoosiers out there have any thoughts on this?

 

[oyarde]

UPDATE: Well, I did the "early voting" thing because I'm probably going to be out of town on Election Day. I voted yes. It still feels uncomfortably close to voting for a tax, but as others here have stated, it's a first step. Once we put limits on it, we can work on killing it completely.

Any fellow Hoosiers out there have any thoughts on this?

I would love to be rid of it , but here is the real deal; 50 % of all state tax and all property tax goes to pay for the public education system . In order to make reductions in that Dem Holy Grail , the Dems cannot control the house, which they do . So , right now all we can do is freeze them to the current 10,000 per yr. per student or they will steal more from us and spend more . It is like a God to them .