News Among this Year’s Democratic Priorities in Olympia…
posted by on February 22 at 17:10 PM
…Codifying Eyman’s I-747 into law before the state supreme court throws it out.
Eyman’s 2001 property tax cap (1 percent) was thrown out by King County Superior Court Judge Mary Roberts last summer on the grounds that voters were misled about the substance of the measure. Roberts said voters thought they were changing the tax increase cap from 2 percent to 1 percent, not from 6 percent to 1 percent, as 747 mandated.
Voters had approved I-747 by 58 percent.
Of course, liberals and Democratic lawmakers have long argued that I-747 hampers their ability to fund basic services. (Before I-747 passed, the state department of revenue estimated that I-747 would cost the state about $1.3 billion in its first five years. In more concrete terms: Conventional wisdom has it that local governments need to increase their budgets by about 3 percent annually to keep pace with inflation.)
So, codifying 747 into law, eh? Um… go, Democrats?
Look, property taxes are a tricky issue, and there needs to be reform so that people with fixed incomes and poorer people aren’t paying a larger percentage of their incomes in property taxes than rich people. And certainly, lots of Democrats heard complaints on the campaign trail about property taxes.
But wait: Why codify I-747? It’s still in effect (at least until the state supreme court rules), and it hasn’t solved the problems and inequities in our property-tax system since 2001.
If Democrats want to score points and reform the property-tax system, they ought to come up with a progressive solution that doesn’t indiscriminately cap revenues.
I’m all for the Democrats addressing the inequities of our property-tax system, but codifying Eyman’s fix seems an odd course of action.
It's to stop further stupid initiatives.
If you want evidence of how a property tax cap can wreak havoc on schools and services, please look no further than California.
I want Democrats to grow some balls and impose an income tax already. I'd like revenue to be higher, but with a much larger percentage of it coming from an income tax with a concomitant decrease in sales and property tax rates.
A simple solution to the fixed income problem - increase taxes by the full value of the property, but then establish a minimum tax program for low income or fixed income individuals, allowing them to defer the tax until the property is sold. Fair is fair. If you are going to make hundreds of thousands from selling a piece of property, you should pay your fair share of taxes.
Also, such caps simply drive up the price of property by effectively lowering monthly payments. Since it's this escalation of property values behind the condo conversion craze and the loss of housing for low income individuals, a tax cap is exactly the wrong policy if that is your concern.
Higher interest rates and higher taxes are actually good for the lower income segement of population becuase they tend to owe less (because they don't qualify for much in the first place) and because they tend to pay less taxes, while both influences tend to depress property values and help at least maintain the status quo in terms of housing availability.
Property taxes don't make much sense to me as anything other than a tool for gentrification. Make me god emperor and I'd toss 'em and set up income taxes.
Low income people would pay proportionally little money until they sell it at which point they are paying income tax on gains.
I realize income tax is a tricky political issue, but perhaps if the trade off was not having to pay property taxes any more people would be more keen on it.
As an extra added bonus, if you make me god emperor I'll shoot Eyman into space.
Technically, the legislature could:
a. impose a flat income tax with no deductions; or
b. impose a 1 percent income tax with deductions.
Either could be done without changing the state constitution.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).