Post Number: 933
|Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 3:31 pm: || |
The Michigan Senate has passed Senate Joint Resolution H which seeks to prevent property taxes from rising if a property's SEV declines. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20090318/M ETRO/903180439/1361 The Republican sponsored resolution passed and it did have some Democratic votes. This misguided legislation would turn Proposal A on its head and lock in the tax savings that longtime homeowners enjoy by virtue of the Proposal A cap on tax increases. There are calculations out there that say that this feel-good effort will deprive local governments across the state of $253 million. Senator Deb Cherry issued this statement which explains the problem very clearly. It's kind of long but it reviews the whole problem.
quote: Basically SJR H wants to increase a tax break to homeowners who have already been enjoying a tax break for 15 years (if they've owned their house for that long) at the expense of local government budgets and those folks unfortunate enough to be purchasing a house in the current tax year. Good politics, awful public policy. Our State senators should be spending more time figuring out how to inform voters why it's not necessarily unfair for their property taxes to rise modestly while their home value has declined instead of recklessly amending the tax code with the intent to influence the votes of uninformed homeowners.
When Proposal A was in its formative stage, two key issues came to the surface: providing property tax relief and devising a system to equalize funding between school districts within the state. However, during debate on the floor, a third issue surfaced as a floor amendment and included a clause that property assessments would be capped at the rate of inflation or 5 percent, whichever is less. This created the taxable value system of today. By creating this cap, a system based on equity was traded for a system based on predictability. Now the issue of how long a person owned a home becomes more important than the value of the home. The Proposal A cap has saved property owners billions of dollars since 1994 but has created its own set of problems. Now a new issue is being debated before us today, Senate Joint Resolution H. This resolution seeks to amend our Constitution to state that when the SEV on a piece of property declines, the taxable value of that property may not increase. The property tax system has become a taxation system based on inequity. This resolution perpetuates inequity. It offers no assistance to those taxpayers who have borne the greatest burden within our property tax system, those who have recently purchased a home. Any person who moves to our state and purchases a home will find that they are paying proportionately more in property taxes than their neighbors. How’s that for a welcome mat? Senate Joint Resolution H offers tax benefits to property owners who are already seeing reduced taxation compared to their neighbors due to Proposal A. Senate Joint Resolution H seeks to disrupt the natural economic market and create an artificial barrier to change. I thought that we in this state were supportive of the economic market. Senate Joint Resolution H is a flawed proposal, and I urge a “no” vote.
Post Number: 6233
|Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 5:01 pm: || |
As a homeowner of the same house for the last 19 years, I can understand why long time howmeowners would be upset.
Folks who have bucked the American trend to bounce around moving from house to house have been rewarded by that provision in the Headlee Amendment... up until now.
Although I would personally benefit if this passed, I can fully understand those that disagree... it just throws the burden of taxation on others...
Post Number: 1259
|Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 5:37 pm: || |
This proposal would accomplish two things:
1) Lead a lot of local and county governments to go to their local voters and ask for increases in their local millages so that they can make up the difference.
2) Bankrupt many communities who can't convince their voters to support the requests under #1.
This is what one expects from Lansing. For years, the legislators from both parties have been cutting back revenue sharing to local governments, forcing more of the burden for local government services onto local taxpayers. This will just be the final straw for some communities.
Post Number: 646
|Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 11:24 pm: || |
This is just a piece of paper pushed to the front to get votes.
Think of it this way.
If your SEV goes down and your taxable value goes up that's just because it was over assessed for the last 10 years.
Things are just balancing out now.
I think everyone should appeal their assessments every year.
If you get that SEV down far enough it may just meet and then lower your taxable value.
Post Number: 1353
|Posted on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 11:42 pm: || |
Cutting back revenue sharing means that comunities will have a larger voice in local problems = libertarian principles = home- rule = good policies...
Long live free market principles!!!
<sarcasm>, now turned off
Post Number: 1263
|Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 12:32 am: || |
"If your SEV goes down and your taxable value goes up that's just because it was over assessed for the last 10 years."
Your an advocate for constantly declining property values?
Post Number: 935
|Posted on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 12:36 pm: || |
A sensible Freep blog on this issue. http://www.freep.com/article/2 0090321/BLOG2501/90320096
Post Number: 1261
|Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 9:34 am: || |
Any proposal to increase any taxes in his state will continue the decline that Jen Jen brought forth upon entering office.
I would submit the modest proposal that if your legislator suggests a tax increase, you pee on their leg. If they propose a tax cut, you buy them lunch. This sort of repetitive training will eventually teach them to act in a proper manner instinctively.
Post Number: 657
|Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 11:30 pm: || |
"Your an advocate for constantly declining property values?"
I am not a fan of inflated values. Prices were out of control for most of the past 10 years.
The market is correcting itself. For it to do that prices have to go down. I think we are close to the bottom.
Maybe another year or so and prices will slowly start rising.
Tighter mortgage lending and lower property values are good things. Unless you over paid for some crazy-ass McMansion a few years ago.
Post Number: 198
|Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 6:51 am: || |
Bought my house in G.P in 2000; taxes crept up yearly until by 2007 they were $8000 a year. Same year I got laid off. After a year of looking for a job, finally found one...In VA. SOld the house and lost $120,000 in 'equity' that turns out, was never there. BUT G.P. didn't see it that way, so am a resident of VA. now.
Post Number: 99
|Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 7:49 am: || |
According to the aforementioned Free Press blog, the point will probably be moot by the time the public votes on it in 2010. So, yes, it helps the Republicans in the short-term. Politics is politics is politics.
Post Number: 1320
|Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 8:51 am: || |
And the Republicans are desperate for any kind of victory right now.
Post Number: 14
|Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 9:30 am: || |
"And the Republicans are desperate for any kind of victory right now."
yeah the Republicans, who control the senate, must be "desperate for any kind of victory right now"
Post Number: 936
|Posted on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 10:25 am: || |
Rideron, sorry to hear that you relocated out of state. Your post is kind of confusing though. Are you saying that you moved to VA for a new job or because you needed to escape some kind of unfair property tax system?