Why do Hoosiers allow their leaders to lie so brazenly? Switching from property taxes to another tax will not deprive government of anything.
Property taxes are not more stable. Property taxes are paid with your income. If your income fluctuates, so does your ability to pay your property taxes.
The reason our leaders love property taxes is that the gap between the assessed value of middle-class homes and the homes of the rich is much smaller than the gap between middle-class and wealthy incomes. Also, with any other tax, the government would have to tax everyone fairly according to their choices and their ability to pay. Most importantly, the property tax system is the one where the rich who receive most of the benefits can get abatements and avoid paying it.
The Michigan legislature publishes a guide called “Services to Seniors.” On page one it explains how in Michigan the limit on property taxes for seniors and the poor is not determined by an ever-increasing assessed value; it’s based on their incomes. How come the leaders in Michigan can take care of their people?
"Switching from property taxes to another tax will not deprive government of anything." That is exactly what you are proposing. Switching from property tax to income tax.
In reference to the last paragraph
Two things that I am sure of
1. It is not a Right to retire
2. It is not a Right to own property.
Also - If you think its wise to take policies from near bankrupt Michigan- WOW.
5 comments:
There are several more states that employ real property tax circuit breakers and not caps like Indiana.
It's unjust to allow someone to purchase their home, live in it for decades, and then be forced out because the govt taxes them to oblivion.
If we want to be a progressive community/state then let's start by promoting progressive tax policies...
"But the right to own and enjoy property has always been an important part of the rights of the people. At the Philadelphia convention that drafted the Constitution, John Rutledge of South Carolina reminded the delegates that "property was certainly the principal object of Society." They did not really need much reminding, because the Framers all believed that respect for an individual's property rights lay at the heart of the social contract. Not only did they build institutional safeguards into the Constitution to protect those rights, but the nation soon added important provisions through the Bill of Rights to buttress that protection. Moreover, the Founders did not intend that these protections extend only to land or discernible assets, but to all the rights inherent in property — real or personal, tangible or intangible. They believed that property was "the guardian of every other right," for without the right to own and use and enjoy one's property free from arbitrary governmental interference, there could be no liberty of any sort."
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/property.htm
Still sure about #2?
Rights and Opportunities are completely different. Everyone CAN buy land - thus they are given the opportunity.
What you just wrote doesn't make any sense.
If you buy something, you own it...
There is a difference between property rights, and the right to own property.
Michael - I have no idea what you are trying to argue about.
Post a Comment