11 September 2005
Fix Taxation for Schools, Libraries, Police and Fire Svs!
Unlike state and local income taxes or sales taxes that fall on everyone working or purchasing within the jurisdiction, every election ballot seems to have several initiatives asking approval of additions to property taxes to pay for programs and projects not funded sufficiently or at all by the legislature's budget.
Sometimes the ballot item is called a millage tax, other times a bond. Every registered voter can vote, yet only voters owning property are the constituency who will pay the additional taxes. This doesn't seem fair. In cities where a large majority of residents are renters, funding for local services available to all comes only from property owners.
In theory, landlords can pass tax increases to tenants, but rent controls preclude the pass-through as viable. Some years ago, the schools in Peoria, AZ, were some of the worst around. The primary reason was that the tax base for Peoria schools included large developments by Del Webb for retirees on fixed incomes from Social Security and pensions. These residents would vote against every bond or property tax issue on the ballot. And these retirees were well over 60 percent of the district.
Why do such tax burdens only apply to property owners? Property taxes are collected by the local county assessor based on the assessed value of one's property. I suppose the property owners are assumed to have more interest in paying for additional public funds as improvements to their towns. Yet, in San Francisco over 70 percent of residents are renting. There are no financial effects on renters that might inhibit passage of these measures. Plus, the renters are more effective by numbers as an interest group for increasing city and county services and improving same. No politician can ignore this.
So, what might be an alternative means for funding these local initiatives? I don't recall this topic having much priority on the agendas of local governments. Whan can be done?
Post a Comment
Sometimes the ballot item is called a millage tax, other times a bond. Every registered voter can vote, yet only voters owning property are the constituency who will pay the additional taxes. This doesn't seem fair. In cities where a large majority of residents are renters, funding for local services available to all comes only from property owners.
In theory, landlords can pass tax increases to tenants, but rent controls preclude the pass-through as viable. Some years ago, the schools in Peoria, AZ, were some of the worst around. The primary reason was that the tax base for Peoria schools included large developments by Del Webb for retirees on fixed incomes from Social Security and pensions. These residents would vote against every bond or property tax issue on the ballot. And these retirees were well over 60 percent of the district.
Why do such tax burdens only apply to property owners? Property taxes are collected by the local county assessor based on the assessed value of one's property. I suppose the property owners are assumed to have more interest in paying for additional public funds as improvements to their towns. Yet, in San Francisco over 70 percent of residents are renting. There are no financial effects on renters that might inhibit passage of these measures. Plus, the renters are more effective by numbers as an interest group for increasing city and county services and improving same. No politician can ignore this.
So, what might be an alternative means for funding these local initiatives? I don't recall this topic having much priority on the agendas of local governments. Whan can be done?
<< Home
