There was much good news yesterday, gleaned from conversation with people who are bucking native pessimism and an unpredictable economy to invest, work hard, and make New Albany into the kind of place that can succeed, not fail -- where people can find reasons to move forward, not skulk backwards, whining and pouting like a whipped puppy.
We await leadership of the same progressive caliber from the city council ... and perhaps have spotted some of it emanating from the county council.
Floyd income tax clears first hurdle; New Albany, county would share revenue, by Dick Kaukas (Courier-Journal).
The Floyd County Council voted 4-3 along party lines last night to give initial approval to a new income tax totaling 1.25 percent ...
... Lee Cotner, the council's attorney, said afterward that the ordinance will require at least one more "yes" vote by the council at its meeting next month to take effect as scheduled Jan. 1. If the ordinance wins final approval, Floyd County residents will be paying an income tax of 1 percent -- which would go back to homeowners in the form of property-tax relief -- plus 0.25 percent for public safety, police and firefighters.
Deterred from self-immolation by a persistent light rain outside, pseudonymous blogger Vicki “Freedom to Screech” Denhart took her protest against taxes, public safety and contemporary civilization indoors, addressing the county council in an impeccably tailored “Erik the transgendered academic” costume.
He/she was joined by Joe Tanksley, and together they were identified by the CJ’s Kaukas as stalwarts of the Concerned Citizens for Anonymity … oops, make that “Accountability.”
It’s so easy to get the two confused.
Of course, there’s always a Price to pay when the topic turns to ways we might avoid further slippage into the 19th-century, and consequently, New Albany’s foremost spokesman on behalf of under-achieving torpor was in attendance, too.
"I am not supporting this," said the 3rd district councilman, who added that the new revenue might become a “slush fund,” whereas Grandma’s cookie jar is a better place than mattresses to hide those nickels and dimes in preparation for the rainy day blues.
How long 'til 2011?
14 comments:
If I'm reading correctly, we'll be paying a 1.25 percent income tax increase in order to actualize a .25 percent revenue increase because of state inflicted rules.
Those who own property (or multiple properties) will see their property taxes relieved to help offset the increase while those who rent from them or are trying to become owners will just pay the 1.25 percent.
Another brick in the "if you're already an owner" ownership society wall promoted by small government advocates.
If this were a morality play, Mitch Daniels would be Pontius Pilate.
From my understanding, you are reading it correctly, although I don't totally agree with your conclsion(s).
Maybe Floyd County can declare itself a bank and get a billion from the treasury? Oh, wait, tax payers are footing that bill too.
IAH, I'm not sure which parts of that particular comment you agree or disagree with, but the overarching theme is that we should be having very serious conversations about the role of state government in determining local affairs.
Unfortunately, the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform seems to have spent much of its time doing the exact opposite, working under the assumption that more state control is a necessary part of workable solutions.
As it stands, we could have the most progressive local government in the country and it wouldn't do us much good as they'd still be hamstrung by draconian state rules.
Jeff, by progressive do you mean highest taxes in the country?
And what is so Draconian about sticking to a budget?
Hells bells, give the break of .25% to home owners and put the 1% into public safety, then we could have two rescue boats!! :)
I don't think local or state government has worked particularly well for quite some time. We can say that the state has taken control away from the local and that the federal government has taken it away from both state and local. I think much of the control was taken away with the approval of those below.
It is much easier for a local official to say, "Look at the money I got from the state/feds" than it is, "I'm raising your taxes to pay for ...". To some extent, the last statement is just what the County Council had to do.
I don't agree with all of Gov. Daniel's proposals. Nor what he may ultimately be up to. I am for shaking up the system and trying something different. Where is it written that property taxes are the only way to tax? I'm not for eliminating property taxes but I am for a better "mix" of taxes.
I found your renter's comment uncharacteristically shallow. Renters don't pay property tax? Sure they do, it's in the rent.
So, Mark, when I said many months ago that raising taxes on rental properties to the same level as a business, which I am not totally against, would only increase rental rates....I was correct? Hey Jeff, businesses pass along the taxes to the consumer in the price of the product or service.
Daniel,
Inevitably, yes. But..
I don't subscribe to the "right's" talking point of liberals being for higher taxes. IMO, the sides disagree more on what should be cut--if and when cuts are necessary. An example, how would you pay for the Iraq war? Seeing as how we have not paid for it, do you raise taxes or cut services?
Bluegill,
I went to lunch after writing my response to you. While out, I came to the conclusion that "narrow" would be a better word than "shallow".
Never said I could write!
Those who own property (or multiple properties) will see their property taxes relieved to help offset the increase while those who rent from them or are trying to become owners will just pay the 1.25 percent.
That's the first thing that came to my mind, too. It ain't right.
IAH,
Thanks for the reconsider. I'm not nor was I offended.
Either way, I don't doubt that a lot of landlords would at least try to pass along increased costs to tenants.
What I doubt is that they would pass along the tax break.
Its akin to claims that tort reform alone leads to lower insurance premiums.
Guys, in the business world, increases and decreases in costs flow right into the price of the goods sold(or rented).
Oftentimes the effects are not immediate--either way--up or down. But the increases/decreases eventually do flow. Some landlord will prorate the property tax into his rent calculations and decide that he can get a leg up on the competition by having a little cheaper rent. Or a rent increase may not happen or may be lessened. Or maybe, just maybe, fix the place up a little. Nah, that won't happen.
All costs figure in. How do you think prices are set by most business's?
Post a Comment