Comments on: More Proof State Cuts Causing Property Tax Increases http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3347 Minnesota 2020's Official Blog Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:06:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jeff Van Wychen http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3347&cpage=1#comment-5223 Jeff Van Wychen Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:36:46 +0000 http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3347#comment-5223 Mike: I have no interest in engaging in the DFL/GOP squabble. However, I have an inquiry regarding your proposal. You contend that your proposal provides significant property tax relief for seniors while at the same time protecting local governments from revenue loss. How is this accomplished? Are the same legislators who are supporting your proposal also supporting an increase in state taxes in order to pay for the property tax relief that the proposal provides, so that local governments are protected from more revenue losses? I would be surprised if this were the case. Keep in mind that per pupil public school spending and real per capita city spending in Minnesota has already dropped below the national average. The property tax is a regressive tax and we should be pursuing ways to reduce it. At the same time, we also have to worry about paying for education, infrastructure, and public services. It is easy for legislators of the minority party (be they DFL or GOP) to support proposals when they don’t have to pay for them. Were the minority legislators who support your proposal now also supporting it when they were in the majority? Were they passing bills? Are they pressuring the Governor to make it part of his agenda? This is the true test of whether they are serious about implementing your proposal or just want to embarrass the opposition party. I would encourage people to take a look at HF 2362 (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/85/hf2362.html) from the previous legislative session. This bill would have provided significant property tax relief to low-income households; furthermore, this bill would have paid for this property tax relief by increasing income taxes on high income households. It is easy to support property tax relief; the tough part is paying for it without cutting local revenues any more than they have already been cut. HF 2362 did both. Mike:
I have no interest in engaging in the DFL/GOP squabble. However, I have an inquiry regarding your proposal. You contend that your proposal provides significant property tax relief for seniors while at the same time protecting local governments from revenue loss. How is this accomplished? Are the same legislators who are supporting your proposal also supporting an increase in state taxes in order to pay for the property tax relief that the proposal provides, so that local governments are protected from more revenue losses? I would be surprised if this were the case.

Keep in mind that per pupil public school spending and real per capita city spending in Minnesota has already dropped below the national average. The property tax is a regressive tax and we should be pursuing ways to reduce it. At the same time, we also have to worry about paying for education, infrastructure, and public services.

It is easy for legislators of the minority party (be they DFL or GOP) to support proposals when they don’t have to pay for them. Were the minority legislators who support your proposal now also supporting it when they were in the majority? Were they passing bills? Are they pressuring the Governor to make it part of his agenda? This is the true test of whether they are serious about implementing your proposal or just want to embarrass the opposition party.

I would encourage people to take a look at HF 2362 (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/85/hf2362.html) from the previous legislative session. This bill would have provided significant property tax relief to low-income households; furthermore, this bill would have paid for this property tax relief by increasing income taxes on high income households. It is easy to support property tax relief; the tough part is paying for it without cutting local revenues any more than they have already been cut. HF 2362 did both.

]]> By: Mike Downing http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3347&cpage=1#comment-5220 Mike Downing Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:50:28 +0000 http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3347#comment-5220 Here's a fact that you cannot dispute on property tax reform: 1) For four years in a row, the DFL Majority rejected any attempt to reform Property Taxes by placing a property taxes limit of 5% or 6% of family income. This Bill received widespread support from the Republican side but received very little support from the DFL majority. 2) This Bill would have protected the poor, the middle class, our retired seniors and would have protected the cities and counties. 3) Why would the DFL party be opposed to protecting classes of people that they profess to support? This makes absolutely no sense to this writer and demonstrates the adage: "watch what I do not what I say"! Here’s a fact that you cannot dispute on property tax reform:

1) For four years in a row, the DFL Majority rejected any attempt to reform Property Taxes by placing a property taxes limit of 5% or 6% of family income. This Bill received widespread support from the Republican side but received very little support from the DFL majority.
2) This Bill would have protected the poor, the middle class, our retired seniors and would have protected the cities and counties.
3) Why would the DFL party be opposed to protecting classes of people that they profess to support? This makes absolutely no sense to this writer and demonstrates the adage: “watch what I do not what I say”!

]]>