Logic, Sinestra Style.
April 18th, 2008 | by Craig |A contradiction in terms, I know.
The headline reads:Governor to Propose Reduction in Property Taxes.
The article says:
Gov. Brian Schweitzer has promised there will be no statewide increase in property taxes as a result of the reappraisal. The details of that plan have not been released.
I know that I went to school in Ennis, but “no increase” is not the same as a “reduction.”
Maybe it’s the “New Math.” Yeah, that’s it.
14 Responses to “Logic, Sinestra Style.”
By jhwygirl on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Ugh. Something isn’t right about that news article, Doug.
Given the way you are reading the article, I’d say you are right.
I think the article needs clarified. I read it this way:
The state doesn’t raise taxes as a result of the periodic reappraisals – but individual taxes would go up if property increased in valuation.
Further, the appreciation (or depreciation) rate is uneven around the state. Therefore, taxes can’t be stopped from going up without some sort of reduction.
By Craig on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Hi! Name’s Craig. You can find that on the “About Your Host Page,” the top of this post, or in many other places.
Nice to meetcha. And you are…?
Anyway, good job dissembling on the issue. Proposing a reduction would imply doing something about the rate of taxation. Otherwise, it’s just smoke and mirrors.
If you can point me to something that actually indicates a reduction in rate, I’ll gladly eat crow, otherwise it’s just semantics.
By jhwygirl on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
I am sorry!
Until there’s some clarification, I don’t think either of us needs to eat crow.
Would you be surprised if he put a property tax reduction on his platform?
By goof houlihan on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
I can’t see how a “statewide reduction” or even “no increase statewide” works. Limit the appraised value to the 2007 value or the reappraisal, whichever is less, and ditch the continuing phase in of the last reappraisal, I guess.
Yes, that’s right, I think we are still phasing in, or just finished phasing in, the last reappraisal, the 2002? 2004? reappraisal, which means we’ve now got values up to what they were THEN.
Highly appreciating values in fast growing counties are much higher, even with the pullback, than they were then. Some counties, the value would be less.
I think it’s Time to go to that old accounting standard, cost, or purchase price, as the first best appraised value, and/or lacking an arms length transaction in the last twenty years, then fall back on the last appraisal.
Property taxes go up not just because of reappraisal, of course, but also by voter and government action. Many levies have passed in the last year which will raise taxes independent of the appraisal.
Further, there has always been a huge inequity between older homes much in demand and newer construction, with homes of equivalent market values being valued very differently for tax purposes. Older homes used to be depreciated, and they’ve never caught back up to market value. A house in an older but very popular section of town selling for 400k will be appraised for tax purposes at half to two thirds what a newly constructed house selling for the same value would be appraised for.
Historic cost would result in inequities, but ones I think I could live with… in particular those who buy a house and live in it thirty years wouldn’t be subject to market exaggerations caused by flipping and/or suddenly popular locations. Nor would they be as responsible for all the new growth’s demands for infrastructure, none of which they’ve caused.
Just my two cents on the issue.
By DMerriman on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
It’s not New Math, it’s Political Math — where numbers are infinitely variable and all those normally-pesky math rules only apply when, and how, you want them to.
By jhwygirl on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Explain to me how taxes won’t go up on people who’s property increases in value with the reappraisal.
By W. Mark Felt on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
I’m not sure that’s the germane argument, jhwygirl.
If I pay $1,000 a year in property taxes, and the Governor does something that makes it so I still pay $1,000 a year in property taxes – that’s not a cut. It may keep me from paying $1,100 – and I appreciate the maintaining of my current bill – but it’s not a cut.
By Craig on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
The way I read the this article, the proposal is coming out of DOR, and says only that if your property value is lowered during the coming re-appraisal, that will be reflected in your taxes.
Proposed cuts, as mentioned in the Gazette article, seem to be coming from the lege and DOR, not the Governor’s office.
If he does promote a tax cut this year, it will be very interesting to watch as there seems to be increasing noise about the state being in financial trouble.
By Shane C. Mason on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
I got nothing. I just wanted to throw in my $0.02.
So there.
By Mark T on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Politics 101: $.02 is a significant tax cut. $200.00 is a minor increase. Usually it only affect the guy by the tree.
By Doug on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Hey, I’m the Doug. I appreciate the slip up, but Craig’s probably traumatized by it. Not only is he a better author than I, but his face for radio is much better than mine. If you saw us in the real world Craig would be the tall one with the six pack, and I’d be the short one with the keg.
By Craig on Apr 20, 2008 | Reply
What are you smoking, and can I have some?
By Doug on Apr 20, 2008 | Reply
It’s the Chloraseptic man, gitcha some.