> Bruce Gaarder writes: > > > David pointed out one problem with simply deferring tax increases based on > age. Another would be for those with significant wealth. To > pick on Pohlad, if such a system were in place, he would have had about twenty > years of not paying higher taxes.
[TB] The assumption that the wealthy would abuse such a program may not be valid, an income and/or net worth test would be reasonably simple to implement. > > Bob is correct in saying that there is a difference between the change in > the assessed value and a change in the amount levied, depending > on the mill > rate. > > In addition to David's discussion of city income taxes, it seems > to me that a replacement for part of the property tax would need to be a > county income tax, not just a city tax, or in addition to a city tax, due to the portion > of taxes that flow to the county. [TB] A couple of years ago the MN Dept of Revenue did a tax incidence study, studying what income levels pay what types of state and local taxes. The residential property tax had the flattest ratio of tax rate to income across all income levels. All taxes (state income, sales, property) had a higher rate as percentage of income for the lowest 10% of income earners, sales tax is more regressive, income tax more progressive. I would expect that Minneapolis data would be very similar to statewide data although I know of no data specific to Minneapolis (the state study is on the Dept of Rev's website as a .pdf file, or at least was at one time) I think it best that all cities in the state be financed by the same types of taxes as I don't think cities should be attempting to recruit business or residents from other cities based on a more favorable tax structure. Should we be building in one particular municipality because they have elected to do away with property tax in favor of another form of taxation? > Of course, with Ramsey county wanting > to buy the union depot and take it of the tax rolls, so as to have it be a > "hub" for a never-coming Amtrak revival, you can see how the idea of not > increasing taxes automatically just isn't attractive to those who spend > the taxes. [TB] Minneapolis took land off the tax rolls to give to the University of St. Thomas to build the original campus, and to the federal government to build the new courthouse. That stuff happens on both sides of the river. > Remember that California fixed taxable value at the time of purchase and > it never changes until the house is sold. [TB] How do you justify as fair a higher tax on the home on the north end of the block than the identical home on the south end of the block that hasn't been sold since 1967? The owner of the home on the north end of the block is justified in objecting to the inequity. Owners of homes that were market value limited should be glad they had a good thing while it lasted. Certainly circuit breakers or other income related limits or credits are possibilities, but are they a good thing if they are financed by a more regressive tax (i.e. sales tax)? Terrell Brown Loring Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
