JHarmon wrote:
By the same token, higher taxes don't necessarily result in improved
services.
David Piehl writes:
I agree - sometimes when governmental units are forced to make do with less
funding the service actually improves - maybe because much of the frivolous "red
tape" generators are gone, and hopefully the essential services remain if the
streamlining is properly planned. I'd like to see some of this occur at the
MCDA - the key is to take something less than "a pound of flesh".
Robert Schmid wrote:
It is not uncommon for communities to lure businesses by offering tax
deferrments to offset moving and startup costs. Couldn't the same
principles be applied to reclaimed homes?
David Piehl writes:
For owner-occupants, this principle is applied in some fashion through the
state's "This Old House" law, which essentially allows up to $45,000 (I believe
that is the limit) of the increase in a home's taxable value to be deferred for
up to ten years if significant rennovation has taken place. I believe the home
must be at least 30 years old to qualify, though, so it doesn't help newer homes
that need significant rennovation (like Markley Square in Central just 12 years
after construction). Complete information is available from the tax assessor or
MCDA for those interested.
Karen Collier wrote:
The ideal here would be to cap taxes on people at age 65. Let them pay
taxes at the same rate until they sell their home. You can keep upping
the valuation, but the taxes stay the same. This would allow retired
people to stay in their homes longer instead of being priced out of
their homes by the taxes. When they sell then the back taxes would be
deducted from the proceeds of the sale.
David Piehl writes:
I think there is a lot of merit to the concept of stabilizing property taxes for
the elderly. Most people are on fixed incomes after retirement, most with
fairly limited resources. If the taxes go up significantly, something else has
to go away - hopefully not prescription drugs or food as sometimes is the case.
The financial interest that a city or more likely state government might have in
this concept would be that as (fixed) income is drained away for taxes,
essential maintenence may become unaffordable and the condition of the house
could deteriorate and reduce taxable values for a larger area. More importantly
- if unaffordable property taxes force the elderly from their homes, they might
be more likely to, for example, go to nursing homes or assisted living units
that are so expensive the cost will have to be picked up by the government. I
don't think this would necessarily amount to another entitlement program if done
correctly - it would be more like social security, where you pay more when you
are working to pay less later. That's an important feature, and probably means
it's not feasible to do at the municipal level.
David Brauer wrote:
I was a huge fan of the "circuit breaker" system, snip. The circuit breaker
imposes an income filter on a property tax base - if you paid high property
taxes and had a low income, you got a bigger tax credit. (And of course,
higher-income people and
higher-valued commercial/non-homestead property paid more to provide
that tax credit.)
David Piehl writes:
This system may have made some sense for low income homeowners, but I have
always thought that when it came to rental units the circuit breaker system's
function must be to employ bureaucrats i.e. one arm of the government takes
money from the landlord, the landlord is forced to raise rents to protect
his/her margin, and the gracious state then gives some of the money back to the
tenant - after incurring collection and distribution costs. Does this really
accomplish anything? (other than that the portion collected that isn't
redistributed isn't returned....did it cover the cost of operating the system?)
David Piehl
Central, 8th Ward
______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message is private and confidential
information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of
the message. Thank you.
_______________________________________
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
