On 2/18/04 11:05 AM, "Victoria Heller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Here are some facts to go along with varied opinions....
> 
> Commercial property taxes in Minnesota are DOUBLE those in Wisconsin
> and Iowa (see Terry Fiedler's 2/9/04 article in the Strib.)

That's a shame. But what does it have to do with Minneapolis specifically?
 
> Minneapolis commercial property taxes are 400% higher than residential
> homestead property taxes.  A homeowner pays roughly 1% of his/her
> market value, a businessowner pays 4%.  A $200,000 home would generate
> approximately $2,000 this year, a $200,000 small business property
> would generate $8,000.  I'd be interested in hearing arguments in
> favor of the discrepancy.
> 
> A specific example:  504 Cedar Avenue South....
> Property taxes last year:  $8,230.84.  This year:  $19,228.76.

I found this hard to believe so I looked up the actual property tax rates in
the state statutes. Turns out that Vicky's numbers are a bit off. Here are
the real rates:

Residential:  1% up to $500K, then 1.25% for remaining value above
$500K

Commercial: 1.5% up to $150K, then 2% for remaining value above $150K

Here's the source of my information:

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/273/13.html

However, even if Vicky had gotten the numbers right, what does this have to
do with Minneapolis specifically? The property tax rates are set by the
state, not the city. And the state Legislature cut the rates for commercial
property a couple years ago and homeowners make up the difference, so again,
I'd be cautious of whining about commercial property taxes right now.

As for the "arguments in favor of the discrepancy" - it's pretty simple.
Commercial property earns income for the owner. Residential property does
not. Personally, I view the higher rate on commercial property as
effectively serving as an alternate income tax for folks who seek to avoid
paying real income tax by hiding their profits through the various loopholes
and deductions that exist in the tax code.
 
> January gas bill last year:  $1300.  This year:  $2,400.

Again, a shame, but what does that have to do with Minneapolis given that
the city has no control over natural gas prices? And further, how much of
this gas bill increase is due to a higher price per therm vs. number of
therms used? According to my gas bill, this past January was on average, six
degrees colder than January 2003. That adds up to a lot of therms. Try
installing programmable thermostats - they help a lot!

> Insurance premium last year:  $5,400.  This year:  $22,000.

Yet again, a shame, but unless there's some significant difference in
premium trends for Minneapolis vs. other parts of the metro or other cities
of comparable size, it's completely irrelevant as far as the "cost of doing
business in Minneapolis" is concerned.
 
> Minneapolis water/sewer bills are significantly higher than
> surrounding communities.  State Auditor Pat Awada's office is looking
> into this issue.

Got any numbers to back this statement up? It would be interesting to see
which surrounding communities have lower water/sewer bills than Minneapolis
consider that Minneapolis supplies water to many of them. But even if it's
true, I'd rather pay more for Minneapolis water that has been tested and
found clean than the trichloroethylene-laced well water that's being served
up in New Brighton, Arden Hills and Bayport right now. Mmmm...carcinogens
sure are yummy for my tummy!
 
> The question to consider and debate is:  Do businesses (including
> landlords) pay taxes?  Or....do they simply COLLECT taxes from their
> customers, tenants, and employees?  Each time taxes are increased, the
> price of goods/services/rent increases too.

I wondered about this myself for a while. I don't think this is a simple
case of businesses always being one or the other, especially landlords. It
depends a lot on the level of competition that exists. If vacancy rates are
low, then landlords effectively collect taxes from tenants because they can
just pass along those costs since tenants don't have many options. But when
vacancy rates are higher, then landlords must compete and so they are forced
to absorb taxes or otherwise they'll be pricing themselves out of the
market. Given the current vacancy rates, I'd say landlords are paying taxes
right now. Darnit!

Mark Snyder
Windom Park

REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
before continuing it on the list. 
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to