It would be nice if more Christians understood that our faith always has local implications, including our life in public, which is in the polis, and therefore our faith has local political ramifications. The are derivative, yes, they are always penultimate, but they do matter.
This whole campaign makes me sad. It is a pitch to lessen property taxes by raising sales taxes. Allegedly.
It is immoral in all sorts of ways but here are two principle reasons why I will vote no. First, it is a regressive tax. Those least able to will have to pay more tax (and yes it goes on groceries!). And secondly, the other argument I hear all over is all the other counties are doing it so we should to, otherwise we will lose business etc. to nearby counties which already have the (dumb, immoral) tax. This is right out if 1 Samuel where Israel asks for a King since all the other nations have one.
Now this may cause property taxes to be slightly higher, and since we own our home, that will involve us. I don’t know anyone who likes higher taxes, but if this is the implication of my vote this coming November, so be it.
County Leaders should be ashamed of themselves (especially since this is the fourth time they have tried this)–KSH.
One thing I have noticed in the past was that goods often cost more in poorer neighborhoods. I don’t think it was necessarily a case of owner’s charging more because they wanted to take advantage of customers. But was likely due in part because of things like higher insurance costs, utility costs, inability to get optimum pricing on wholesale orders. Higher prices means the sales tax will also be higher.
I can not understand there being a tax on food. Are all groceries taxed or just certain categories? For example in Florida packaged ice cream is not taxed but individual novelty treats are. I know in some states baby products such as diapers are not taxed. That always made sense to me.
There are also security costs in poor neighborhoods. And in my state, groceries are also tax free. Even processed foods and snacks are not taxed, as best as I can think.
As to property taxes, the poor also pay those. Either they have worked hard to buy a house, or their rent includes the property tax as a pass along. It’s wise to remember that homes are homes, not investments, at least until your heirs sell them. Pricing people out of them with high property taxes doesn’t seem just too me.
Kendall, Thanks for your careful consideration.
And guess what. In two years they will say they need more revenue for whatever project, and they’ll raise property taxes!
Personally I believe that property taxes are immoral and should be eliminated. They never allow people to 1) actually own their property without fear of its being confiscated by the State and 2) tie people who are willing and able to be independent to the government, either by the government graciously offering subsidies or special release/exemption to an immoral tax.
So a poor woman can finally scrape up enough money to acquire a small home — but she must beg for an indulgence to the State on the property tax. Those on limited or fixed incomes who managed to actually acquire some property of their own — a car or a house — do not actually own it because they must assuage the State’s lust for tax on their property.
It is a great evil, in my opinion and places in concrete subservience to the almighty State.
Reading Sarah in No 5 I wanted to add Homeowner Association assessments to the list of what can make a poor woman lose her home. I remember being shocked when an HOA in Arizona went to court to seize a poor woman’s home to pay an outstanding debt of a few hundred dollars – though of course with lawyers’ fees it had swelled – my feeling was that she might have dementia and that a compassionate response would have been quietly to find the money from elsewhere – but no, they literally put her out on the street.
We had that happen to a military family while the husband was on deployment. It was a nice home, too. I think the legislature passed laws limiting what a HOA can do after that.
#4 , we’ve had a couple of initiatives where sales taxes were increased for a specific purpose, and with a time limit on the tax. One was for equipment and specialty programs for the police. That quarter-cent tax was renewed. That seems a good way to do sales taxes on the local level.
The only progressive tax is income tax. Sales tax is regressive and property tax has hideous problems associated with it, not the least of which is that it is neither an income tax, or a sales tax, or a use tax, which means that you pay it regardless of how much money you have, or make, or what you buy.
Property taxes are huge in older states and minimal in younger states for the simple reason that property tax was the only easily collectible tax 250 years ago and it was a vague proxy for income. I live in a very modest 40-year old, 4-bedroom colonial and we pay $14,000 year in property tax. Lose your job? Experience a disastor that eats up all your savings? Have mammouth (otherwise deductible) expenses? Too bad — the $14k is still due, otherwise you lose your home. Don’t even fantasize about living there in retirement.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding that we live in a time when income taxes are at a historical low, the politics of raising income tax make it almost impossible to do so. Hence the increasing reliance on all manner of other forms of revenue including, and especially in my state, gambling.
I would have no problem with a “municipal” income tax. It might even come out to be $14k a year. But if we lost our jobs, or became disabled, or retired, or any number of other things that rendered us unable to pay, it would be reduced proportionately. Of course, our municipality does not WANT a bunch of low-income people living here. They expect that when/if you stop making the “big bucks” you will graciously move on, preferably out of state.
#8 CM–I don’t think you are correct about income taxes being at historic lows. They started out with a top marginal rate of at 15% in the 19 teens; but that was on income over $2M. 1915 dollar = +/- 4% of a current dollar so that would make a similiar top marginal rate of 15% of $2.2 to 2.5 Billion. In recent times the lowest top marginal rates were from 1988 to 1999 at 28% of income over $200K. The rates under Bush II were 39.1. in 2001, 38.6 in 2002 and 35% from 2003 to 2012. They are now 39.6% over $200K BUT the dollar of 2013 is worth 34% less than it was in 2002, so its actually an even bigger increase–If you made $300K in taxable income, your top marginal rate on income over $200K = 38.9% in 2002; so in 2002 the tax on the last $100K= $38,900. (keep in mind there is also tax on the first $200K in this example, but it has marginal/graduated rates, so I am just looking at the very top rates). The top current marginal rate is 39.6% so the tax on your last 100K would be $39,600. But, if you use the 2002 base dollar, and tax it at the current rate of 39.6% the tax = $53,064 because a 2002 dollar would cost $1.34 today. The truth about the income tax is, it was passed by the “drys” as a way to get the federal government off its reliance on liquor taxes. When prohibition ended, it should have too. However, I totally agree with you about property taxes. They actually are regressive for all the reasons you state. In Dr. Harmon’s own area, many lower income people are being forced to succumb to the gentrification of the Charleston Peninsula becasue the land is too valuable and taxes are going up. And the most regressive and immoral tax of all is state sponsored gambling.