I find this interesting. Gov. Daniels doesn’t seem to think that elimination of property taxes is worth a whole lot of time. I can get behind that since the strain on other taxes would likely be too great. However, according to this article, Gov. Daniels seems to be saying he is absolutely against any increase in income taxes to fund any reduction in property taxes. If that’s accurate, then he seems to be an advocate for shifting property tax burdens on to sales tax payers. The article from Mary Beth Schneider in the Indy Star:
Daniels said he told the two he’d “look at about anything, with the exception of an increase in the income tax, which I would be very, very strongly disagreeing with because of its effect on working families, small business and the economy generally.â€
House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, has said lawmakers should focus on Daniels’ plan instead of eliminating property taxes.
Young and Waltz have laid out seven options for replacing the $2.95 billion generated annually by property taxes on homesteads, one of which would increase the income tax. Others include increasing the sales tax, expanding it to new services and implementing a 3 percent transfer fee on the sale of real estate.
House Republicans have said they would support only a sales tax increase or expansion.
Daniels, however, said Friday that although he’s not rejecting anything except an income tax increase, he’s not sold on expanding the sales tax to services.
The proposal to entirely eliminate taxes on homesteads but not rental or business properties is, unsurprisingly, opposed by the Indiana Chamber. Daniels says he can see a theoretical distinction for homesteads given the high value we’ve traditionally placed on home ownership (record rates of foreclosures in the state notwithstanding.)
I’d like more information on why “sales tax = good” while “income tax = bad.” My cynical side suggests that maybe the income tax is more easily made progressive than the sales tax.
Income taxes discourage work. Sales taxes don’t. Sales taxes also encourage savings, and thus spur investment.
But I also don’t disagree with you. Income taxes are more easily made progressive, although they are not now progressive in Indiana.
I don’t think income OR sales taxes should be used to lower property taxes. If you want lower property taxes, just spend less at the local level.
How’s that bill eliminating townships coming, Mitch?
Mitch got rid of unions at the state level. How about canning the local unions?
Mitch got rid of unions at the state level. How about canning the local unions?
Getting rid of unions discourages work.
I’ll bet the mortgage lenders are slavering over the real estate transfer tax possibility. 3% of a very modest $100,000 home amortized over 30 years at a hypothetical 6.5% yields $3,825.60 in interest. Multiply that one out statewide, boys & girls.
Getting away with authoritativesque, pandit-lite pronouncements about supposed economic verities: why the jobs creation record of the last three Republican administrations rank, chronologically, as the 3rd worst, 2nd worst, and absolute worst since WWII. Which pretty much discourages work more completely than anything.
Who you gonna believe? Your lying eyes?
Getting rid of unions discourages work.
Are you kidding? We’re talking about PUBLIC EMPLOYEE unions.
Buzzcut,
So, no unions for the police for firefighters, right?
Nah, just privatize the firefighters. If you can pay, they’ll stop the blaze.
Doug,
Heh. “Nice chemical plant ‘chagot theh. Be a shame if it was to boin down.”
Right. No unions for cops or firefighters.
Public employee unions are incompatible with democracy. They simply have too much power.
In the private sector, there is an argument to be made that unions are needed to give “workers” power of a similar magnitude as management.
In the public sector, the management is essentially the taxpayer.