David Coker, President of the Vanderburgh County “Taxpayers Association” wrote an opinion column for the Evansville Courier Press. I didn’t find a great deal new in the piece – mostly he says that we can and we should eliminate property taxes. We can do it by imposing new taxes and raising existing taxes on sales and income. The question that he touches upon a little bit where many of his predecessors have not is an effort to explain preferring higher income and sales taxes and getting rid of real property taxes:

The argument speaks to a philosophical view that establishes a correlation between land ownership and the ability to earn income from agriculture or commerce. Unless one operates a home-based business, the argument holds, a homeowner who purchases a house in which to rear a family does not realize income from the home.

The government, therefore, levies a tax upon unrealized wealth based upon the estimated value of the property, which is not realized until the home is sold.

In many instances — particularly as they apply to senior citizens on fixed incomes — the tax liabilities have risen beyond what the homeowner is capable of paying.

Unspoken is an opposition to requiring property owners (whether they be senior citizens on fixed incomes or businesses or other citizens who simply have other spending preferences) to go ahead and realize the gain and pay their taxes.

That’s fair criticism. But, the other taxes have their problems as well. What about pricing a low income citizen out of their next gallon of milk through a sales tax? How about an increased income tax that prevents a low income worker from even getting a house in the first place? In those contexts, the person who is strapped for cash but at least has a house seems rather privileged.

To put it bluntly, taxes suck. Nobody enjoys paying them. But they are, to one extent or another, necessary. Let’s not get carried away eliminating one kind of tax until we’re certain it’s more pernicious than the others.

Occasionally, you’ll hear stories about misinformation being spread about polling places or times or voting eligibility. For example:

In Lake County, Ohio, newly-registered voters received a fake letter that appeared to come from the Lake County Board of Elections. The letter said that voter registrations gathered by Democratic campaigns or the NAACP were illegal and that those voters would not be allowed to vote.

. . .

In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, a flyer designed to look like an official announcement from McCandless Township claimed that, because of expected “immense voter turnout,” the 2004 election would be conducted over two days. The flyer requested that Republicans vote on November 2, while Democrats should vote on November 3.

. . .
In Columbia, South Carolina, a letter purporting to be from the NAACP threatened that voters with outstanding parking tickets or unpaid child support would be arrested.

Sen. Breaux’s SB 358 would make such actions a Class D felony.

Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally deceives another person regarding: (1) the date, time, place, or manner of an election; or (2) the qualifications for a voter or restrictions on voter eligibility at the election; commits a Class D felony.

The Senate Committee on Economic Development and Technology passed SB 257 which establishes a state construction registry supervised by the office of technology to permit the electronic filing of a mechanic’s lien and ancillary documents.

The bill requires the office to contract with a third party to develop, operate, and maintain the database. That strikes me as a little odd. I wonder if it’s a practical determination that the Office of Technology can’t do the job, or an ideological determination that government functions should be outsourced.

In any case, given the available technology, I can’t disagree with the idea of a statewide mechanic’s lien database.

I don’t have a lot of elaboration to offer at the moment, but I thought I’d mention my understanding that real estate law is pretty much the oldest branch of the civil common law. Tort law, by comparison, is in its infancy.

Francesca Jarosz, writing for the Indianapolis Star, has an article entitled “Tax Reform Bills Focus on Shifting Costs.” It’s a pet peeve that I’ve mentioned before, but I thought I’d mention it again since the headline itself highlights why the word “reform” is inappropriate. In its normal usage, “reform” indicates a change for the better. But, as the headline suggests, these tax bills will be moving burdens from one taxpayer to another. That’s why I suggest “restructuring.” The person receiving an additional tax burden probably doesn’t view the change as being for the better.

The article reports on the State Tax and Financing Policy Commission’s proposals to reduce property taxes on homeowners and renters by raising the sales tax, allowing counties to increase income taxes, and imposing taxes on services that aren’t currently taxed.

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.”

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.