I have only glanced at House Bill 1001, a/k/a the budget bill. The part where the General Assembly legislated that they get credit for the property tax refund seems particularly crass. The bill includes a subsection requiring the county auditor to mail a written explanation of the refund to each taxpayer which contains the following statement in at least 12 point type:
A portion of your local property taxes due in 2007 are being refunded due to tax relief provided by the Indiana General Assembly. Your refund is in the amount of $________ (insert amount of refund). If you did not receive a check because you pay your property taxes through an escrow account along with your mortgage, your lender will receive the refund and should adjust your payments accordingly.
You will note that there is no acknowledgment that the members of the General Assembly is providing this relief with our tax dollars and the members are not writing the checks themselves. It would be more accurate to say that the tax relief is being provided by the citizens of Indiana. You will also note that there is no acknowledgment that the tax relief was made necessary by past actions of the General Assembly including, but not limited to, eliminating the inventory tax, decreasing the homestead credit, and gutting the property tax relief credit.
[tags]HB1001-2007, property tax, budget[/tags]
It would be nice if the Indiana General Assembly would stop requiring county officials to say things which, at best, are not strictly true.
And stop doing things that the counties have to pay for – interfering with this processing is not without cost and aggravation for the 92 auditors.
Maybe we need term limits? I mean, if it’s good enough for the President, it should be good enough for the denizens of our local zoo…
Good overview of things as they really are. Dr. Deboer’s article is very well done and perhaps should also be included in each counties “refund” check statement. It was refreshing to hear at least one member of the House (Stillwell)during the final debate Sunday night own up to the legislature’s role in all this
Yeah, Doug. Good post!
I should suggest my county auditor send it in white type on white paper … or perhaps a very, very light shade of gray.
It’s the least they could do.
Joe –
That would save them money on printer toner, anyway.
Or, they could use black paper!
On second reading, “Should adjust payments accordingly” is one of the funnier things I’ve ever read. I can’t wait to pull that one out on my fifth phone call to my mortgage company after three hours on hold.
This bill is like all truly good comedy – you can’t hope to catch everything on the first reading. It could take years of dedication to even hope to get portions of it. And I’ll bet it’s like the very best Simpsons episodes – jokes for all ages.
And to think I belittled the Indiana General Assembly. Silly me.
All of that and a pay raise to boot. Their arrogance is exceeded only by their incompentence.
I think I’m missing something. It’s my understanding that this is a one-time credit. Is that incorrect?
As a one-time credit, shouldn’t the check come to the homeowner and *not* the mortgage company? I’ve already made the higher payments to cover the escrow with which the mortgage company will pay 2007 tax payments (which themselves are *not* being adjusted). And if 2008 tax payments are to be the same (or higher) than 2007 tax payments, the mortgage company will want to continue taking as much out… or refund me the “tax credit”. All stupidity aside, this seems very tedious.
I think they probably go wherever the tax bill goes. In any event, the text on the statement does not necessarily accurately reflect the dictates of the law. I haven’t read the budget bill to see what it actually tells county officials to do with the refund.
In fact, it is not taxpayers that are financing the refunds, but slot machine operators who will be purchasing two $250 million license fees to operate slot machines at racetracks.