| Author |
Topic |
|
Rob Tucker
Kama'aina
4156 Posts |
|
|
JerryCarr
Punatic
1780 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2010 : 08:44:18
|
| While it may seem fair that everyone should pay at least a token or minimal property tax, I remain convinced that the Mayor has NOT pursued all possible cuts in the County budget. He has not even come close to the cuts publicly claimed by his administration and refuses to comment on the inaccuracy of those claims as pointed out by local media. |
 |
|
|
David M
Punatic
USA
1490 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 09:56:07
|
I totally agree Jerry. How do we hold this guy (and Council) accountable in real time?
Is everyone happy with their new tax bill? I'm certainly not!!!!
My assessment went up about 6%, understandable giventhat we'd finalled another permit. BUT. due to the mayor's rate changes, my tax bill went up 43%!!!!!! My apologies to the "share the wealth" crowd, but my AG situated structures are using 43% more county services.
David
Ninole Resident |
Edited by - David M on 07/29/2010 09:57:33 |
|
|
|
Irongstone
Newbie
23 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 10:44:50
|
| David, ag building tax rate went from 6.35% to 8.35%, an increase of 31.5%. With a 6% increase in assessment, it seems your tax bill for ag buildings should have increased by 39%. |
|
|
|
Bob Orts
Punatic
1417 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 13:16:02
|
| The minimum tax is $100 dollars a year. This is not a large sum of money if you own property. They get the same county police, fire, emergency medical, streets, roads, parks and all other services as everyone else without a reduction because they pay less property taxes. If you lost your job and were on unemployment, shouldn't you get a property tax reduction? You own property but don't live on Hawaii; you should be getting a property tax reduction because you use fewer services. Fact is, the minimum is a very small amount and if $100 is too much, maybe property ownership isn't for them. |
|
|
|
John S. Rabi
Punatic
USA
2410 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 14:42:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Orts
Fact is, the minimum is a very small amount and if $100 is too much, maybe property ownership isn't for them.
I highly respect those who served our country and they deserve all the help they can get, but I agree with Bob on this one.
Aloha,
John S. Rabi, GM,PB,ABR,CRB,CM,FHS
888.819.9669
johnrabi@johnrabi.com
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
"The Next Level of Service!"
(This is what I think of the Kona Board of Realtors http://KonaBoardOfRealtors.info) |
|
|
|
Greg
Punatic
1337 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 15:08:04
|
Poor people pay taxes everyday. People with more wealth can buy in bulk and can afford to shop around for better buying power. Many poor and elderly (vets and otherwise)are forced by circumstance to shop more closely to home and probably pay an even higher percentage per buying dollar than better off bulksters.
Leave them alone. Increase the tax on people that can better afford it. If a person can't afford a tax increase on their second home or investment property, well join the club.
It's tougher for everyone, but those pesky poor folk could use a break. What's the advantage of further endangering someone at risk? (Besides making more work for the County's well payed social service employees)
|
|
|
|
John S. Rabi
Punatic
USA
2410 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 19:26:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Greg
It's tougher for everyone, but those pesky poor folk could use a break.
Poor folks?! My ex-wife married one of those Vietnam veterans, he is getting $5,000/month tax free, she makes $4,000/month, together that's much more than I make! (They do not pay property tax!) Tax them!
Aloha,
John S. Rabi, GM,PB,ABR,CRB,CM,FHS
888.819.9669
johnrabi@johnrabi.com
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
"The Next Level of Service!"
(This is what I think of the Kona Board of Realtors http://KonaBoardOfRealtors.info) |
|
|
|
Carey
Punatic
3158 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 19:32:01
|
I find it very interesting that many of the houses in my neighborhood (in Keaau town proper, with all of the services) do not even pay the "MINIMUM" taxes.... $75.00 per year is fairly common here... (that is $32.50 per installment) for families living with 2 working adults, and working college aged kids and grandma has a room, sometimes (or is living in the senior housing but her name is included with everyone else on the tax bill). This rate is also common for the retired field supervisors, living in "supervisor" homes that were built or moved into town in the 50's.
There is even one house that was set up in a trust account a couple of years ago (that's right, I track this stuff!), family is a couple of years younger than us, all working. Their taxes were slashed to 1/3 of the 2008 taxes (to just over $100)
WHY ON EARTH WOULD THE COUNTY DO THIS????
What I wanna know is WHY?
Although I really do believe we have a great bargain in our taxes, paying less than 1/10th what our last TAX RATE (mainland) was, and far less than 1/10 of the last mainland tax bill.... so I don't wanna rock the boat too much... but $75 a year???? for a really nice house, on a city street with city services??? |
|
|
|
Greg
Punatic
1337 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 19:52:56
|
The maximum disability amount a veteran and spouse can collect from the VA is about $3000 a month for a 100% disability. With an additional $75/mo per child your ex and her disabled husband must have around 26 kids to collect $5000. That's a handful! I'd say cut them some slack.
But then again, he is one of "those" Vietnam Veterans. |
Edited by - Greg on 07/29/2010 19:56:56 |
|
|
|
John S. Rabi
Punatic
USA
2410 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 21:05:21
|
Sorry Greg, I certainly didn't mean the "those" in any bad way. As I already said, I highly respect our veterans and "those" serving our country. (Just last week I picked up the tab for four army guys at Ba-Le.) My ex told me her husband is getting $5,000/month, so I rely on her statement.
Aloha,
John S. Rabi, GM,PB,ABR,CRB,CM,FHS
888.819.9669
johnrabi@johnrabi.com
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
"The Next Level of Service!"
(This is what I think of the Kona Board of Realtors http://KonaBoardOfRealtors.info) |
|
|
|
David M
Punatic
USA
1490 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 23:26:58
|
I really don't think a minimum tax of $100 is much of a hardship on most people, sure, there may be exceptions. But I still think it's reasonable for people to pay their responsible share.
I really agree with Carey, there seems to be a lot of other situations out there, but apparently not as easy or politically attractive as the current proposal.
David
Ninole Resident |
|
|
|
Bob Orts
Punatic
1417 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 12:46:31
|
John, it may be they are getting their VA Disability Compensation and collecting Military Disability pay. Those who leave the military with disability pay can also collect (double dip) and get VA disability compensation. Depending on years of service and rank at discharge, you can get a lot more than $5,000 a month. Attempts to close that loophole have met with stiff resistance and honestly will never be closed.
But we are talking property taxes that are supposedly under the law to be assessed based on "PROPERTY" not who owns or lives there. These exemptions were given based on WHO not the property, which make me believe if the minimum tax has exemptions, why not exempt people who own several properties. They are not using 4 times the county services if they own 4 properties; exempt 2, reduce 1 by half and they pay fair share on the fourth. Let's do away with property tax based on property value and have it tied to income. The more you make the more you pay. Or how about occupancy? 1 person pays a small amount; big family pays a big amount. The list can go on and on....
|
|
|
|
mikewj
Da Kine
153 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 13:12:11
|
Bob; the disabled vet exemption is a 'homeowners' exemption; one must live in the property in order for it to apply. Regarding your suggestion of reductions for owners of multiple properties, your argument is good as long as all the other properties remain empty. If there are residents (family or tenants) then use is being made of the county facilities.
A larger tax for 'big families' would tend to penalise poorer people.
BTW, what exemptions are being applied to the $100 minimum to get an even lower figure?
Also, what about a reduction of tax for those homes on catchment and septic/cesspool systems? No use is being made of county water or sewage!
Realistically, we need to be prepared to speak out about tax increases and make our elected 'representatives' understand that ALL the fat must be cut from county budgets before taking more money from those who are trying to stay afloat in these tough times. Let's get Billy to explain his phantom savings for a start! |
|
|
|
JerryCarr
Punatic
1780 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 13:36:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by mikewj
Let's get Billy to explain his phantom savings for a start!
Indeed, let's do ask Billy to explain at every opportunity. See if you get a straight answer. I find it amazing that after accepting the mayor's claims of exaggerated budget savings, the County Council went along with Billy's tax increase on agricultural buildings. Oh wait, I ought to know this Council well enough not to expect better.
The most galling part of this whole scenario is the fact that agriculture in this county is struggling with drought, economic disadvantages, vog, and a host of other impediments to success. Tropical agriculture is a potential bright spot in an otherwise bleak economic picture. So what do Billy and the Council do? Make it even harder to make a living in ag by raising the property tax on the buildings and improvements that are needed to succeed. Together we can . . . drive struggling farmers and ranchers out of business. |
|
|
|
Bob Orts
Punatic
1417 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2010 : 15:10:51
|
Mike, the WHT article had a breakdown of why some only pay $75, $50 and the $25 yearly tax, not the $100 minimum.
You are right about my multiple property example. If multiple properties are being used they should pay the taxes, but that's a condition of paying that is not applied to the 100% disabled veterans. There is no condition that they need the relief. They could be 100% disabled and getting hundred of thousands from some other source, yet they pay below the minimum, just because... no qualification of need. If conditions are being applied to one, let's apply it to all.
As for catchment systems, since county water is a paid service, you don't get any reduction. If you want a reduction, have the county shut off the public water spigots. Now, I do agree that in areas where the county does not provide any water service to properties, there should be a very slight reduction in property taxes because this service (although considered a pay for use) is not even offered.
The real issue is taxes and expenses. Let’s face certain realities. The County can probably forgo any tax increase based on the proposed expense reduction. But to get meaningful tax reduction, you have to have meaningful expense reduction. That means listing all services and expenses, and, unless its essential services - cut it. That means no funding for some band or rental cars for parades, or feel good expenses that is not core services.
However, look at how the reduction in funding for the band was taken. It's a non-essential, non-core service that should have been cut. No matter how it's sliced and served up, it's a waste of taxpayer’s money to fund anything that is not a mandated and core essential service during a fiscal crisis, yet people were upset and demanding funding. So, do you really think people want meaningful County tax reform? No, they just want a bandwagon to jump on.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Property taxes proposed to rise for vets and poor
