HISTORY AS PROMISED

[Punatang]

It’s true, I am not as informed on this as I should be to discuss it.  I stand corrected.

With that in mind, getting back to MyManao’s post and the topic at hand, if indeed “there is no public funding or taxpayers’ monies involved”, then we are back to Puna never getting a fair piece of the pie.  And I’m still not clear on how all other areas throughout the state can have county roads, but if Puna did that it would mean bankruptcy for the county.

You always impress me 2 Sins and I could have been more tactful but when I hear "let them eat cake" I get riled up LOL.

Yes we are back to Puna getting ripped off.  MyManao doesn't even live here so naturally he thinks that all of our tax money (of the many) should go to subsidize wherever it is that he ended up (for the few).

If Punatics united and voted for our interests we would quickly start wagging the dog. Until then we will continue to be taken advantage of by people who think like MyManao.

Pele is their excuse to look down on us and feel superior.  Then they delude themselves with ignorant theories about how things like HPIA work and they feel justified in stealing from us. Don't lend a hand to that which you wish to be free from.

[Obie]

https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=1163

The article in 2007 stated that Puna gets $2.00 back for every $1.00 they pay in property tax.
I would imagine it's the same today. Puna blue tarp jungeloes don't get taxed as much Kohala resort homes.

[Punatang]

I'm certainly open to being corrected on the matter of inflows vs outflows but not by a 17 year old Punaweb post with a dead link in it that the poster was dubious of when he posted it.

The population and financial demographics of Puna might have changed a bit since 2007.

Please realize that property tax is only one outflow. There is GET, a hefty income tax, and a plethora of fees etc that all go into various coffers that are supposed to serve the people.

If we are going to debate this point, and we should, let's get some valid facts.

[Patricia]

Interesting. 2 for 1.

I wonder how many properties that are owned in Puna are owned by local, Hawaii residents? I wonder how many properties that are owned in Kona are owned by local, Hawaii residents? I wonder how many property owners in Puna, only have one, main residence, work jobs in Hawaii, send their kids to school in Hawaii? I wonder how many properties/homes are not a main residence for some Kona owners? (Off islanders, muti-property owners pay more) I wonder how much in excise tax the residents in Puna pay, who live here full time (grocery tax, fuel tax, electric, etc.) every month, all
year- as compared to some in Kona who do not live in Hawaii full time?

Curious.

[Obie]

Property tax provides the major revenue source for the county. The property tax revenue from Puna is still much lower than the resort areas of the west side.

GET and income tax all go to the state and they feed some back to the counties.
The fancy subdivisions on the west side all paid to build the roads, water lines, sewers etc.

Schools in Hawaii are state run and paid for with our very high income taxes and fees. People who don't live here, don't send their kids to school and don't pay income tax.

I don't know what there is to debate. If you want paved roads, water. sewers, move somewhere that has those things.

[Patricia]

Aloha Mr. O.
Anywhere you move to, live in the U.S., you will find signs of infrastructure decay.
There is nothing unreasonable about residents wanting decent (not necessarily paved) roads, clean drinking water, and enviromentally and safe/healthy wastewater treatment plants. None of these amenities need to be "top of the line," extravagant. They just need to work. Perhaps Mr. Benioff will consider addressing Hawaii County's infrastructure needs (not the same as wants).

[leilanidude]

Those multi-million $ homes In Kona/Waikoloa that are second homes for the wealthy, paid for their own infrastructure in the private, gated subdivisions they are in. As Obie noted, they don't have children in the schools here, yet pay huge amounts of property tax to support infrastructure that they don't really use. The construction and maintenance of those homes provides many well paying jobs for those folks that do live here. Keep squeezing them for more money and they will stop investing here and that will take even more jobs away.

[Punatang]

This notion that we are somehow robbed when we support the schools while not having children attending them is not well reasoned.  No matter who you are, you rely on the community around you. The wealthy much more than most. You need educated (I edited this many times) persons to provide a host of services and functions and just generally to be decent human beings who are not desperate or starving. We don't pay for schools because we have kids in them. We pay for schools because we all need kids to be in them.

[leilanidude]

My point is not that anyone is being robbed by paying for schools when they don't have children. Rather it is that these folks pay more than their fair share already, just by virtue of the value of the property yet they use very little of the services compared to the average resident.

[Punatang]

I hear you and I believe we are aligned more than most on fiscal issues but I do disagree. I think these folks use far more resources than most in their knock on effects. I hear you though.  Everything was supposed to be financed by tariffs. Income tax is slavery. Property tax insinuates that you never owned it in the first place.  If you signed up for a road tax, well, you own that one.