Posts: 2,314
Threads: 59
Joined: Jun 2003
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)
Posts: 2,014
Threads: 46
Joined: Jun 2003
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
Ninole Resident
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
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....
Posts: 254
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2006
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!
Posts: 2,149
Threads: 90
Joined: Feb 2006
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.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
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.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Carey
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?
The system was set up to provide relief from property taxes to those who deserve relief, but as time goes on, some found loopholes and closing any loophole brings unbelievable backlash. It's never about right or wrong, deserving or undeserving. It's all about PR and manipulating a system for gain.
Let me ask this first.
Would you like for community charitable organizations to be able to get a reduction in property taxes on property they own that is used directly in pursuit of their community charitable function?
|
