We're ALL overtaxed now

Even if it wasn't compulsory due to withheld funds... (0.00 / 0)

...it would be so in practice after the property tax reforms go through.

I wrote about it here: The other tax increase.

---

by: Thomas @ Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 18:23:45 PM CST

Could you explain your comment further? (0.00 / 0)

I saw your link, but I still don't understand the comment.  Why would it be compulsory?  Would it be written in the legislation that if you don't have a COIT, you don't get the relief?

I've looked at all the Senate bills passed last week, and none said that.

---

by: Buzzcut @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 15:26:27 PM CST

Most of the proposals that I have seen... (0.00 / 0)

...would essentially restructure things so that if the counties don't enact a COIT, they would have to dramatically (read: impossibly) cut vital services.

It's just the same passing of the buck down the line so that blame goes elsewhere.

---

by: Thomas @ Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 15:29:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I still don't get it (0.00 / 0)

Thomas, would you mind posting a link to exactly where in the legislation it says what you said?

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just genuinely curious as to how they're going to screw the counties that don't pass a COIT.

So far, all I've seen is HB 1001 and 1010, which specifically call out Lake County for not having a COIT.  They say that if Lake County doesn't have a COIT by Dec. 31st, our levy is frozen.

But none of the Senate Bills say anything about the need for a COIT, or consequences for not having one.

---

by: Buzzcut @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 10:20:35 AM CST

It's not specifically spelled out at all... (0.00 / 0)

...but the general idea that the Governor -- and the General Assembly, for that matter -- has followed from day one has been to push the burden of future tax increases on to local governments.

I am assuming that any substantial property tax reform package passed by the General Assembly is going to be structured such that if local governments want to continue their services at the current funding level, they will be required to have the COIT in order to maintain all of their existing programs. It's the reason the counties have it now, anyway.

---

by: Thomas @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 10:45:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Proof is in the legislation (0.00 / 0)

Thomas, you are in good company thinking that.  I've been told the same thing by our Lake County legislators.  That is their excuse to pass the COIT.

However, the proof is in the actual state legislation, and I haven't seen anything in the new bills that penalizes any county that doesn't have a COIT.

Perhaps the legislators expect Lake County to adopt the COIT, and so have not added penalties to the legislation.  

And it doesn't it mean that they wouldn't add penalties to the legislation if we don't pass the COIT.

But as things stand now, I can't find wording in any of the bills that would penalize a county wihtout a COIT.

---

by: Buzzcut @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 11:17:12 AM CST

The penalty would come... (0.00 / 0)

...when the counties are forced to cut services due to funding shortfalls. It would be electoral suicide for most county officials to start slashing budget programs in the name of fiscal accountability -- I don't care how vocal people are in their support of this as a policy, because it won't play well once under way -- so they are going to have to make up their lost revenue somewhere. The COIT is their only option, really.

---

by: Thomas @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 11:32:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Let me put words in your mouth (0.00 / 0)

Let me see if I can figure this out, because I still don't understand you.

Do you mean that without the COIT, municipalities will hit the 2% tax cap that is now state law?  And without the revenue past the 2% cap, they'll have to cut services?  But if they have a COIT, they can expand spending and still meet the 2% cap?

That's the only scenario I can figure that would cause counties to be FORCED to cut spending.

But in terms of the state taking over welfare and school funding (which, after all, is Mitch's proposal) I don't see any requirement that a county have a COIT.

BTW, I just got my tax bill, and I hit the 2% cap.  Lake County missed out on $500 of revenue because of that cap.

---

by: Buzzcut @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 11:43:26 AM CST

That's more or less what I mean... (0.00 / 0)

Excuse my lack of clarity (or lucidity, for that matter) -- my brain is not dealing well with the amount of academic nonsense that it is being force-fed as part of "Operation Write Lots of Papers I Should Have Started Months Ago."

My overall point is that Daniels and the state legislators can say, "Look we only need to raise the state-level taxes this much to reduce property tax bills," when actually local governments are going to be forced by practical necessity to use the COIT to make up for lost revenue.

---

by: Thomas @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 11:57:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

Well, whatever the reason, your inability to articulate your ideas forced me to think the COIT out, and I get it now.  Thanks.

You get a shout out on my blog.

---

by: Buzzcut @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 12:23:51 PM CST

Victory... (0.00 / 0)

If I can just make a career out of confusing myself and others into understanding something, I'll consider that one hell of a talent.

---

by: Thomas @ Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 12:38:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]