Real property taxes are due in Feb. - Hawaii

LIHU‘E — The second installment of real property taxes for the 2012-13 tax year is due on Feb. 20, county officials announced recently. Payments can be made online at www.kauai.gov/paypropertytax, by mail, in person, or at a drop box located outside the Kapule Building at the Lihu‘e Civic Center. Checks should be made payable to the Director of Finance. Real property tax bills were recently mailed to all Kaua'i property owners or their respective servicing agents. Property owners who pay their real property taxes directly and have not yet received their property tax bills should immediately inquire at the Real Property Tax Collection office at the Lihu'e Civic Center, Kapule Building, Suite 463, 4444 Rice St., or call 241-4272. Failure to pay real property taxes by the due date will result in a 10 percent penalty as well as 12 percent interest per year. For more information on real property taxes, log on to http://www.findapropertytaxlawyer.com/

Property taxes are due Tuesday

Franklin County property owners have until 5 p.m. Tuesday to pay their property-tax bills to avoid late fees. Tax bills can be paid online by visiting the Franklin County treasurer’s website at http://treasurer.franklincountyohio.gov. Property owners paying by credit card will be assessed a 2.35 percent fee by the processing company, which is not shared with the county. Those who pay by electronic check will not have to pay any additional processing fees. The bills also can be paid in person at the treasurer’s office, on the 17th floor of the county courthouse, 373 S. High St. Payments can be dropped off in a lock box designated for tax bills in the lobby of the courthouse. Checking-account customers of Huntington, US Bank, First Community Bank or Columbus First Bank also can make the payments at their local bank branch. Property owners who don’t make the deadline will be assessed a penalty, whether or not they received a copy of their tax bill in the mail.

Property tax -- maligned and misunderstood

Tax reform is in the air in Minnesota. And the tax everyone loves to hate -- the local property tax -- is again a prime target. Officials in Gov. Mark Dayton's administration have heard loud and clear that Minnesotans want lower property taxes. It's an idea that the new Legislature seems eager to support. Although the specifics of Gov. Dayton's tax reform proposal remain a mystery, all indications are that reducing local reliance on property taxation and providing property tax relief will be high priorities. But are these reform goals really justified? A closer look at the main arguments offered in their favor suggests that concerns about property taxation are significantly overstated. Argument 1: Minnesota's revenue system is unbalanced and too dependent on property taxes. In 2010, the property tax's share of the "big three" state-local revenue sources (income tax, sales tax and property tax) was the highest it had been in more than a decade -- 39.8 percent. The resulting tax system has been compared by critics to an off-kilter three-legged stool that can no longer stand up. But a rise in the property tax's share of revenue is exactly what you should expect at the end of a major recession. Since volatile income and sales tax revenues fell by $1.35 billion between 2008 and 2010, the inherently more stable property tax was predestined to pick up tax share. Minnesota Management and Budget projects that if we do absolutely nothing, the property tax share of big-three revenues will decline to 36.4 percent next year -- a level that was the norm throughout the 1980s and 1990s. For perspective, consider that in 1973, after major tax reform to buy down local property taxes (the much-touted "Minnesota Miracle"), property taxes raised 46.9 percent of the "big three" taxes. Our three-legged stool was a unicycle. Rather than throwing the system out of balance, property taxes by their very nature provide the fiscal system with sorely needed stability exactly when it's needed most. The property tax should not be criticized for the very characteristic that causes public-finance experts to find it indispensable. Argument 2: The property tax is highly regressive. A regressive tax is one that burdens the less-affluent more than the more-affluent. But according to the Department of Revenue, Minnesota's property tax on homes is actually one of the least regressive taxes in the state. It's less regressive than the sales tax, which is the most commonly sought substitute revenue for local governments. When combined with the state's property tax refund program, homeowner property taxes are less regressive than -- among others -- corporate income taxes, gambling taxes, gas taxes or tobacco taxes. Argument 3: The property tax is poorly aligned with taxpayers' "ability to pay." Not really -- not according to a Revenue Department report that matches homeowners' incomes to their actual property tax bills. This report finds that homeowners' property tax bills are quite affordable across most of the state, both in total dollars and relative to incomes. They are most affordable in Greater Minnesota, where complaints about property tax burdens are especially strong. Some affordability problems will always exist, which is why it's vital to also recognize Minnesota's generous, broadly accessible property tax-refund programs. Over the last two years, the state spent $627 million to deliver direct, income-tested property tax relief to homeowners whose tax relative to their incomes exceeded statewide standards. Renters received an additional $388 million based on an estimate of the property taxes they paid as part of their rent. Importantly, these refund programs are more than three times as progressive -- favoring the less-well-off -- as Minnesota's income tax. National rankings also undercut concerns about Minnesota's dependence on property taxes. Property taxes relative to home value here are in the middle of the pack nationally. Minnesota's property tax collections, in total, are below the national average regardless of whether you measure them against population or income. Bad reform habits die hard Despite being unpopular, the property tax is regarded by experts as the best way for local governments to raise money. It provides a stable stream of revenue that ensures funding for local services. It can't be evaded. It's simple to pay -- no accountants needed. Countless studies have shown that high-quality property-tax-funded services lead to higher property values -- you economically benefit from what you pay for. And the visibility of the property tax allows and encourages taxpayers to compare the benefits and costs of local services they receive. In this sense, the perceived "problem" of property tax increases actually represents a crucial accountability link between citizens and their governments. Yet, none of these arguments can diminish citizen frustration with a tax that is often unpredictable, frequently paid in big semiannual chunks and very difficult to understand. Possession may be nine-tenths of the law, but perception and politics is 99.9 percent of property tax policy. If reform only addresses the perception and politics problems by pacifying local governments and taxpayers with levy buy-downs -- that is, sending more state aid to local governments so they can reduce or hold down property taxes -- we won't accomplish anything. Forty years of experience demonstrates the futility of this approach and what we can expect in the future if we try it again. Growing pressure from resource-hungry state programs will make it difficult to sustain the new levels of aid to local governments, let alone continuously provide even more money. Meanwhile, local governments, based on expectations of continuing or even rising state support, will create service levels, amenities and cost structures that are increasingly unaffordable without it. As state aids become precarious, property tax levies will start rising again, and the temporary property tax relief will evaporate. Calls for aid reform will begin again as communities argue that their "neediness" is not being adequately recognized in the existing distribution formulas. Local officials will then cut services, because they do not have the political support to continue raising the necessary property taxes to pay for them. Ironically, the evidence often shows that the additional property taxes needed would still be affordable by any objective measure. But local taxpayers for decades have been taught to expect local services at a discount price. So the call for higher state taxes to fund local property tax relief will begin anew. We've seen this movie many times. But this time the ending will be different. Once we had excess capacity in our tax system and tax rates to perpetuate this cycle of fiscal illusion. Current budget and demographic trends say that those days are over. Real reform basics This type of "reform" does nothing to improve the incentives and disincentives surrounding property taxation. Real property tax reform should focus instead on respecting the essential role the tax has, and will continue to have, in local government finance. Foremost, we must untangle the complex and messy financial relationships between the state and local governments. Currently, the state subsidizes cost structures created by local governments at the same time that local property taxes are required to pay for state mandates and programs over which local officials have no control. One of the smartest things we could do is sort out these lines of accountability based on this general principle: If you have no say on what gets done or how it gets done, you shouldn't be paying for it. This is especially relevant to improving the design of state aids to cities and counties. Simplifying the property tax system and improving its transparency are two more worthy reform objectives. Local government finance has a lot of moving parts -- any of which can affect an individual's property tax. To restore trust in the tax, we must make it simpler to understand. And we must make it much easier for taxpayers to accurately determine what and who is causing their taxes to rise. Real reform, leading to a stronger and more accountable revenue system, is unlikely to pay big political dividends. But it will preserve what is most important about the property tax -- its ability to balance citizens' expectations of government with their willingness to pay for it.

Property taxes up sharply for some in the Cleveland-Akron area: find your new tax rate

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Garfield Heights voters heard the pleas of the city's schools last year and approved a 9.4-mill property tax increase. But it is being charged at a rate of 12.1 mills - or $371 per $100,000 of home value - now that it's part of the tax bill for the very first time. It's one reason that Garfield Heights' overall tax rate went up 28 percent to $3,572 per $100,000 of value, now ranking third highest in Ohio. ________________________________________ Tax bill details Find changes in tax rates, and how taxes in each place are distributed among local schools, counties, cities, libraries, parks and other local governments. ________________________________________ Here is how an average city tax bill of $2,213 per $100,000 of home value in the seven-county Cleveland-Akron area is divided. Note: many cites are not part of JVS districts, or are in counties without a community college, reducing the overall averages shown above for those purposes. Ken Marshall, Rich Exner, The Plain Dealer In the simplest of terms, when Ohio property values go down, the rates go up for many of the individual taxes that make up the total tax bill. The goal is to collect the same amount of money. That's why in Cuyahoga County, where home values were reduced by an average of 9 percent last year, property tax rates went up on average about 8 percent in the new bills due Thursday. Outside of places where significant new taxes were added last year, there was about a 50-50 chance of the bills going up or down, said Wade Steen, Cuyahoga County's fiscal officer. Rising tax rates have become almost universal in an era of sinking property values. A Plain Dealer analysis of the 377 unique taxing districts across the seven-county Cleveland-Akron area found just one case where the overall residential rate has declined over the last three years. And that was just by $1 per $100,000 of home value in the Geauga County area that includes Troy Township and the Berkshire schools. Tax rates, by county Average tax rates per $100,000 of home value by county and the change over the last three years. Each county updates property values every three years, impacting rates. County 2012 3-year change Cuyahoga $2,565 12.9% Geauga $1,735 7.7% Lake $2,085 17.2% Lorain $1,782 15.6% Medina $1,654 13.6% Portage $1,678 8.7% Summit $2,066 14.6% Three years were analyzed because each county in Ohio must update property values once every three years. The period following those appraisals is when rates change the most. Last year, was an appraisal year for Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain and Portage counties. Big changes In Garfield Heights and some other communities, the new bills contain changes that are so significant that they are surprising some taxpayers, even those who remember new taxes being approved last year. Cuyahoga County's Steen said he is getting a lot of questions from Clevelanders. Cleveland voters approved a 15-mill school levy in November amounting to $459 a year per $100,000 of home value. On top of that, because of declining property values, the rate went up another 5.4 mills, or $167, for Cleveland school taxes that have been on the books for years. The biggest tax rate increases regionally were in communities that are part of the Cleveland and Garfield Heights school districts. In Cleveland, Linndale, Newburgh Heights and Bratenahl – all part of the Cleveland school system, overall rates increased 27-35 percent. Property values fell there, ranging from 3 percent in Bratenahl to 30 percent on the East Side of Cleveland. Rates went up 28-29 percent in Garfield Heights, with the higher amount being in the small portion that is in the Cleveland school system There ordinarily is a limit on how much the rates can go up, regardless of sinking property values. But there are exceptions for certain taxes. Garfield Heights voters last March approved an "emergency" tax. In the case of such taxes, voters are agreeing to provide the money - $4.1 million a year in this case - regardless of what rate must be charged. So when the county appraiser dropped Garfield Heights home values by 21 percent on average, the rate went up. Homes are billed twice a year for property tax bills, with the 2013 bills covering 2012 taxes. Plain Dealer The big increase in Garfield Heights would not have happened if voters had approved a traditional operating levy, which is capped by the original millage amount. Now that property values have been reduced, it takes 12.1 mills to generate the $4.1 million. And it's the same reason that Garfield Heights emergency levies approved in 2010 and 2011 are now being charged at higher rates. School treasurer Allen Sluka said the district tried to educate the public ahead of time, but he still has been getting questions since the tax bills went out late last month. Tax bill examples Tax rates vary greatly from city to city. Here are six examples from across the region, with rates listed based on each $100,000 of home vale. Use the database above to find the same information for other places, and more details. Avon Lake Cleve- land Medina County $253 $405 $228 Schools $1,204 $1,596 $1,290 JVS $71 $0 $66 City $238 $389 $156 Library Dist. $86 $194 $62 Cnty. parks $40 $57 $23 Comm. college $101 $95 $0 Port $0 $3 $0 Total $1,992 $2,739 $1,825 North Olmsted Shaker Heights Will- oughby County $405 $405 $271 Schools $1,691 $2,811 $1,436 JVS $71 $0 $0 City $407 $303 $188 Library Dist. $77 $123 $66 Cnty. parks $57 $57 $83 Comm. college $95 $95 $94 Port $3 $3 $0 Total $2,806 $3,797 $2,138 Garfield Heights schools have more taxes tied to emergency levies -- 28 mills -- than any other government body in the state. Massillon schools (22.4 mills) are second highest statewide for emergency levies, followed by Willoughby-Eastlake (21.9 mills), Maple Heights (21) and Stow-Munroe Falls (20.6). Ohio's highest tax rates Leading the state in tax rates is the Shaker Square area of Cleveland. The portion of Cleveland that is in the Shaker Heights school system has a rate of $3,883. The city of Shaker Heights is second statewide at $3,797. Next is Garfield Heights, followed by the Cleveland-Heights/University Heights school areas in Cleveland Heights, South Euclid and University Heights, each at about $3,420. On the low end are mostly townships, where the average tax rate in the seven-county region is $1,795 per $100,000 of home value. Townships provide fewer government services. Driving these tax bills even lower is that home values are often lower in the townships, where some people feel they get more for their money. The 24 lowest rates regionally are all in townships, the lowest being the portion of Portage County's Deerfield Township that is in the West Branch Local School District. The rate there is $1,210. There are more taxing districts - 377 - than townships, villages and cities in the area, because many places are divided multiple ways. For example, Cleveland Heights, Broadview Heights and Lorain are among the cities with multiple school districts. So the overall rates there are different, depending on where a home is located within these towns.

Property taxes still a factor when buyers decide where to move

Thanks to recent state limits on how much towns can increase property taxes, the typical homeowners’ tax bill rose only 1.4 percent in Bergen and Passaic counties over the past year — much less than in the early and mid-2000s, when the median tax was jumping as much as 8 percent a year in Bergen. But property taxes in North Jersey are still among the highest in the nation and continue to have a powerful effect on a person’s decision about where to buy a home. Annual property taxes in Bergen County are now a median $9,300, and in Passaic, a median $8,742. In general, towns with higher-priced homes have higher taxes because the taxes are determined as a percentage of assessed value. "As taxes became higher and higher, they became more and more of a factor that buyers will look at," said Robert Abbott of Abbott & Caserta Realtors in Ho-Ho-Kus. Even in high-priced areas like northern Bergen County, affluent buyers will consider taxes when they’re picking a town, he said. Jaime and Greg Scerbo, parents of two who are now renting in Park Ridge, plan to focus their house hunt on Mahwah, where the median property tax bill of $6,525 is significantly lower than in surrounding towns because of the large number of corporate taxpayers who help pay for municipal services. The Scerbos want to keep their tax bill to $12,000 a year or less. "It’s only going to go up," said Jaime Scerbo, a teacher. "I’d prefer to spend a little more on the house and a little less on taxes." Her theory is that if they start with lower property taxes, they could withstand the inevitable increases. Randi Ungar, who currently lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan with her husband, Jason, says property taxes are a critical factor in their house hunt. They’re looking in Bergen County and Rockland County, N.Y., at homes with a price point of $750,000. "If the house is great and priced right, but taxes are $20,000, it’s not going to work," said Randi Ungar, 34, an advertising saleswoman. She and her husband, who works in the textile industry and as a personal chef, are now paying about $18,000 a year in maintenance on their place in the city, an amount she calls "insane." She’s not willing to take on a similar burden in property taxes. "If I’m going to move and buy a house, I’m going to want to lower my monthly payments," she said. The Ungars hope to have children, so they’re looking for a town with a good school system. But Randi Ungar is not sure that "brand-name" school districts are worth the high property taxes that go with them. On the other hand, some buyers feel that schools are the only justification for higher taxes. "I see buyers measuring the property taxes against their interpretation of a good school system," said Eileen O’Driscoll, broker/owner of Century 21 Concept 100 in Dumont. Strong schools "alleviate the sting of high taxes," she adds. Some buyers do the math on how much property taxes will add to their monthly payments and decide they "can afford more home when the taxes are on the lower side," said Gary Silberstein, a Keller Williams Village Square agent in Ridgewood. Jaimie Bolnick, also with Keller Williams in Ridgewood, said that some towns seems to draw buyers consistently despite high taxes. She points to Glen Rock and Ridgewood, both of which have median annual property taxes above $13,000 but offer well-regarded schools, attractive downtown shopping areas and commuter rail service to New York. Many homeowners have successfully appealed their home assessments during the housing bust, and some buyers ask whether they should try that, Bolnick said. "There’s always that possibility, but it’s not something I could guarantee, nor would I ever recommend buying a home based on the hope that taxes would be reduced," she said. Property taxes have been growing at a slower rate recently as a result of a state law passed in 2010 that set a 2 percent limit on annual increases. But New Jersey still has one of the heaviest property tax burdens in the nation. According to the Tax Foundation, seven of the 10 counties with the highest property taxes in the nation, based on data from 2005-2009, were in New Jersey, with Bergen ranked No. 4 and Passaic No. 10. "We are a wealthy state, and wealthy states tend to demand a high level of public services," said Henry Coleman, a Rutgers professor who has studied property taxation. "I could say ‘education’ and wouldn’t need to make any more arguments." In addition, he said, local governments in the Garden State rely almost exclusively on property taxes, while in other states, local governments are funded in part by sales and income taxes. And state aid from Trenton to municipalities and counties "has not kept pace with the demand for local services," he notes. Moreover, New Jersey’s home-rule tradition means nearly every town has its own school system, police force and so on — though Coleman thinks that doesn’t add as much to costs as the other factors. Property taxes vary town-by-town for several reasons. Some have businesses whose taxes help fund municipal services, keeping homeowners’ tax bills down. The shopping malls of Paramus, for example, help it keep median property taxes around $7,800, well below the county median. Other towns keep their tax bills lower by sharing costly services — for instance, sending their teens to nearby towns’ high schools. "Most buyers know that in New Jersey, especially North Jersey, taxes are going to be high. That’s just the way it is," says John Pordon of Century 21 Gold Properties in Totowa, where the median tax bill, at $7,150, is the lowest in Passaic County. But that reality is especially painful for first-time buyers, he said. "To expect them to pay almost $10,000 in taxes on their first home is a little too much to ask," he says. "Young couples just starting out can’t afford to do that."

Larry Gasper pays $14K property tax bill in coins and dollar bills

He says he hit some tough times and had to ask around for help. "I had to borrow some money. I've missed a few payments on my home to pay for my taxes for this piece of property. My grandkids' piggy banks, my daughters' piggy banks, my money, my change and a lot of people have offered to help a bit," said Larry Gasper. Gasper says he rolled all the money himself and packed the $14,000 in the back of his car to pay off his debt.

Scam: Assessor's Office Warns of Impostors

Double-check all calls from the Cook County Assessor's Office because the contact may be a scam, a release from the office warns. People claiming to work at the assessor's office are calling residents, saying they have missing exemptions. The scammers then ask taxpayers to hire them to file Certificates of Error on their behalf. The certificate changes a property's assessed value for a past year, correcting the tax bill after the assessment is finalized. Kelley Quinn, communications director for the assessor’s office, said real employees never solicit taxpayers. Many of these so-called tax reps tell people they can get residents more money. "What they don't tell you is... they take 30 to 40 percent of that amount," Quinn said. "The best thing people should be doing if they're a homeowner is making sure they've been getting all the proper exemptions."

Page Arizona set to vote on 1st property tax

PAGE, AZ -- Voters in Page will be asked May 21 to decide if they want a municipal property tax imposed on themselves for the first time in Page's 38-year history as a municipality. Page City Council voted 7-0 Wednesday night to authorize the referendum, to coincide with the general election for mayor and three council seats. The ad valorem tax would have one condition. The city would abolish the tax -- and its $600,000 in annual revenue -- once Page's $14 million in bond debt is retired. A separate, newly approved ordinance allows council to apply all proceeds from land sales to the debt. Page was issued bonds in 1994, 1997 and 1999 for an ambitious series of construction projects, for a total obligation of $24 million. The debt was refinanced in 2011. Mayor Bill Diak and others indicated previous councils had passed on chances to retire the debt, and he vowed to "not kick it down the road for another 13 years." "This council will have this resolved ... We're going to have a plan, which we should have had 13 years ago," said Diak, who was elected to council in 2009 and voted mayor in 2011. Diak and others insisted their vote did not reflect an opinion for or against the tax. City Manager Rick Olson, author of the proposal, said council's only intention was to decide whether to send the measure on to the electorate. Speaking against the idea were Page residents Mike Makowski and Arleen Miller. Makowski reminded council that two bond issues of the Page school district failed, in November 2011 and again last November. He predicted a city property tax would meet a similar fate. "I don't like taxes, either," said Councilmember Scott Sadler, "but we need a revenue stream one way or another." Olson told council that he would be hard-pressed to find $1.2 million a year for debt payments from a $19 million budget that has become heavily dependent on $6.5 million in sales tax revenue, while state and federal revenues are shrinking. Revenue from the sale of city-owned land has also plummeted in a weak economy. "I feel your bond debt is crippling your city's ability to thrive," said Olson, named city manager last year after serving as city attorney for nearly 10 years. Vice Mayor John Kocjan and Councilmember Lyle Dimbatt argued against considering a sales tax hike as a remedy. Kocjan cited the combined tax of 15 percent, and Dimbatt likened another increase to "turning your back and waiting to get stabbed." Kocjan said the property tax would be "nothing next to what the school tax was going to be." Kocjan said he reviewed some projected tax payments drawn up by Olson, but they were not released during the meeting. Last fall, Olson listed a few residential rate examples, ranging from $80 to $400 a year.

Page set to vote on 1st property tax

PAGE, AZ -- Voters in Page will be asked May 21 to decide if they want a municipal property tax imposed on themselves for the first time in Page's 38-year history as a municipality. Page City Council voted 7-0 Wednesday night to authorize the referendum, to coincide with the general election for mayor and three council seats. The ad valorem tax would have one condition. The city would abolish the tax -- and its $600,000 in annual revenue -- once Page's $14 million in bond debt is retired. A separate, newly approved ordinance allows council to apply all proceeds from land sales to the debt. Page was issued bonds in 1994, 1997 and 1999 for an ambitious series of construction projects, for a total obligation of $24 million. The debt was refinanced in 2011. Mayor Bill Diak and others indicated previous councils had passed on chances to retire the debt, and he vowed to "not kick it down the road for another 13 years." "This council will have this resolved ... We're going to have a plan, which we should have had 13 years ago," said Diak, who was elected to council in 2009 and voted mayor in 2011. Diak and others insisted their vote did not reflect an opinion for or against the tax. City Manager Rick Olson, author of the proposal, said council's only intention was to decide whether to send the measure on to the electorate. Speaking against the idea were Page residents Mike Makowski and Arleen Miller. Makowski reminded council that two bond issues of the Page school district failed, in November 2011 and again last November. He predicted a city property tax would meet a similar fate. "I don't like taxes, either," said Councilmember Scott Sadler, "but we need a revenue stream one way or another." Olson told council that he would be hard-pressed to find $1.2 million a year for debt payments from a $19 million budget that has become heavily dependent on $6.5 million in sales tax revenue, while state and federal revenues are shrinking. Revenue from the sale of city-owned land has also plummeted in a weak economy. "I feel your bond debt is crippling your city's ability to thrive," said Olson, named city manager last year after serving as city attorney for nearly 10 years. Vice Mayor John Kocjan and Councilmember Lyle Dimbatt argued against considering a sales tax hike as a remedy. Kocjan cited the combined tax of 15 percent, and Dimbatt likened another increase to "turning your back and waiting to get stabbed." Kocjan said the property tax would be "nothing next to what the school tax was going to be." Kocjan said he reviewed some projected tax payments drawn up by Olson, but they were not released during the meeting. Last fall, Olson listed a few residential rate examples, ranging from $80 to $400 a year. Page was founded in 1957 but was not incorporated until 1975. The community that built Glen Canyon Dam had been governed by the federal Bureau of Reclamation for its first 18 years

Texas - Windows on State Government

The new Texas Property tax calender can be found on our resources page under "Useful Links." Resources page: http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax/taxcalendar/2012.html

Hundreds attend property tax rally

Almost 600 people attended the year's first national rally against the property tax in west Dublin this afternoon. The meeting, organised by the Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes, was held in the Red Cow Inn, which was almost forced to initiate overflow arrangements due to the large turnout. According to organisers, the crowd was made up of people from all around the country with a variety of different professions, with small farmers, public servants, teachers and factor workers making up a large amount. The meeting is split into two sessions, with the first discussing relating to legislation and the second organising strategy and tactics. According to Joan Quirke, who came from Waterford to take part in the meeting, the people who attended are there to fight for “ordinary people”. “The Government insists on tackling the people with a middle or low income and these people barely have enough to put food in the fridge,” she said. “I haven’t paid the household charge and from speaking to people on the street, an awful lot of people are the same and have no intention of paying it. We are going to continue on the fight, but I’m very happy to see so many people here today.” People Before Profit councillor Brid Smith said that the only way the Government will take any action on the issue is if there is a mass-movement made by the general public, which she hopes will stem from today’s meeting. “What we need is a mass resistance on the streets. I don’t think [the Government] will listen to us with out a mass movement and that’s what we intend to do. Just look at the amount of people who are here today. It’s entirely possible,” she said. People Before Profit TD Joan Collins said the turnout was tremendous. “These people came from all parts of the country to be here and to have their voices heard. We are midway through a battle with the Government and we are not going to back down.” For more visit http://findapropertytaxlawyer.com/

Proposition 13 Tax Curbs Face Attack In California Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/011013-640144-prop-13-tax-curbs-targeted-for-attack-by-calif-lawmakers.aspx#ixzz2HgCsIPO9

The tax revolt that swept California and the nation starting in the 1970s may have run out of steam, but its landmark law, Proposition 13, is still largely intact. That could change in the next two years as Democratic state lawmakers with a new two-thirds majority in both houses take aim at Proposition 13 tax restraints in their hunt for money. Taxpayer advocates are girding for battle. "This year, for us, will be devoted entirely to defending Proposition 13," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association. Backers of Proposition 13 warn that changes could pinch family finances and hurt businesses, large and small, in a state with joblessness still near 10% and costs higher than many locales. Passed in 1978 with nearly 65% of the state voting yes, Proposition 13 is a shield and political symbol. It has kept California property taxes moderate and predictable, capping them at 1% of a property's value when it last sold, plus a 2% annual inflation factor. Critics long blamed the law for state fiscal woes. But mainstream politicians knew it was popular and didn't want to touch it. Other Taxes Already Rising That was before November, when Californians OK'd a ballot initiative to raise income and sales taxes and put more Democrats in the Legislature. The new seats gave Democrats the power to enact tax hikes under Proposition 13's supermajority rule without Republican support, as well as to put amendments to the law before the voters. Liberals hailed the events as the end of an era. "The Tax Revolt is over," Robert Cruickshank wrote on the Calitics blog. The November vote was a victory for public-sector unions, which have the most to gain from weakening Proposition 13. It also put California business owners on alert for tax changes that fall hard on commercial property. "Even the people who advocate a change in Proposition 13 don't seem to want a change in residential (tax) rates," said Allan Zaremberg, CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. Already, state Sen. Mark Leno wants to put a measure on the ballot to lower the two-thirds vote threshold for school district parcel taxes to 55%. State Sen. Lois Wolk introduced a bill that would ask voters to drop the vote threshold to 55% for library parcel taxes and bond measures. In the Assembly, Tom Ammiano plans to reintroduce a bill seeking to revise the definition of an ownership change that triggers a new business property assessment. Voters' OK isn't needed. Even if the bill stalls, as it has in the past, business owners fear that its goal — squeezing more tax money from commercial property — will surface in other proposals, some with better odds. Read More At IBD:

Idaho governor: Eliminate personal property tax

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter on Monday proposed eliminating Idaho's personal property tax, a move that would cost $141 million in tax revenue but provide a boost to business leaders who say the tax is a drag on the economy. Otter outlined his intentions for 2013 during his State of the State address where he unveiled a slightly larger state budget and discussed health care and education plans for the new legislative session. Business leaders have urged lawmakers to dump the personal property tax, levied against everything from office desks to transmission lines and machinery in semiconductor factories. They say the tax prevents them from growing their businesses and hiring more workers. To make up for the money local governments would lose out on, Otter set aside $20 million to pay cities, counties and school districts. The Republican governor also advocated giving local leaders more flexibility to raise sales or income taxes in their districts to help fund courts, public safety, education and roads. "My preference is granting local-option taxing authority that enables county voters to decide for themselves how to address their most-pressing needs," Otter told nearly all the 105 representatives and senators. Minority Democrats are often critical of Otter's proposals but didn't immediately rebuff the property tax plan. Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, said he's amenable to ditching the personal property tax — as long as local governments are given the power to ask voters to raise taxes within their own jurisdictions. Burgoyne has already drafted legislation he hopes gets a vetting once negotiations begin. "Different communities are going to have difficult solutions," Burgoyne said. "Some communities that don't have much of a sales tax opportunity are going to find a local option income tax to be more useful." For fiscal year 2014 starting in July, Otter proposed a roughly $2.8 billion budget, reflecting about a 3 percent increase. He said the proposal was conservative because it grows less quickly than the state's overall anticipated revenue. The two-term governor also promised quick legislation for Idaho to enact its health insurance exchange, envisioned by the federal Affordable Care Act as a federally-subsidized online marketplace for individuals and businesses to compare and shop for insurance coverage. Lawmakers must still approve the bill, something hardly guaranteed in Idaho's conservative Legislature. Otter opposed the federal health care law, joining the unsuccessful suit that sought to overturn the 2010 changes in the U.S. Supreme Court. However, he said, now that the law is in place, it's important for Idaho maintain its voice in enacting the regulations as state leaders see fit. Idaho is one of only four Republican-led states pursuing exchanges, a status Otter predicts will provide leverage in negotiations with the Department of Health and Human Services. Officials still must determine which benefits must be offered in insurance policies and which companies can participate. Neither Obama, nor HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wants a Republican state that "was trying to create its own exchange walking away from the table," he said at a press conference following his speech. Otter is avoiding a related fight, however, by not immediately endorsing the expansion of Idaho's Medicaid coverage to include more than 100,000 additional low-income residents whose bills would largely be paid for with funding from Washington. In November, Otter's own, hand-picked panel urged him to accept the expansion foreseen by the federal health care law, arguing doing otherwise could cost Idaho $284 million by 2024. Instead, Otter now plans to spend the next year studying how Idaho's federal-state funded health care system for the poor can be revamped to make it less focused on paying fees for services and more on requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to take more responsibility for their health. "We have time to do this right," he said, on what he calls a "broken" Medicaid program. "I hope to return in 2014 with specific proposals." Following the speech, new House Speaker Scott Bedke said he agreed with Otter's decision to wait — even if it means continued funding of an existing insurance program that covers medical bills of the state's indigent population — but costs the state and counties some $60 million annually, without federal help. "That's the devil we know," Bedke said. Otter also used his address to ask lawmakers to increase state funding of public schools by 2 percent, to about $1.28 billion, or $25 million more than the current year. He did not propose pay raises for teachers and most state workers. The governor acknowledged Monday he and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna made mistakes in pushing through the "Students Come First" public education overhaul in 2011 without more public support, a problem that led to voter's rejection of the plan on Nov. 6. He reiterated hopes for a new panel he assembled last month to come up with new, broadly-supported proposals — not this session, but 2014. "I'm convinced that acting too quickly or without due deliberation will generate needless distraction," he said.

Township Adopts New Budget With Lower Real Estate Tax Rate

The township was forced to lower the real estate tax rate due to the new Allegheny County assessments. UPPER ST. CLAIR, PA -- Upper St. Clair commissioners approved a new budget for 2013 that "holds the line" on taxes. The budget lowers the real estate tax rate from 4.6 percent to 3.9 percent due to the Allegheny County's new property assessments. There is a Pennsylvania law in place that requires millage rates to be adjusted so that the township does not reap a windfall from the new values. According to the most current information, the township's assessed value will rise by an estimated 18 percent in 2013. Therefore, if your property assessment went up more than 18 percent, your township taxes will likely increase in 2013. If your reassessment went down or remained the same, your taxes will likely decrease. Real estate tax bills will be mailed to taxpayers on May 1, 2013. The income tax rate will remain at .8 percent, the sanitary sewer multiplier will remain at 2.19 and the local services tax will remain $52/year. Commissioners unanimously approved the budget Monday night, however, Commissioner Glenn Dandoy said he did "reluctantly." He said he thought the budget for the library department was too expensive. Director of Finance August Stache told commissioners he expected the final budget would be posted on the township website by the end of the year.

Controller: Allegheny County should review property tax exemptions

Allegheny County's Office of Property Assessment should undertake a parcel-by-parcel review of real-estate tax exemptions claimed by charitable and non-profit organizations, Controller Chelsa Wagner urged today. That recommendation was included in an audit of the office, known by the acronym OPA. "OPA does not provide proper accountability or review [of] tax exemptions for charitable and non-profit organizations to assure taxpayers that exemptions are warranted," Ms. Wagner said in a statement. "OPA should provide at least the same level of scrutiny for charitable tax exemptions as it does for better-administered property tax relief programs for individual homeowners." Jerry Tyskiewicz, whose Department of Administrative Services oversees the assessment office, said a non-profit review had been planned for this year before the controller undertook her audit. County Executive Rich Fitzgerald and county Manager William McKain already were aware of many of the issues raised by the controller, Mr. Tyskiewicz wrote in a response letter. "Many of those items dovetail with the information in your analysis," he said. "I appreciate the confirmation." The Office of Property Assessment has been at the center of the court-ordered $15 million revaluation of every property in the county. That controversial project has resulted in more than 100,000 appeals of new assessments that have gone into effect for this year. Reassessment also has raised questions among county council members and residents about the high proportion of tax-exempt properties in many communities, especially Pittsburgh. In November county Executive Rich Fitzgerald fired Michael Suley, the manager of the assessment office. County spokeswoman Amie Downs said Mr. Fitzgerald wanted a change in leadership and direction for the office.

Push to change how property taxes are collected

Democratic state lawmakers want to change how property taxes are collected via, a decades-old law. Commercial property owners say any change to Proposition 13 would lead to punishing tax increases that could cause businesses to flee the state. But, proponents argue it would actually improve the state's bottom line. For 34 years, the state's property tax law has been hands-off. But, with a super majority in both houses of the state legislature, Democrats are emboldened and think it's time for a change. County Assessor Jim Fitch agrees. "As the property goes up in value, you have the ability to generate more income, maybe you pay a little more in taxes," he said. Right now, Prop. 13 caps property tax increases to two percent every year unless the property is sold. And, the property tax is only reassessed in a sale if more than 50 percent of the property changes hands. Critics contend that's a loophole that allows corporations to rob the state of billions of dollars in tax revenue. And, they argue, commercial property owners reap huge financial benefits for the land, but pay very limited taxes for that benefit. "The residential owner has to go out and work another job to pay the property taxes. The house doesn't pay his property taxes, where a commercial or industrial property generates income and pays for the expenses and pays for the property taxes," said Fitch. A group of Democratic legislators plans to introduce several bills this year that could force commercial property owners to pay higher rates. Under the so-called Split Roll proposal, commercial properties would be reassessed at least each year, while property tax increases on homes would still be capped at two percent a year. The assessor estimates it could generate an additional $10 billion in tax revenue on Kern County oil and gas land alone. "Legislators in California, money is like drugs. The more you give them, the more they want to spend." Mike Turnipseed says the Kern Taxpayers Association categorically opposes a split roll. "If you think California's business climate is just so wonderful that we can put more taxes on business and force businesses to relocate, then it's a good idea," said Turnipseed. Greg D. Bynum and Associates manages 25 commercial properties in Bakersfield. Don Bynum argues any property tax increase would be passed along to businesses that lease space. "It will trickle down to consumer prices. It would have an enormous impact statewide," he said.