This is more of a whimsical observation than a political statement.
Personally I don't think the Beloit City Council or the Rock County Board of Supervisors gave a hoot that this week was National Problem Gambling Awareness Week when they overwhelmingly approved a proposal by the Ho-Chunk Nation for a casino in Beloit.
One of the big sale points was the promise that payments from the casino to the county/city will replace (offset) property taxes, and who would oppose that?
P.S. I'll make a safe bet right now and suggest no one should start budgeting for or count on a reduction in property taxes any time soon - or ever.
Showing posts with label property taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property taxes. Show all posts
Friday, March 09, 2012
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Taxes Seem High? Blame The New Entitlement Mentality Sweeping The Country
If regular working class people really want to know why taxes and fees are taking a bigger bite out of our paychecks and are expected to get worse - don't blame education, public employees, government services or tax rates. Look toward the multitude of loopholes, exemptions, zone tax credits, "jobs" tax credits, taxpayer funded forgivable loans and tax revenue withholding caches like TIF District slush fund gimmicks, all lobbied for and legislated by crony capitalists to favor the rich and powerful few. It's a matter of simple subtraction.
You think when GOPer's like Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan say that rich people don't have to pay taxes, they are joking? Hah, think again. Somebody will have to make up for the difference in lost revenue.
Despite an already increasing tax burden in Wisconsin under Scott Walker, we have yet to see the real effects of the tax shift take place under his massive wealth redistribution plan. But don't worry. The motherlode is on the way.
The Northwestern Excerpt:
(Titled: Walker's tax credits give away the farm)
In fact, under Walker's tax credit, after 2015 a farm or factory owning couple could earn up to about $625,000 a year before owing a single dime in state taxes. And they could earn about $796,000 before they owe that same $1,425 that you have to pay on your measly $50,000 – because with the tax credit, they'll owe only an additional $5 on each extra $600 in agricultural or manufacturing income they earn. more>>>
When you throw in all the other special tax credits, exemptions and artificially low property tax assessments for developers on the state side alone, we will be getting hammered!
The tax hell is only for the little people.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Norquist: States like Wisconsin Cut Spending and Did Not Raise Taxes
During a roundtable with George Will and Paul Krugman, the radioactive Grover Norquist rattled off a GOP party talking point claiming that states with Republican governors like New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, Florida, etc., have cut spending and not raised taxes. Paul Krugman said, "it's just not true." Krugman's right. Two recent mainstream media reports on Wisconsin alone show that Scott Walker's budget increased spending by $1.1 billion while property taxes are projected to rise an average of 2.6% this year with additional increases expected in each of the following years. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
As far as the debt ceiling deal goes, Krugman describes a shrinking national economy with the country now headed into a lost decade and looking to 90's Japan as an economic role model. With no light at the end of the tunnel and long-term unemployment expected, Krugman predicts the wrong-headed Republican-based debt deal will make things only worse.
Krugman's Debt ceiling Summary Begins at 2:60
Norquist's False statements at 6:30
Watch for it:
As far as the debt ceiling deal goes, Krugman describes a shrinking national economy with the country now headed into a lost decade and looking to 90's Japan as an economic role model. With no light at the end of the tunnel and long-term unemployment expected, Krugman predicts the wrong-headed Republican-based debt deal will make things only worse.
Krugman's Debt ceiling Summary Begins at 2:60
Norquist's False statements at 6:30
Watch for it:
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Wisconsin's Future: Close Property Tax Loopholes
Institute For Wisconsin's Future
Press Release Excerpt:
State government gives too many property owners a pass on paying a fare share of property taxes, depriving local communities of several hundred million dollars a year in revenue.
Some properties are totally exempt from the property tax, including large nonprofit hospitals and expensive senior housing complexes. Some properties are undervalued, such as land being held for speculation that is wrongly classed as farmland and billboards assessed for the wood, steel and plastic they are made of but not the expensive message space that is rented to
advertisers. Owners of all these properties depend on the vital services that property taxes fund, but do not pay or pay less than their share for those services.
Read IWF's Full Report Here
Press Release Excerpt:
State government gives too many property owners a pass on paying a fare share of property taxes, depriving local communities of several hundred million dollars a year in revenue.
Some properties are totally exempt from the property tax, including large nonprofit hospitals and expensive senior housing complexes. Some properties are undervalued, such as land being held for speculation that is wrongly classed as farmland and billboards assessed for the wood, steel and plastic they are made of but not the expensive message space that is rented to
advertisers. Owners of all these properties depend on the vital services that property taxes fund, but do not pay or pay less than their share for those services.
Read IWF's Full Report Here
Monday, November 16, 2009
Farmers Cap Their Future With Development
The following is an excerpt from a letter posted in Sunday's Janesville Messenger about the dire consequences cap and trade will have on Wisconsin farms.
Aside from a couple of real and honest-to-goodness farmers and our local environmentalist, I don't remember groups of farming organizations writing letters to the editor or explaining to the city council how converting farmland into concrete and rooftops would shrink the state's agricultural sector or hurt consumers at the grocery store. Maybe I just happened to have nodded out and missed their speeches, warnings and urgency. And I don't recall state or local farm bureaus showing any support for the land use tax reform in AB 75, a provision designed not only to restore legitimacy and fairness to the state's land-use zoning and tax assessments, but also slow down the conversion of precious farmland into blacktopped development. To the contrary, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau was the driving force opposing the reform saying it will push farmland out of production more quickly.
Perhaps Wisconsin's farm bureaus are really not against converting farmland into anything so long as it's not into forests. After all, who wants to buy a forest? The problem is - is what I've always feared it was - that many (not all) farmers are the developers. They're the ones selling.
So the question is - Are the state's farm bureaus nothing more than front houses for developers?
Janesville Messenger Letter Excerpt:The letter writer is the president of the Rock County Farm Bureau and I bring that up because I don't recall the county's farm bureau standing up against the city of Janesville's plan to convert 9,800 rural acres into private and commercial development.
Our farmers will be faced with making the choice of converting farmland into forests for greenhouse-gas reduction or providing food for this country and the world. This shift in land use will hurt consumers at the grocery store. Food costs could rise by up to an average of $33 billion annually by 2020 and up to $51 billion annually by 2030 as a result of this legislation. -- D.R.
Aside from a couple of real and honest-to-goodness farmers and our local environmentalist, I don't remember groups of farming organizations writing letters to the editor or explaining to the city council how converting farmland into concrete and rooftops would shrink the state's agricultural sector or hurt consumers at the grocery store. Maybe I just happened to have nodded out and missed their speeches, warnings and urgency. And I don't recall state or local farm bureaus showing any support for the land use tax reform in AB 75, a provision designed not only to restore legitimacy and fairness to the state's land-use zoning and tax assessments, but also slow down the conversion of precious farmland into blacktopped development. To the contrary, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau was the driving force opposing the reform saying it will push farmland out of production more quickly.
Perhaps Wisconsin's farm bureaus are really not against converting farmland into anything so long as it's not into forests. After all, who wants to buy a forest? The problem is - is what I've always feared it was - that many (not all) farmers are the developers. They're the ones selling.
So the question is - Are the state's farm bureaus nothing more than front houses for developers?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Role Reversal Granted To Janesville Rotary Gardens
Now that there may be a reversal of fortunes for Janesville's Rotary Gardens, the current Gardens management decided to request new lease provisions redefining the city's responsibility and role in fiscal policy and management operations. Keep in mind the Gardens are the lessee.
As a supporter of Rotary Gardens, I have seen how much sweat equity the volunteers and management at the Gardens have put in over the years. And I also know the Gardens are a positive asset for the city. They deserve a standing ovation. However...
Probably taking their cue from the obnoxious lease the Janesville city council granted to the WHP for the city's ice arena, I find myself at a loss with the general theme of their request for more control and placing the city and its' taxpayers in an even greater subservient role. For whatever their reasons, they appear to be building a fiscal firewall between themselves and the city.
The trends are clear. Janesville taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill more and more for existing city structures and maintenance, while independent and private user entities reap direct benefits. At the same time, local residents are being shut out from utilizing the buildings their taxes built and maintained unless they pay an additional fee at the door. Sure, fees at the door are not uncommon, but the lessee is not repaying the city back for even minor services such as snow plowing. Any direct capital return to the city from many of these so-called public/private partnerships could not even pay the fair market property taxes on the parcel. Also, through extremely poor contract negotiations, general fund city trustees have been stripped of authority to recoup any capital outlays or share in the success and financial rewards.
During the city council meeting Monday discussing this lease change request, Councilman Bill Truman wryly asked, "Why does the city continue to snow plow the gardens parking lot?" The Gardens representative responded "because it's city property." That just about said it all.
As a supporter of Rotary Gardens, I have seen how much sweat equity the volunteers and management at the Gardens have put in over the years. And I also know the Gardens are a positive asset for the city. They deserve a standing ovation. However...
Probably taking their cue from the obnoxious lease the Janesville city council granted to the WHP for the city's ice arena, I find myself at a loss with the general theme of their request for more control and placing the city and its' taxpayers in an even greater subservient role. For whatever their reasons, they appear to be building a fiscal firewall between themselves and the city.
Lease Changes Excerpts:I particularly like No. 3 - taxpayers have been allowed the opportunity to assist...and we would like to grant them further opportunities with another building.
1. The Gardens would be able to make capital improvements and changes to City property without prior Common Council review or consent...
2. The Gardens would operate under self-control, with the Board and Director able to establish rules and procedures for the Gardens...
3. This lease has allowed the City the opportunity to assist with renovating/repairing garden buildings at our discretion; this section has been updated to include the Horticultural Building as one of the sites we may wish to improve. (section 4B)
4. The lease requires the City to use insurance proceeds to make repairs/replacements to the Gardens...
5. The Gardens may charge a fee to enter.
6. The City will no longer tell the Gardens how much fire insurance they need to purchase; rather, this decision will be left to the Gardens...
The trends are clear. Janesville taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill more and more for existing city structures and maintenance, while independent and private user entities reap direct benefits. At the same time, local residents are being shut out from utilizing the buildings their taxes built and maintained unless they pay an additional fee at the door. Sure, fees at the door are not uncommon, but the lessee is not repaying the city back for even minor services such as snow plowing. Any direct capital return to the city from many of these so-called public/private partnerships could not even pay the fair market property taxes on the parcel. Also, through extremely poor contract negotiations, general fund city trustees have been stripped of authority to recoup any capital outlays or share in the success and financial rewards.
During the city council meeting Monday discussing this lease change request, Councilman Bill Truman wryly asked, "Why does the city continue to snow plow the gardens parking lot?" The Gardens representative responded "because it's city property." That just about said it all.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
City Council Approves Industrial Base Expansion
JG Excerpt:Just in case someone didn’t think that the GM industrial corridor in Janesville was unemployed enough at over 300 acres – and for good measure.
At least that's the opinion of Brad Cantrell, the city's community development director. And it appeared good enough for the city council, which voted unanimously to add 185 acres to TIF No. 26.
A TIF DISTRICT PRIMER (Tax Increment Financing District)
Janesville TIF Policy Excerpt:Instead of “retained by the community,” it should have read property taxes... “withheld from the community.” A large portion of the property taxes paid within the boundaries of the district do not all go to service the same community (schools, police, fire, public works, etc.) as property taxes paid by everyone else. As the property values in the district incrementally improve, so does the costs to service the area. While the properties in the TIF district enjoy all the amenities provided for by the "community" general fund, someone else is shouldering the cost. That someone else is you and I. This tax shift can go on for as long as 23 years.
Thus, the TIF law provides that all property taxes levied on increased property value within a TIF district are retained by the community to finance the public expenditures made within the TIF district.
Janesville TIF Policy Excerpt:Because most of the 185 acres is being farmed, the land probably meets Wisconsin’s land-use value provisions. This means while the private land is being improved under TIF provisions with new added value (streets, infrastructure etc.) the only taxes being paid into the general fund is the same amount the property was paying at the time the TIF district was created. In the case of working farmland, the taxes paid are very, very low. Usually pennies on the dollar compared to non-farm assessments. Generally, the lower the base value of TIF district properties - the greater the burden the district places on taxpayers outside of its boundaries.
The base value (the assessed value of the property that existed at the time the TIF district is created), however, continues to provide the same level of revenues to other taxing jurisdictions.
Janesville TIF Policy Excerpt:Keep in mind the 23 year time frame. If the TIF is successful, its property taxes will provide a surplus revenue over the costs incurred to improve. New state TIF rules allow local jurisdictions to "port" or divert the incremental tax surplus away from the taxpayer general fund and use it for other private business ventures within the 1/2 mile radius of the TIF boundaries. When anyone implies money coming from TIF surplus revenues does not effect our taxes - they are wrong. The money is still being withheld from the general fund. Just because taxpayers aren't made aware that tax revenue is being withheld, doesn't mean no one has to make up the difference.
Once all of the public expenditures have been repaid, all taxing jurisdictions can collect taxes levied on the new property value.
Janesville TIF Policy Excerpt:The cost to incentivize the privately owned land with infrastructure improvements is projected to cost $5.78 million. Once the $5.78 million for the improvements has been repaid by taxes collected in the district (remember, most of the taxes collected do not go to the general fund), then and only then will the district begin paying into the general fund. BUT if it's paid before the TIF expires (in this case 23 years!), the local jurisdiction (city government) can continue to withhold the incremental monies or surplus from the general fund to instead pay for other capital improvements within the 1/2 mile radius until the TIF finally expires.
Total TIF incremental revenues over the maximum 23-year life of TIF No.26 equal $6.62 million, compared to total TIF costs of $5.78 million.
Janesville TIF Policy Excerpt:If, after 23 years have passed and all goes as planned, this TIF district is expected to generate $840,000 more or less in surplus tax revenue. Remember, this may or may not be diverted away from the general fund.
Since TIF revenues are projected to exceed TIF costs by $0.84 million, the TIF district should be economically viable.
So how will taxpayers wind up losing? While we are allowing the property taxes being paid by the improved properties to be used to pay down the debt for all the infrastructure, pipes, streets, curbs, etc. - someone else is shouldering the incrementally higher added costs for schools, fire, police, library, public works, snowplowing, street sweeping, etc., the TIF district has shifted onto the community...for a span of up to 23 years. When you figure that Janesville has over 25 active TIF districts, the tax shift is substantial.
Put another way, while the taxes paid by the property owners inside the TIF boundaries are being spent on improvements that return higher property values and increased speculative prospects, those outside the district are shouldering the incrementally higher tax burden to service the district. It’s a circular motion of revenue made in the name of progress that has only one loser – the local taxpayers outside the TIF boundaries.
The TIF District tool can be a great boost for economic development when used to remove blight or lift economically depressed areas. But it is also easily abused. When its drawn around working farmland to increase the supply of industrial buildings in an area with a glut of vacant industrial buildings - there's something seriously wrong with our policies.
Obviously, there is no way I can cover all aspects of TIF District agreements and the consequences they bring in this blog posting. While those with the loudest megaphone tout the advantages of new amendments to Wisconsin TIF law and keep the general public off balance with loosely constructed rhetoric, probably the best way to think of TIF Districts is as nothing more than a good old fashioned tax shift.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tax By Zone Should End Farmland Exploitation
The Wisconsin State legislature is finally moving to close a loophole that has given developers huge property tax breaks on land rezoned and revalued for residential or commercial estate purposes.
Under scrutiny are definitions and zoning designations of the use-value assessment law enacted in 1995 to help keep farms viable by giving them a property tax break. To my understanding of this latest provision inserted into the state budget, farmers and land owners of parcels zoned AG will see NO change in their property tax assessment formula because only land zoned AG will continue to qualify for the use-value (discounted) assessment.
Despite some opposition from a few farmers about the new zoning proposal, it was less than four months ago when only a handful of brave farmers spoke in opposition of Janesville's hastily approved comprehensive growth plan to target 9,800 rural acres for development, rezoning and annexation - with 1,600 acres within current city limits. Where was further outcry against the city's disastrous plan to pave over the very essence of their livelihoods? Excluding the few who spoke out, I was astonished by the lack of concern shown by our local farmers.
Again, it is important to keep in mind that the current use-value assessment law will remain intact for farmers and land owners who have fought to maintain the land strictly designated for the intentional purposes of farming.
Let's not try to kid anyone here, tax assessments are based on market value, and zoning designations play a large part in establishing a baseline market value on property. Land meeting all of the conditions to achieve and keep the AG zone designation is rightfully discounted no matter what the use is. Besides adding more balance and fairness to everyone's share of the property tax load, this provision will encourage AG land owners and developers to think twice before they approach their local village or city council for annexation or a change in zoning from agricultural.
I applaud the state legislature on this provision and hope they have the courage and fortitude to follow through on closing the tax loophole. It will have a hugely positive impact on the quantity and quality of future growth, restore property tax fairness and strengthen the use-value assessment law against future exploitation. Removing this loophole has been a long time coming.
Please call or write your state legislator and tell them you support the Senate version of the state budget bill closing the use-value tax loophole.
Also, Wisconsin's Agricultural Assessment Guide
Under scrutiny are definitions and zoning designations of the use-value assessment law enacted in 1995 to help keep farms viable by giving them a property tax break. To my understanding of this latest provision inserted into the state budget, farmers and land owners of parcels zoned AG will see NO change in their property tax assessment formula because only land zoned AG will continue to qualify for the use-value (discounted) assessment.
Excerpt:Most Wisconsin urban and small town homeowners probably had no idea their property tax bill was inflated partly to help cover developer's carrying costs while they gobbled up and exploited farmland on the cheap. As many as 250,000 acres zoned for residential and commercial development in Wisconsin have been assessed less than a penny on the dollar in property taxes while their owners enjoyed increased land values and profits from sales and speculation.
In Fond du Lac, Wegner, the assessor, said there are two commercial lots that should be assessed at $636,100, but are valued at a total of $900 because winter wheat was planted on them.
Despite some opposition from a few farmers about the new zoning proposal, it was less than four months ago when only a handful of brave farmers spoke in opposition of Janesville's hastily approved comprehensive growth plan to target 9,800 rural acres for development, rezoning and annexation - with 1,600 acres within current city limits. Where was further outcry against the city's disastrous plan to pave over the very essence of their livelihoods? Excluding the few who spoke out, I was astonished by the lack of concern shown by our local farmers.
Again, it is important to keep in mind that the current use-value assessment law will remain intact for farmers and land owners who have fought to maintain the land strictly designated for the intentional purposes of farming.
Let's not try to kid anyone here, tax assessments are based on market value, and zoning designations play a large part in establishing a baseline market value on property. Land meeting all of the conditions to achieve and keep the AG zone designation is rightfully discounted no matter what the use is. Besides adding more balance and fairness to everyone's share of the property tax load, this provision will encourage AG land owners and developers to think twice before they approach their local village or city council for annexation or a change in zoning from agricultural.
I applaud the state legislature on this provision and hope they have the courage and fortitude to follow through on closing the tax loophole. It will have a hugely positive impact on the quantity and quality of future growth, restore property tax fairness and strengthen the use-value assessment law against future exploitation. Removing this loophole has been a long time coming.
Please call or write your state legislator and tell them you support the Senate version of the state budget bill closing the use-value tax loophole.
Also, Wisconsin's Agricultural Assessment Guide
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
HOPE Tax Relief Could Help Restore American Dream
WPT Excerpt:Get rid of the middle-man.
HOPE Would Not Provide Relief To All Residential Property Taxpayers
HOPE would provide relief to only two-thirds of Wisconsin’s residential property taxpayers – those who own their homes. But, it would deny relief to almost one-third of the state’s residential property taxpayers; 633,439 working families and individuals who do not own but rent their residences and pay the property taxes on those residences to their landlords.
I can't think of a more backward reason to be against the HOPE property tax relief proposal than this one pushed by the Wisconsin Property Taxpayers organization. For all its practical purpose, HOPE is not intended to be a renter or landlord kickback program. Besides, the State of Wisconsin already offers tax relief to low-income renters through the state's Homestead Exemption Program.
In short, the main feature of the HOPE proposal would amend the Uniformity Clause of the Wisconsin State Constitution to permanently exempt the first $60,000 of owner-occupied residential property value from school property taxes. Next to a low fixed interest rate, HOPE offers the best incentive for Wisconsin renters to consider buying their own home. With HOPE, it might be cheaper than renting.
In fact, if HOPE becomes law, the first order of business by the state should include massive and repeated mailings to renters reminding them of the potential savings of owning their own home. We need to spur people into buying the American Dream again without sticking them with a "gotcha" ARM loan or ballooning property taxes caused by artificially inflated home values.
There is no time to waste.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Connecting TIF's To BID's
Last Saturday, the Janesville Gazette ran an article titled Tax Increase largest In Southeastern Wisconsin, which attempted to explain the driving forces behind the huge levy increase in Walworth County. According to a new study by the Public Policy Forum(?), most of the blame not surprisingly, is placed on the schools. But more interesting here was the subject of TIF Districts and how they might play a major role in local tax increases. Remember, most pro-TIF sponsors swear the districts have zero-to-little influence on property taxes.
Adding more to this half of the story not mentioned is this: Since property taxes (above the baseline value established at onset of the TIF) collected from entities within TIF districts DO NOT PAY for expenses outside the district, it means businesses, institutions and property in a TIF District share all the same amenities (schools, roads, police and fire) and rising costs as everyone else, but their assessed values don’t participate in the levy paying the bills. This shifts a greater burden of the taxes onto those outside the district until the TIF agreement matures. And even then, city administrators including those in Janesville, are starting to shift successful early TIF funds to other TIF districts instead of returning this money in the form of a tax surplus. This is an area I believe that should be revisited by state regulators of TIF agreements and connected with BID's.
But why has it been missing for decades? What was the city administration doing in the meantime? I'll tell you what they were doing. They were annexing farmland and other vacant land around the the outer edges of the city and drawing TIF districts around them. This has been a slow and meticulous process over a span of twenty-five years that not only drew attention away from the business core of the city, it rewarded the participants. In many cases, these developments would have been built anyways without using the TIF District tool.
Is a BID just what downtown property owners, business managers and entrepreneurs want to hear? – that their properties will be assessed at a special higher rate to attract and encourage more business. After 20 years of chasing re-investment away from downtown, the city administration and planning commission find it okay to levy a higher tax?
How many other cities and small towns in Wisconsin or the U.S. for that matter, have done the same two-step - TIFing sprawl and then BIDding the shortchanged inner core of the community. So the question is not only one of responsibility, it is one of fairness. Why do we reward the merchants of carbon consuming, environmentally damaging, fuel wasting sprawl with a TIF - yet punish the merchants of the revitalization of a walkable, efficient downtown with a BID? It makes no sense.
So.....this is my idea. Rewrite the state laws governing TIF Districts so that surplus funds from successful TIF's cannot be redistributed or shifted to younger or failing TIF's. This will have a two-fold effect. One, city planners and councils might not be so quick to rubber stamp a new TIF if they can't use surplus funds from another. And two, that this rewrite includes a provision that surplus TIF revenue can only be ported/funneled back to the existing areas neglected and shortchanged in the form of BID's OR returned to the general tax fund to lower the tax levy.
FUN FACT
Read More: TIF Districts a bad deal.
JG Excerpt:That’s true, but it's only one-half of the story behind TIF's. At least the statement laid out the reasoning to deduce that property taxes collected from TIF entities pay ONLY for expenses within the district – also meant that the taxes collected inside the TIF DO NOT pay for expenses OUTSIDE of the district. That may seem like a simple deduction, but the article seemed to go to great lengths to avoid it.
Property taxes are collected from entities within the TIF district to pay for expenses within the district, he said, and taxpayers outside the TIF district do not pay for those expenses.
Adding more to this half of the story not mentioned is this: Since property taxes (above the baseline value established at onset of the TIF) collected from entities within TIF districts DO NOT PAY for expenses outside the district, it means businesses, institutions and property in a TIF District share all the same amenities (schools, roads, police and fire) and rising costs as everyone else, but their assessed values don’t participate in the levy paying the bills. This shifts a greater burden of the taxes onto those outside the district until the TIF agreement matures. And even then, city administrators including those in Janesville, are starting to shift successful early TIF funds to other TIF districts instead of returning this money in the form of a tax surplus. This is an area I believe that should be revisited by state regulators of TIF agreements and connected with BID's.
JG excerpt:
JANESVILLE — One speaker likened a proposed Business Improvement District to a train that will carry downtown Janesville and its supporters to a revitalized city center that’s been missing from the community’s landscape for decades.
But why has it been missing for decades? What was the city administration doing in the meantime? I'll tell you what they were doing. They were annexing farmland and other vacant land around the the outer edges of the city and drawing TIF districts around them. This has been a slow and meticulous process over a span of twenty-five years that not only drew attention away from the business core of the city, it rewarded the participants. In many cases, these developments would have been built anyways without using the TIF District tool.
Is a BID just what downtown property owners, business managers and entrepreneurs want to hear? – that their properties will be assessed at a special higher rate to attract and encourage more business. After 20 years of chasing re-investment away from downtown, the city administration and planning commission find it okay to levy a higher tax?
How many other cities and small towns in Wisconsin or the U.S. for that matter, have done the same two-step - TIFing sprawl and then BIDding the shortchanged inner core of the community. So the question is not only one of responsibility, it is one of fairness. Why do we reward the merchants of carbon consuming, environmentally damaging, fuel wasting sprawl with a TIF - yet punish the merchants of the revitalization of a walkable, efficient downtown with a BID? It makes no sense.
So.....this is my idea. Rewrite the state laws governing TIF Districts so that surplus funds from successful TIF's cannot be redistributed or shifted to younger or failing TIF's. This will have a two-fold effect. One, city planners and councils might not be so quick to rubber stamp a new TIF if they can't use surplus funds from another. And two, that this rewrite includes a provision that surplus TIF revenue can only be ported/funneled back to the existing areas neglected and shortchanged in the form of BID's OR returned to the general tax fund to lower the tax levy.
FUN FACT
Excerpt:Janesville might have as many as 32 TIF districts. There are 130 TIF districts in Chicago, comprising nearly 30% of the land area of the City. More and more, Chicago (pop. 2,800,000) residents have been questioning the wisdom of expanding tax increment financing districts, calling for substantive reforms, and putting accountability into the governance of such districts. Chicago of course has a notorious city council but consider this: Based on population, if Chicago had an at-large city council with Janesville’s wayward growth personality, Chicago would have over 1,100 TIF Districts.
Illinois, which had one TIF district in 1970, now has 874 (including one in the town of Wilmington, population 129). A moderate-sized city like Janesville, Wisconsin—a town of 60,000 about an hour from Madison—has accumulated 26 TIFs.
Read More: TIF Districts a bad deal.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Congressional Spending Problem Skips Wisconsin
Wisconsin On Short End Of The Stick
While Wisconsin is on the low, low end of federal appropriations, uninformed residents will point to the governor and state democrats as the conveyors of our high local taxes. But to be more honest, the fault lies primarily in Washington, with representatives in congress like our own Rep. Paul Ryan, who happens to be a key member on the powerful federal House Appropriations Committee and makes perennial commitments to bring home even less. He not only wins awards for this, but believe it or not, he also hands out "boondoggle" trophies to representatives who work tirelessly to bring home a return of their respective district's tax dollars. Depending on your point of view, THIS could possibly be Paul Ryan’s signature achievement.
Many Wisconsin residents won't see the correlation of any of this and can afford to be short-changed. After all, poverty is low according to some statistics.
But the 1st Congressional District, like no other in the state of Wisconsin, will send the message once again that it can afford to be short-changed and pay even higher state and local taxes - IF WE re-elect Ryan to another term in office. The choice is ours to make.
Excerpt:But there is an explanation for the state’s low ranking.
Wisconsin ranked 49th in federal revenue (out of 51, including the District of Columbia), with $668 per student. There was no explanation offered for the state's low ranking, but Wisconsin generally is at the bottom of any list related to federal assistance and much of the education aid from the federal government is pegged to poverty, which is low overall in Wisconsin. In addition, federal aid makes up only 9% of education revenue nationally.
Excerpt:RNR rule No. 1: Tax cuts at the federal level usually means tax hikes at the local level AND spending cuts at the federal level means even MORE tax hikes at the local level. One way or another, these cuts come home to roost.
On the other hand, Wisconsin ranked 15th in terms of money coming from the state, at $5,826. Revenue from local government, which would generally mean property taxes, was $4,665, which was 21st.
While Wisconsin is on the low, low end of federal appropriations, uninformed residents will point to the governor and state democrats as the conveyors of our high local taxes. But to be more honest, the fault lies primarily in Washington, with representatives in congress like our own Rep. Paul Ryan, who happens to be a key member on the powerful federal House Appropriations Committee and makes perennial commitments to bring home even less. He not only wins awards for this, but believe it or not, he also hands out "boondoggle" trophies to representatives who work tirelessly to bring home a return of their respective district's tax dollars. Depending on your point of view, THIS could possibly be Paul Ryan’s signature achievement.
Many Wisconsin residents won't see the correlation of any of this and can afford to be short-changed. After all, poverty is low according to some statistics.
But the 1st Congressional District, like no other in the state of Wisconsin, will send the message once again that it can afford to be short-changed and pay even higher state and local taxes - IF WE re-elect Ryan to another term in office. The choice is ours to make.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
It’s Heeeeere! The Peak-Bush Economy
Financial Crisis Looming
After a slow and stumbling start fueled by low Fed interest rates following 9-11, officials in Washington are scrambling to try to prevent the eminent failure of Bush’s “ownership society” from pushing the country into recession during an election year. There is a strong feeling, though, that the government will need to do more to avert a complete meltdown.
And if that doesn’t cheer you up, perhaps this will.
Time to put on the rose-colored glasses and look for a democrat to blame.
After a slow and stumbling start fueled by low Fed interest rates following 9-11, officials in Washington are scrambling to try to prevent the eminent failure of Bush’s “ownership society” from pushing the country into recession during an election year. There is a strong feeling, though, that the government will need to do more to avert a complete meltdown.
And if that doesn’t cheer you up, perhaps this will.
Blown Away By Property Taxes And Assessments:The old “higher local taxes fueled by Republican Fed tax-cuts” trick. Stage two to the GOP destroy-taxes-on-wealth plan involves alleviating the very problem they caused by eliminating property taxes all-together and offset by a flat-tax or consumer tax.
Then he got his property tax bill that had nearly tripled. His bill in 2005 was about $2,900 and was $4,600 last year. This year's bill -- $7,568. "I almost had a heart attack," said Gunyon. "My reaction was one of pure anger." His problem is not unique. The amount paid in local and state property taxes in the country increased 50 percent from 2000 to 2006, according to Census data cited by some U.S. Congress members when discussing the topic. During that time, inflation rose 17 percent and median household income dropped 2 percent.
Time to put on the rose-colored glasses and look for a democrat to blame.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Sounding Off On Republican State Budget
Sunday's Janesville Gazette contained two over-assuming anonymous calls about the Republican State budget proposal.
are looking need a minimum increase of 3.2% in the next budget just to make ends meet. During 2003-2005, schools cost the state around $9.5 billion, so 3.2% would work out to about a $304 million necessary increase in shared revenue, all things being equal. Assuming as much as the anonymous caller is, the Republicans generosity turns out to be short $238 million just to balance. I'd say that's a cut.
Beginning in 2008, Wisconsin will no longer collect income tax on Social Security benefits. Just when Democrats fight to make Wisconsin a senior friendly state, republicans want to take it away. With Democrats it's two steps forward – with Republicans, seniors take one step back.
The Homestead Credit changes in the Governors budget calls for the credit to be indexed for inflation while leaving the eligibility requirements intact. Currently the formula has been the same since 1991. The real value of the credit has fallen 27% since 1985.
This is serious business for seniors but it applies to anyone who previously qualified for the credit. It’s very simple. If you are a home owner living on a fixed income – get on the phone now!! and call your state representative and tell them to index the formula for inflation and leave the Homestead Credit eligibility requirements alone.
Here’s a JS Online article from July 9th spinning Republican budget cuts into an expansion for choice.
JG Sound Off Excerpt:Wow – thank you for your generosity.
On education funding: A letter to the editor Tuesday indicates that Republicans are cutting spending for education. This is not true. Under the Republicans budget, there will be an additional $62 million given to the education system in Wisconsin. -- anonymous
Differences in Budgets:And that’s only higher education. I’m just roughing it here but most school districts
The differences between the two parties are stark on issues such as taxes and higher education. The Assembly Republican budget would slash $96 million from state universities' basic budgets plus other cuts while Doyle and Senate Democrats would increase spending on higher education by roughly $225 million -- a difference in priorities of well over $300 million.
JG Sound Off Excerpt:For some reason, the Gazette lets this statement go uncorrected. The caller either misinterpreted the information or it was a misprint. Only the Republicans are tampering with the eligibility requirements of the Homestead Credit - not the Democrats. Here's the scoop.
On Tax Credit: Why is the Wisconsin Homestead Credit being changed? According to information I received, any person older than 65 would be ineligible for the credit. I think anyone over 65 and single probably needs it worse than married couples over 65. --anonymous
Republican Homestead Credit proposal:Why they would discriminate against childless single people under 65 is anybodies guess. The Homestead Credit is not only based on your adjusted state income tax figures but it also includes total household income, qualifying for it is difficult. The "childless" connotation also seems deliberate to confuse and shrink citizen opposition, perhaps they meant "dependents." Nevertheless, when you’re low income – YOU'RE LOW INCOME.
Cuts $106.6 million from the Finance Committee’s funding level for the Homestead Tax Credit program, primarily by eliminating eligibility for single, childless adults who are under age 65; and also by indexing only the upper income limit for inflation, and not other formula factors, such as the maximum credit.
Beginning in 2008, Wisconsin will no longer collect income tax on Social Security benefits. Just when Democrats fight to make Wisconsin a senior friendly state, republicans want to take it away. With Democrats it's two steps forward – with Republicans, seniors take one step back.
The Homestead Credit changes in the Governors budget calls for the credit to be indexed for inflation while leaving the eligibility requirements intact. Currently the formula has been the same since 1991. The real value of the credit has fallen 27% since 1985.
This is serious business for seniors but it applies to anyone who previously qualified for the credit. It’s very simple. If you are a home owner living on a fixed income – get on the phone now!! and call your state representative and tell them to index the formula for inflation and leave the Homestead Credit eligibility requirements alone.
Here’s a JS Online article from July 9th spinning Republican budget cuts into an expansion for choice.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Republicans Assemble New Frankenstein Budget
The Sunday edition of the Janesville Gazette ran an article on page three of the local section titled “GOP pushing for fewer taxes.” Unfortunately as with most politicians playing the tax cut card, the Republicans appear on the verge of sending the Governor another disjointed and mismatched budget replete with shortfalls and broken promises. A budget monster so hideous, one legislator termed it as “mindless.”
Of more concern to me is the idea that Republicans want to cut the state income tax which in effect would bring them another step closer to their ultimate goal. One of my theories about our state of affairs regarding the tax structure in Wisconsin and many other states involves the Republican agenda pushed through by their bumper sticker slogans of Compassioniate Conservatism and the Contract With America. The end result I believe is directly related to raising point-of-use taxes, property taxes and sales taxes – all local taxes irrespective of a taxpayers income or ability to pay.
At the federal level, the tax cuts can never be big enough according to republicans while at the local level the republicans are willing to cut services and programs completely in the blind OR let the democrats be the ones to RAISE the taxes. Republicans think this is a win-win for them and to be honest they are winning at this game. Most of Doyle’s increases are non-income based and a reasonable reaction to the Republican platform. He wants to balance the budget and keep Wisconsin healthy.
The end result of the republican plan will bring about lower federal income taxes and possibly lower state income taxes at the expense of much higher non-income based taxes. This is a big win for the super-rich and those who can afford, everybody else including the middle-class will lose. Schools will suffer, potholes will proliferate, poverty will rise, health will worsen and the gap between rich and poor will widen. This won't happen overnight. It will be a slow death but by the time we realize what happened it will be too late.
Another interesting highlight of the state budget is this little bit about the property tax cap.
JG Excerpt:Why the Republicans continue to send the Governor a “flatlining” corpse they call a balanced budget is strictly political.
The Republican tax cut proposal offered in the budget committee "borders on mindless," said Sen. Bob Jauch, D-Poplar.
JG Excerpt:
Republicans on the budget-writing Joint Finance Committee gave a preview of what could come, floating motions to cut the income tax and reject Gov. Jim Doyle's proposals to raise a variety of taxes, including those on cigarettes.
Of more concern to me is the idea that Republicans want to cut the state income tax which in effect would bring them another step closer to their ultimate goal. One of my theories about our state of affairs regarding the tax structure in Wisconsin and many other states involves the Republican agenda pushed through by their bumper sticker slogans of Compassioniate Conservatism and the Contract With America. The end result I believe is directly related to raising point-of-use taxes, property taxes and sales taxes – all local taxes irrespective of a taxpayers income or ability to pay.
At the federal level, the tax cuts can never be big enough according to republicans while at the local level the republicans are willing to cut services and programs completely in the blind OR let the democrats be the ones to RAISE the taxes. Republicans think this is a win-win for them and to be honest they are winning at this game. Most of Doyle’s increases are non-income based and a reasonable reaction to the Republican platform. He wants to balance the budget and keep Wisconsin healthy.
The end result of the republican plan will bring about lower federal income taxes and possibly lower state income taxes at the expense of much higher non-income based taxes. This is a big win for the super-rich and those who can afford, everybody else including the middle-class will lose. Schools will suffer, potholes will proliferate, poverty will rise, health will worsen and the gap between rich and poor will widen. This won't happen overnight. It will be a slow death but by the time we realize what happened it will be too late.
Another interesting highlight of the state budget is this little bit about the property tax cap.
JG Budget Highlights:One of the things pushed by the Republicans has been the property tax freeze which is nothing more than a political ploy to stay on the tax cut track when all else fails. But what is doubly interesting here is that someone gave “growth” the proper perspective it finally deserved. Growth has been kicked around by developers as an “expanding tax base” tool designed to lower the tax burden on a community, when in reality the opposite is true. If new construction growth is at 8% in any given community, the cap will rise by 8% which on paper anyways, should allow locals to “pay-as-they-grow” instead of trying to service a larger community with an inadequate “pre-growth” budget.
- The cap on local property tax increases doubles from 2 percent to 4 percent, or the percentage of growth in new construction in a community, whichever is greater.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Only Property Tax Payers Need Apply
The school referendum debate is a hot issue in Janesville. Some letter writer’s to the Janesville Gazette are completely miffed as to why a resident would vote no. At least a few childless taxpayers have voiced their opposition to the referendum and some have suggested the school taxes be pro-rated based on the number of children a taxpayer has. Those are valid ideas that have fallen on deaf ears in the past, but I do believe quality public schools are everyone’s responsibility and not just the property tax payers. Nobody wants to discuss spreading the financial burden of local schools to all voters, but yet we allow all local voters to cast deciding votes regardless of their equity in property, schools or children.
For many, the school referendum has nothing to do with property values, children or the improvements, but everything to do with burdening the people who are saddled with the bill – the property tax payer. Many senior taxpayers and others on a fixed income cannot afford to raise their own taxes for any reason. While others think those opposed to the school referendum are selfish or don’t get the big picture.
What a flaming remark. I suppose anonymous feels that people who don’t have kids should be punished for their circumstances. Yet the callers sarcasm is strong enough to imply some resentment for their own situation, that is, because kids are expensive, perhaps they feel punished for having them. Of course, none of this banter is positive and it just adds fuel to the fires of misunderstanding, but at the same token, some of the thoughts and emotions cannot go ignored.
What if by chance the childless taxpayer was sent to private K12 schools AND the parents paid for public education on their property tax bills as well. Also, are we supposed to be perpetually in debt to our children or vise-versa? Is that how we view children – as debt? On the other hand, saying that educational opportunities for children is the sole responsibility of the community is not quite right either. What is the definition of community? And more specifically, which community are you talking about?
It becomes apparent that any definition of community you can find will not mention the property tax payer. I know it sounds ridiculous, yet much of rhetoric designed to encourage a “yes” vote talks about community as if to include everyone, but there is no rhetoric or plan to include everyone to pay. Now if the anonymous caller means the property tax paying community, well that’s different and it changes the argument completely by narrowing the paying pool down considerably.
There is no reason why a public school in Biloxi, Mississippi should be better or worse than a public school in Madison, Wisconsin. Of course, my idea of ensuring that “no public school is left behind” would charge the taxpaying community in its widest and purest form, which is the Federal income taxpayer. But those running (Republicans) our Federal government refuse to fund their own mandates or force the taxpayer to jump through a series of hoops in order to benefit from their own taxes. This is just another reason why most people are fed up with our current leadership in Washington and want a change.
Everybody has their own valid reasons to be against this school referendum. Whether it’s the air conditioning issue, the double four court gyms, the plan itself, the $70.8 million price-tag, the school districts seeming arrogance or the juggernaut of them all – higher taxes, there appears to be plenty enough differences against the referendum to actually hinder efforts to form a cohesive opposition group. At the same time it is possible the Janesville School referendum has enough obvious flaws that a formal united front opposing it may be unnecessary.
One of the more interesting ideas comes from Dwight Brass of Fulton Township who has attempted to organize opposition against the referendum. He started an organization called CARE, Citizens Allied for Responsible Education, and it seems to be based on a more objective approach. He believes the Janesville School referendums fundamental plan to the improvements and its relationship to enhancing education are inefficient and flawed. Brass argues that the school board plans are based on opinions and beliefs and not on research and proven methods. He apparently also believes the school board did not look at all options available or alternatives to achieve their goals. I agree.
Another idea shared by other states with some success would propose a referendum giving the voting rights on all specialized spending to only those who are paying the bill. Thus, if schools are solely funded by property taxes, only property taxpayers would be eligible to vote a tax increase, onto themselves. This too, needs consideration.
Voting “no” will not end the quest to improve Janesvilles schools but it may force the school board to reconsider its plan and approach the taxpayer with less belligerence. Any way you look at it, we need to find other sources of funding for public schools. Property taxpayers in Wisconsin want cuts, not increases. And please, spare the guilt trip.
For many, the school referendum has nothing to do with property values, children or the improvements, but everything to do with burdening the people who are saddled with the bill – the property tax payer. Many senior taxpayers and others on a fixed income cannot afford to raise their own taxes for any reason. While others think those opposed to the school referendum are selfish or don’t get the big picture.
JG Sound Off excerpt:
A caller last Sunday suggested childless people should vote “no” on the referendum. I’ve always thought that childless taxpayers should pay more in school taxes. After all, it is expensive to raise kids and yet it is the responsibility of the community to provide educational opportunities for children. Who do you suppose paid for the caller’s education? - anonymous
What a flaming remark. I suppose anonymous feels that people who don’t have kids should be punished for their circumstances. Yet the callers sarcasm is strong enough to imply some resentment for their own situation, that is, because kids are expensive, perhaps they feel punished for having them. Of course, none of this banter is positive and it just adds fuel to the fires of misunderstanding, but at the same token, some of the thoughts and emotions cannot go ignored.
What if by chance the childless taxpayer was sent to private K12 schools AND the parents paid for public education on their property tax bills as well. Also, are we supposed to be perpetually in debt to our children or vise-versa? Is that how we view children – as debt? On the other hand, saying that educational opportunities for children is the sole responsibility of the community is not quite right either. What is the definition of community? And more specifically, which community are you talking about?
Merriam-Webster’s definition of community:
1. a body of people living in the same place under the same laws; 2. society at large; 3. joint ownership
It becomes apparent that any definition of community you can find will not mention the property tax payer. I know it sounds ridiculous, yet much of rhetoric designed to encourage a “yes” vote talks about community as if to include everyone, but there is no rhetoric or plan to include everyone to pay. Now if the anonymous caller means the property tax paying community, well that’s different and it changes the argument completely by narrowing the paying pool down considerably.
There is no reason why a public school in Biloxi, Mississippi should be better or worse than a public school in Madison, Wisconsin. Of course, my idea of ensuring that “no public school is left behind” would charge the taxpaying community in its widest and purest form, which is the Federal income taxpayer. But those running (Republicans) our Federal government refuse to fund their own mandates or force the taxpayer to jump through a series of hoops in order to benefit from their own taxes. This is just another reason why most people are fed up with our current leadership in Washington and want a change.
Everybody has their own valid reasons to be against this school referendum. Whether it’s the air conditioning issue, the double four court gyms, the plan itself, the $70.8 million price-tag, the school districts seeming arrogance or the juggernaut of them all – higher taxes, there appears to be plenty enough differences against the referendum to actually hinder efforts to form a cohesive opposition group. At the same time it is possible the Janesville School referendum has enough obvious flaws that a formal united front opposing it may be unnecessary.
One of the more interesting ideas comes from Dwight Brass of Fulton Township who has attempted to organize opposition against the referendum. He started an organization called CARE, Citizens Allied for Responsible Education, and it seems to be based on a more objective approach. He believes the Janesville School referendums fundamental plan to the improvements and its relationship to enhancing education are inefficient and flawed. Brass argues that the school board plans are based on opinions and beliefs and not on research and proven methods. He apparently also believes the school board did not look at all options available or alternatives to achieve their goals. I agree.
Another idea shared by other states with some success would propose a referendum giving the voting rights on all specialized spending to only those who are paying the bill. Thus, if schools are solely funded by property taxes, only property taxpayers would be eligible to vote a tax increase, onto themselves. This too, needs consideration.
Voting “no” will not end the quest to improve Janesvilles schools but it may force the school board to reconsider its plan and approach the taxpayer with less belligerence. Any way you look at it, we need to find other sources of funding for public schools. Property taxpayers in Wisconsin want cuts, not increases. And please, spare the guilt trip.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Green and Bush - Tax Cut and Run
Mark Green’s campaign for governor has many eerie similarities to that of the textbook election promises that has sprung George W. Bush into the presidency. Like Bush, Green promises to cut taxes and fix the morals and values of others.
Green has proposed a pension tax break for seniors that would exempt the first $20,000 in a retiree’s income from state taxes. Sounds good when you’re kissing babies and willing to say anything to get a vote, but a similar plan that failed in the Republican-led legislature would have exempted only half of what Green proposes and would have cost the state nearly $200 million annually. Green claims his tax cut would cost only $20 million in its first year, but after that, details are fuzzy because he knows the promise is hollow. How he would make up for nearly $200 million in lost revenue is anybodies guess, chances are he would raise taxes elsewhere or cut jobs and desperately needed services.
My guess is Doyle will be seriously looking into property tax discounts for seniors if he is re-elected, a cost effective way to reward seniors according to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
Like Bush, Mark Green plans to fix everything with a tax cut or a tax credit. Even with immigration, Green proposes to offer a $300 tax credit in his ad, while stating in order to qualify for assistance, you must prove citizenship. Huh? Nevermind, the fact is Green is out of touch with Wisconsinites. The one thing Green seems to forget is that the job he is running for is unlike anything he has done in Congress. State budgets have to be balanced, the debt cannot be sold off to the highest bidder or left to accumulate for future generations.
In a strange twist, rumor has it that former Governor Tommy (I run, I win) Thompson may throw his hat in the 2008 presidential race. After getting a whiff of D.C. graft, Thompson is taking the opposite road from Green’s. One has to remember that Tommy Thompson had almost single-handed wrecked Wisconsin and nearly turned the state into the Texas of the north. That Bush nearly destroyed the state he governed before running for president had to give Thompson some consolation that he too can make it to the White House. Wisconsin’s reputation of high taxes, low wages, ruined natural resources and stagnant growth bloomed in the 90's and were actually his "signature" achievements. The fact is, Doyle is still repairing the long-term damage done by Tommy.
So who could blame Thompson for cutting and running from Wisconsin? He knows you can’t please everyone balancing state budgets, plus it requires a brain and work. After pretending to work under George W. Bush for four long miserable years, ol’ slowpoke Thompson figures he could possibly do no worse and – he’s probably right. Cabinet meetings with Bush have been described as a blind man leading a room full of deaf people, and in no disrespect to people with disabilities, Thompson was clearly one of the “deaf.”
Green has proposed a pension tax break for seniors that would exempt the first $20,000 in a retiree’s income from state taxes. Sounds good when you’re kissing babies and willing to say anything to get a vote, but a similar plan that failed in the Republican-led legislature would have exempted only half of what Green proposes and would have cost the state nearly $200 million annually. Green claims his tax cut would cost only $20 million in its first year, but after that, details are fuzzy because he knows the promise is hollow. How he would make up for nearly $200 million in lost revenue is anybodies guess, chances are he would raise taxes elsewhere or cut jobs and desperately needed services.
My guess is Doyle will be seriously looking into property tax discounts for seniors if he is re-elected, a cost effective way to reward seniors according to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
Like Bush, Mark Green plans to fix everything with a tax cut or a tax credit. Even with immigration, Green proposes to offer a $300 tax credit in his ad, while stating in order to qualify for assistance, you must prove citizenship. Huh? Nevermind, the fact is Green is out of touch with Wisconsinites. The one thing Green seems to forget is that the job he is running for is unlike anything he has done in Congress. State budgets have to be balanced, the debt cannot be sold off to the highest bidder or left to accumulate for future generations.
In a strange twist, rumor has it that former Governor Tommy (I run, I win) Thompson may throw his hat in the 2008 presidential race. After getting a whiff of D.C. graft, Thompson is taking the opposite road from Green’s. One has to remember that Tommy Thompson had almost single-handed wrecked Wisconsin and nearly turned the state into the Texas of the north. That Bush nearly destroyed the state he governed before running for president had to give Thompson some consolation that he too can make it to the White House. Wisconsin’s reputation of high taxes, low wages, ruined natural resources and stagnant growth bloomed in the 90's and were actually his "signature" achievements. The fact is, Doyle is still repairing the long-term damage done by Tommy.
So who could blame Thompson for cutting and running from Wisconsin? He knows you can’t please everyone balancing state budgets, plus it requires a brain and work. After pretending to work under George W. Bush for four long miserable years, ol’ slowpoke Thompson figures he could possibly do no worse and – he’s probably right. Cabinet meetings with Bush have been described as a blind man leading a room full of deaf people, and in no disrespect to people with disabilities, Thompson was clearly one of the “deaf.”
Monday, October 09, 2006
All workers Deserve Taxable Wage
In a recent article in the Janesville Messenger, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute explains that more welfare will result in more poverty. He claims the NY Times and leading Democrats complaints about how George W. Bush and his Republican Congress have slashed anti-poverty programs are misguided. In fact, he writes that last year the federal government spent $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since Bush took office.
But wait a second, if spending to fight poverty has increased under Bush, is it possible that his economic agenda produced a greater population of poor people? Weren’t the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and the tax cut on dividends supposed to generate a more prosperous society, thereby reducing the pool of eligible recipients for federal assistance? Isn’t our great Bush economy supposed to put more money in everyone's pockets and lift people out of poverty? First and foremost, every presidents national economic plan should be an antipoverty plan. How do you explain the Bush tax cut plan along with his failure to raise the minimum wage as an antipoverty plan. Is it possible that policies that increase poverty will result in more welfare?
This right-wing brainwashing goes on and on regularly in the Janesville Messenger. Consider the editorial on Oct. 8th, titled “Tax cuts OK; not tax code.” This editorial is an annual ritual by the Messenger, where they complain that despite the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the rich are still paying too great of a percentage of the Federal taxes at the same time the poor are paying too little. They mention that people who earn $35,000 a year paid 8.54 percent of their income in Federal taxes, but under Bush they paid 5.12 percent. A 40 percent decrease, clearly they say, all incomes benefited from the tax cuts. But in real dollars the difference of 3.42 percent amounts to $1,197, nothing to sneeze at, but barely enough to keep pace with rising real estate taxes, health insurance or energy costs. It could also buy you a new muffler for your car. The article doesn’t elaborate on the percentages the rich saved in taxes. I can't blame them, but you better believe it was much greater than 3.54 percent of an income closer to ten times $35,000. The savings? Can anyone say a brand new Lexus every year.
Moreover the Messenger explains, how millions of workers earning less than $25,000 a year have been removed from the tax rolls altogether, that this is a worthy consolation to not being paid enough. In 2000, 29 million tax returns paid no Federal tax, four years later under Bush, the number rose to 43 million. In just four short years, 14 million more people do not earn enough to pay taxes, yet the Republicans in charge will swear their taxcuts lift all boats. These numbers are proof the Bush national economic plan is a total failure. On top of this the Republican Party has denied an increase in wages to those who need it the most, for the past 9 years!
Minimum wage earners deserve more than a living wage, they deserve a taxable one as well. The tax cuts to the wealthy have not worked as these numbers show, its time to roll them back or pay workers what they deserve.
But wait a second, if spending to fight poverty has increased under Bush, is it possible that his economic agenda produced a greater population of poor people? Weren’t the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and the tax cut on dividends supposed to generate a more prosperous society, thereby reducing the pool of eligible recipients for federal assistance? Isn’t our great Bush economy supposed to put more money in everyone's pockets and lift people out of poverty? First and foremost, every presidents national economic plan should be an antipoverty plan. How do you explain the Bush tax cut plan along with his failure to raise the minimum wage as an antipoverty plan. Is it possible that policies that increase poverty will result in more welfare?
This right-wing brainwashing goes on and on regularly in the Janesville Messenger. Consider the editorial on Oct. 8th, titled “Tax cuts OK; not tax code.” This editorial is an annual ritual by the Messenger, where they complain that despite the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the rich are still paying too great of a percentage of the Federal taxes at the same time the poor are paying too little. They mention that people who earn $35,000 a year paid 8.54 percent of their income in Federal taxes, but under Bush they paid 5.12 percent. A 40 percent decrease, clearly they say, all incomes benefited from the tax cuts. But in real dollars the difference of 3.42 percent amounts to $1,197, nothing to sneeze at, but barely enough to keep pace with rising real estate taxes, health insurance or energy costs. It could also buy you a new muffler for your car. The article doesn’t elaborate on the percentages the rich saved in taxes. I can't blame them, but you better believe it was much greater than 3.54 percent of an income closer to ten times $35,000. The savings? Can anyone say a brand new Lexus every year.
Moreover the Messenger explains, how millions of workers earning less than $25,000 a year have been removed from the tax rolls altogether, that this is a worthy consolation to not being paid enough. In 2000, 29 million tax returns paid no Federal tax, four years later under Bush, the number rose to 43 million. In just four short years, 14 million more people do not earn enough to pay taxes, yet the Republicans in charge will swear their taxcuts lift all boats. These numbers are proof the Bush national economic plan is a total failure. On top of this the Republican Party has denied an increase in wages to those who need it the most, for the past 9 years!
Minimum wage earners deserve more than a living wage, they deserve a taxable one as well. The tax cuts to the wealthy have not worked as these numbers show, its time to roll them back or pay workers what they deserve.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Janesville Property Tax Hike - Republican?
The October 1st edition of the Janesville Messenger was chock full of the right-wing idiology (correct spelling) that I’ve come to expect from them.
One article written by Jim Lyke and titled “Opposition to referendum may be shortsighted” was generally about his experience when he attended a Madison chamber of Commerce meeting intended to halt the growth of taxes. Lyke wrote that a Republican state senator from Milwaukee (whom he refused to name) said that Democrats were opposed to his taxcut plan and then stated “Well, they even supported a school referendum – so they must be communists.”
Referring to the $70.8 million Janesville School District referendum which would tax every homeowner an additional $103 a year for the next 10 years, Lyke feels it is shortsighted to oppose a tax just because it’s a tax. He also writes that since Forward Janesville fought against a county sales tax but endorses the property tax hike for the schools, it must be good.
Because the republican Lyke supports the School referendum he wrote that he was offended by his fellow Republicans “communist” comment. Promoting higher taxes to pay for improvements and services is the kiss of death for many politicians, particularly since Republicans have used high taxes as a political weapon against those dastardly tax and spend democrats. But now since Lyke, Forward Janesville and a few others want to tax and spend, they are looking for ways to get around the very same mantra they have beat up democrats with. They have even gone so far as to hire a marketing firm to convince voters to vote themselves a hefty tax increase. You see, when Republicans tax and spend it’s a sound investment and “capitalistic” in a good way. But when democrats tax and spend, Republicans view it as socialism or worse yet a “hand-out” or what the Republican senator from Milwaukee calls those kind of taxers and spenders, they're “communists.”
Contrary to all expectations it turns out, the Janesville Property tax hike is endorsed by those tax freeze Republicans.
One article written by Jim Lyke and titled “Opposition to referendum may be shortsighted” was generally about his experience when he attended a Madison chamber of Commerce meeting intended to halt the growth of taxes. Lyke wrote that a Republican state senator from Milwaukee (whom he refused to name) said that Democrats were opposed to his taxcut plan and then stated “Well, they even supported a school referendum – so they must be communists.”
Referring to the $70.8 million Janesville School District referendum which would tax every homeowner an additional $103 a year for the next 10 years, Lyke feels it is shortsighted to oppose a tax just because it’s a tax. He also writes that since Forward Janesville fought against a county sales tax but endorses the property tax hike for the schools, it must be good.
Because the republican Lyke supports the School referendum he wrote that he was offended by his fellow Republicans “communist” comment. Promoting higher taxes to pay for improvements and services is the kiss of death for many politicians, particularly since Republicans have used high taxes as a political weapon against those dastardly tax and spend democrats. But now since Lyke, Forward Janesville and a few others want to tax and spend, they are looking for ways to get around the very same mantra they have beat up democrats with. They have even gone so far as to hire a marketing firm to convince voters to vote themselves a hefty tax increase. You see, when Republicans tax and spend it’s a sound investment and “capitalistic” in a good way. But when democrats tax and spend, Republicans view it as socialism or worse yet a “hand-out” or what the Republican senator from Milwaukee calls those kind of taxers and spenders, they're “communists.”
Contrary to all expectations it turns out, the Janesville Property tax hike is endorsed by those tax freeze Republicans.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Tax Increase Referendum explosion
Walworth County, much like many counties throughout the state of Wisconsin if not the entire country is proposing a 10% hike in local taxes for 2007. Whether it is in LaCrosse, Elkhorn, Whitewater or Janesville, people are beginning to realize that if they support Federal taxcuts and simultaneously demand lower taxing requests from the state, they will be left to pay for goods and services including education and roads all on their own. Those promoting tax hikes on local payers insist it’s always been like this, but that is not entirely true. Rising property taxes in the current period have increased pressure on lawmakers to find new ways to limit tax increases. Republicans however have taken a different direction to the problem. Since they have no idea how to curb spending or keep taxes down, they’ve figured out a way to ensure they are not blamed for the higher taxes.
They have decided long ago as part of their “responsibility” platform to give people what they think they want and encourage more local control, not as a way to keep costs down, but as a way to disconnect themselves (republicans) from their primary duty of fiscal management. You see, why should they (Republicans) raise your taxes, when they can legislate taxing responsibilities onto the taxpayer themselves. Either you will vote the tax increase onto yourself or get used to potholes, decaying schools, poor police and fire protection. Instead of citizens charging the elected politicians to do the research, study and math necessary to form a solid basis for a good decision, the politicians have turned the tables and are now encouraging more public participation, telling voters to do the research and get involved. Under these terms, whichever way the taxpayer goes, they have nobody to blame but themselves, all the while the GOP comes out smelling like the good guys. This way too, only the Democrats then can be viewed as the tax and spend party, when in all actuality they are the responsible party.
In Wisconsin, this idea has been proposed as a Constitutional amendment by the republican legislature earlier this year. Republican lawmakers have pushed to put state-imposed clamps on spending by schools and local government while simultaneously forcing taxpayers to vote tax increases onto themselves.
As I’ve mentioned, at the heart of the “vote yourselves taxes” referendum explosion is the GOP platform. But they could not pull this off without the full support and influence from the White House. Here, President Bush has diverted over $318 billion dollars during the past three years from our domestic programs to the debacle in Iraq. Spread out over the population and divided by the fifty states, Wisconsin has been shortchanged almost $6 billion dollars in Federal aid to schools, roads and job creation. This shortage of Federal money is also fueled by taxcuts to select (wealthy) individuals.
Unfortunately, the nature of the GOP's federal domestic program assistance is so severe that none exist, unless you happen to be a corporation. Had we had not invaded Iraq, Republicans would have used the national deficit as a good reason to withhold hundreds of billions from the American economy. We would probably be where we are today regardless, afterall the Republicans are in charge in Washington and the Wisconsin legislature.
Wisconsin residents have no one to blame for high property taxes but themselves when they vote Republican.
They have decided long ago as part of their “responsibility” platform to give people what they think they want and encourage more local control, not as a way to keep costs down, but as a way to disconnect themselves (republicans) from their primary duty of fiscal management. You see, why should they (Republicans) raise your taxes, when they can legislate taxing responsibilities onto the taxpayer themselves. Either you will vote the tax increase onto yourself or get used to potholes, decaying schools, poor police and fire protection. Instead of citizens charging the elected politicians to do the research, study and math necessary to form a solid basis for a good decision, the politicians have turned the tables and are now encouraging more public participation, telling voters to do the research and get involved. Under these terms, whichever way the taxpayer goes, they have nobody to blame but themselves, all the while the GOP comes out smelling like the good guys. This way too, only the Democrats then can be viewed as the tax and spend party, when in all actuality they are the responsible party.
In Wisconsin, this idea has been proposed as a Constitutional amendment by the republican legislature earlier this year. Republican lawmakers have pushed to put state-imposed clamps on spending by schools and local government while simultaneously forcing taxpayers to vote tax increases onto themselves.
As I’ve mentioned, at the heart of the “vote yourselves taxes” referendum explosion is the GOP platform. But they could not pull this off without the full support and influence from the White House. Here, President Bush has diverted over $318 billion dollars during the past three years from our domestic programs to the debacle in Iraq. Spread out over the population and divided by the fifty states, Wisconsin has been shortchanged almost $6 billion dollars in Federal aid to schools, roads and job creation. This shortage of Federal money is also fueled by taxcuts to select (wealthy) individuals.
Unfortunately, the nature of the GOP's federal domestic program assistance is so severe that none exist, unless you happen to be a corporation. Had we had not invaded Iraq, Republicans would have used the national deficit as a good reason to withhold hundreds of billions from the American economy. We would probably be where we are today regardless, afterall the Republicans are in charge in Washington and the Wisconsin legislature.
Wisconsin residents have no one to blame for high property taxes but themselves when they vote Republican.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Convince Business of School Needs
The Janesville Gazette editorialized that the school board is not doing a good enough job convincing property tax payers voters of needs at the high schools. That is the crux of the problem. I think I can speak for more than a few property taxpayers here that are fed up with being the “go to” guys when schools need money. Our property taxes are plenty high where they stand and it almost seems like the minute our taxes stay flat or go down slightly, it opens a window of opportunity for reasons to spend. Many of the same people who blame the Governor for high property taxes in Wisconsin, are the same ones to gleefully pump up the bill when they’re doing the spending.
Why not take it a step further? Why only think like businessmen when you can be convincing them about the returns that school improvements will have upon their profits. The Gazette for example suggested “expert” engineers might be able to state that people are more productive when they work in comfortable rooms. So in the future, the Gazette and other local businesses will have an employee pool that has been appropriately schooled in comfortable rooms. How much is that worth to the Gazette’s bottom line?
Convince the Janesville Gazette (Bliss Communications) about the potential returns of say, a $100,000 investment into the school improvements. Convince home grown multi-billionaires like Ken Hendricks and Jim Fitzgerald to give a couple million dollars each to Janesville schools, afterwards they could go to bat for the district to convince others as well. Convince several medium sized businesses to raise $100,000 for the improvements. Convince Rep. Paul Ryan to earmark $5 million in Federal money not to build a bridge to the North Pole, but to invest in the education of our Janesville youth. Convince major corporations like GM, Target and Wal-Mart to invest into the training and education of their future Janesville employees. Those three should be worth at least $5 million.
Give the students and teachers $70.8 million in school improvements convincing others to risk about $10 million, isn’t asking for too much. Afterall, the school board is asking for much more from those who barely make it, day to day. I think if property taxpayers saw a direct investment from those who benefit the most from our publicly funded schools, they would vote a unanimous YES.
Janesville Gazette editorial excerpt:
Administrators are thinking like academics when they might convince more voters if they thought like people in the business world, where capital projects are approved only after managers calculate potential returns on investments.
Why not take it a step further? Why only think like businessmen when you can be convincing them about the returns that school improvements will have upon their profits. The Gazette for example suggested “expert” engineers might be able to state that people are more productive when they work in comfortable rooms. So in the future, the Gazette and other local businesses will have an employee pool that has been appropriately schooled in comfortable rooms. How much is that worth to the Gazette’s bottom line?
Convince the Janesville Gazette (Bliss Communications) about the potential returns of say, a $100,000 investment into the school improvements. Convince home grown multi-billionaires like Ken Hendricks and Jim Fitzgerald to give a couple million dollars each to Janesville schools, afterwards they could go to bat for the district to convince others as well. Convince several medium sized businesses to raise $100,000 for the improvements. Convince Rep. Paul Ryan to earmark $5 million in Federal money not to build a bridge to the North Pole, but to invest in the education of our Janesville youth. Convince major corporations like GM, Target and Wal-Mart to invest into the training and education of their future Janesville employees. Those three should be worth at least $5 million.
Give the students and teachers $70.8 million in school improvements convincing others to risk about $10 million, isn’t asking for too much. Afterall, the school board is asking for much more from those who barely make it, day to day. I think if property taxpayers saw a direct investment from those who benefit the most from our publicly funded schools, they would vote a unanimous YES.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)