Pawlenty: Dragging Minnesota back into the 1700s
Tim Pawlenty unveiled his so-called "Turbo-charged Truth in Taxation" today. The idea is fundamentally unsound. We already have referendums on taxation: they're called elections and they're held every other year. But the plan is even worse than I thought.
Governor Pawlenty gave up on the turbocharged Truth in Taxation for school levies, but he is pushing ahead on the idea for local government levies. Or, should I say, he's pushing behind, far, far, far behind. He is trying to take us back to the 18th century, when only property owners had any say in this pseudo-democracy. See, according to his proposal, only property owners would be able to object to tax increases. And a property owner would have as many votes as they have parcels of land. So a landlord with five apartments could have five votes, the hundred tenants in his buildings: zero.
Well, at least we know his stand on progress.
Apartment dwellers (e.g., me) and others who don't own property don't get a vote. Outrageous. Minnesota has approximately a 75% home ownership rate. That means about 25% of Minnesotans won't get a say in how government should pay for itself. This plan is diametrically opposed to the great American ideal of one person, one vote. Pawlenty's plan is diametrically opposed to democracy itself. Simply unbelievable.
posted by Luke Francl @ 9:18 PM |
| 
13 Comments:
I say we take this one step further. We should provide votes for every $20 thousand the tax payers make. The more you make, the more times you get to vote! Unfortunately, stay at home parents and retired folk won't get a vote, but that's alright. I'm sure they can find someone who can spare a vote in their best interest. And if Bill Gates wants to move here, he can run the whole place how he wants! After all, he's bringing in the cash...
Wow- we don't even get to count as 3/5 of a person?
-Jonathan
Is the DFL the new King George?
America was founded by the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. Now I hear that that is a dangerous concept.
Well, I disagree. We're not talking about how government spends money here, but takes money. Taxation without representation is something we should fear. If we need to go back to the 17th century to make that happen, then I'm willing to go back to the 17th century.
If Pawlenty is willing to support no taxation without representation, and the DFL candidate next year supports listening to everyone to determine how to tax those who own property, then Pawlenty will get me vote.
If a person really wants to have a say in paying property taxes, then might I suggest they buy preperty? Why should they get a say in something they don't have a part of.
The cry for next year should be NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! We need to get back to the reason why America seperated from Britian.
The last time I checked, landlords take crazy expenses on owning properties (things like property taxes, for instance) and roll that into the cost of what they charge for rent. I assume the state knows that this is true, as a renter credit is given to us to try to compensate for part of the property tax we are in fact paying on behalf of our landlord. The state goverment obviously recognizes that we also pay property taxes, although slightly less directly. They are suggesting that we pay, but our landlord gets our vote. That sounds pretty King Georgian to me. Or perhaps something a little more feudal?
But wait, I thought that the argument wasn't that this would allow landlords to gouge tenants to pay for the landlords public services, but that the landlords *wouldn't* let tenants pay taxes to subsidise their public service.
Bur really, this is a property owner's tax, and the property owner should be the one who says whether they feel it's right or not.
Tenants have their voice when they choose to rent or not. If the tenants feel that the rent is too high because the landlord is paying too much for taxes, then they can rent someplace else. In that way there are checks and balances.
Anonymous, please check the rules of engagement in the right column. You need to "sign" your posts with a name of some sort so people know who to address. You don't need to sign up with Blogger and you don't need to use your real name, you just need to sign it with something.
Thanks.
"Bur really, this is a property owner's tax, and the property owner should be the one who says whether they feel it's right or not."
I agree. And to follow that logic, I think reproductive rights should only be voted on by people with wombs. After all, the womb owner should be the one to say whether they feel it's right or not. Womb renters, on the other hand, who only use the womb for 2-3 minutes at a time should not be allowed to participate in voting on womb issues.
Anonymous,
You must be joking. It is the Republicans who want to eliminate representation for the taxed.
We all pay property taxes, even if not all of us send the check directly. Business owners, employees, home owners, renters, everyone is affected by property tax rates. And everyone should get to decide if they are too high or too low.
That's called an election, and America's been doing a great job of making sure everyone gets to vote in them. It's been a long journey from the time when only landed white males could vote. Today, the law assures universal sufferage. No one may be discriminated against based on race, creed, or sex -- or money.
Tim Pawlenty and his buddies at the "Taxpayers League" want to reverse 200 years of progress and take us back to the Bad Old Days when only landed gentry could vote -- and even then, they only got one vote, no matter how much property they owned.
No taxation without representation, indeed!
If this passes, I'm going to throw a new Boston Tea Party.
Actually, this isn't technically a vote, as in a whilte-mail only type vote. This is a 'vote' on whether or not you think what *you* are paying is an acceptable level of property tax or not.
It's not even binding, it's not like voting for 'no taxes' will make the property tax go away. It's more of an opinion poll, giving the government an idea of whether people are happy or not with their taxes. Should most people be unhappy, the government, be as it may, could still ignore them.
Anyways, like I said, this is a 'vote' for those who actually pay tax directly. It doesn't make sense to ask a renter's opinion on whether the tax burden is making their rent to high because there's no way to really tell what the tax to rent ratio is. They get no tax bill.
Perhaps another law is in order to make a new renters tax. Then we can ask the renters how they feel about the tax. If it's a rental property, we'll tax the owner nothing, so that the renter can have input on the real taxes like they desire. Or, better yet, tax both the owners and the renters. That will generate more revenue, which we desperately need, and give everyone the ability to 'vote' on what their tax bill looks like.
-Jo
okay, so I'm a coupla days late on comenting here, but i have a few points I'd like to make.
A) renters can choose *where* their going to rent, but not always *if* they're going to rent. If they can't afford to own, the cannot own.
B)It doesn't matter if you rent or own, you still pay property tax.
C)If property taxes rise, yes tenants can move, but rent will go up at *all* locations, thereby lowering the quality of housing available to renters(asuming that more expensive appartments are generally nicer)
D)Being a housewife-i will not personally be a property owner, and therefor would have no say in this matter if it passes, however I am the one that does the budgeting and writes the checks, so I would have a better idea of where we stand financially so how does his make sense?
Jo wrote:
"It's not even binding, it's not like voting for 'no taxes' will make the property tax go away. It's more of an opinion poll, giving the government an idea of whether people are happy or not with their taxes. Should most people be unhappy, the government, be as it may, could still ignore them."
That's not exactly true. The post card vote isn't binding in the sense that if a majority oppose the taxes, they are repealed.
But under the proposed law, local governments won't be able to ignore the results. If just 20% of property owners are unhappy with their taxes, it forces a referendum on the tax levy.
But under the proposed law, local governments won't be able to ignore the results. If just 20% of property owners are unhappy with their taxes, it forces a referendum on the tax levy.
But a referendum is voted on by *all* citizens, right? And that's what you're all arguing isn't going to happen anymore? So, the referendum, which is binding, right, is a one person, one vote, whether you own property or not.
So if renter's feel that they are not 'paying' enough property tax, they can vote to increase the taxes on the referendum.
And again, I'm not really seeing a problem here. Not with the property tax satisfaction surveys, nor with the referendum.
-Jo
Jo,
We already have referendums on taxes. They're called elections and they happen every other November or so. I fail to see why a mere 20% of property owners should be able to force a new vote because they are unhappy with the way the last one turned out.
Post a Comment
<< Home