Those Generous Democrats
It appears that Washington State legislators are considering a couple of property tax bills. It is unclear to me how they are related and according the Seattle Times, copies of at least one of the bill is unavailable.
OLYMPIA — State lawmakers during a special session Thursday will consider helping struggling homeowners by letting households earning up to $57,000 a year defer part of their property tax.
Gov. Christine Gregoire called the special session to reinstate a 1 percent cap on property-tax increases that was recently thrown out by the state Supreme Court.
The governor on Monday outlined a second measure that would let some homeowners who meet income guidelines defer up to 25 percent of their annual property-tax bill, with restrictions. Copies of the legislation weren’t available.
The governor noted the deferral would be temporary. “When the house is sold, the state will be reimbursed,” she said.
By discussing a deferral which would have to be paid back with about 7% interest according to Gregoire, they are acknowledging that their taxes are driving people out of their homes. For anybody committed to freedom and individual rights the discussion would stop there. Our legislators would ask themselves. Since when does the state have the right to tax people out of their homes? Maybe the growth of the state’s budget and the size of government has become a violation of basic human rights they would conclude.
But Gregoire and her team have come up with a plan to allow the homeowners to defer payment until the property is sold. Then the state would collect a hefty 7% interest rate on it in addition to the back taxes. I wonder how much it will cost to administer this new program and which individuals with political connections will get the jobs.
Then there’s this:
The cutoff of $57,000 is roughly the current median household income in Washington. The state estimates about 7,500 people would take advantage of the program. Gregoire said local governments would not lose any money because the state would cover the lost revenue.
If the state can cover the lost revenue then why raise taxes at all? Doesn’t that mean they already have too much money?
| Go to Home - Most Recent Posts