Monday, June 29, 2009

Replacing property tax

Voters in British Columbia recently re-elected Premier Gordon Campbell, the driving force behind BC's carbon tax. By 2012, the tax will reach about $30 per ton of carbon dioxide, or about 30 cents per gallon of gasoline. Money from the tax is used to reduce other taxes in a "revenue-neutral tax shift," and voters showed their support by backing Campbell and his right-of-center party for a rare third consecutive term. Across the border, two writers opine in the Seattle Times that Washington State should head in the same direction, replacing or winding down the state's property-based taxes with a carbon tax.

Start by eliminating the state property tax, they write, an idea floated a few years ago by the Washington State Tax Structure Committee chaired by Bill Gates Sr. The tax is unpopular and repealing it would ensure that it goes away for good. Control over property taxes then would be entirely in the hands of local voters in cities and counties, and the total burden on the state's property owners would immediately fall by 25 percent.

What about the state's public schools, which currently receive every dollar raised by the state property tax? That's where the carbon tax comes in. A tax on fossil fuels of $30 per ton of carbon dioxide — the same rate as in British Columbia — would be more than enough to backfill the lost revenue.

2 comments:

  1. * Why should a 9.5 acre parcel owned by 1 person be assessed $ 88,000.00 for a water line.
    * If the assessment is going to cost more then the owner could even sell the property for, why should the owner end up on the short end.
    * There is something very wrong with a formula that supplies this kind of outcome.
    * And how will it get paid for if all you do is drive people out of the Cape because they can't afford the constantly increasing tax load (no matter what you call it ) and they go broke trying to live in the Cape.
    * And on top of this, the council wants to add a utilities tax on electric; phone; cable TV; etc.
    * Very soon it's going to be Cape Empty, the only ones left will be the "spend more Tax-payers Money" members of the council. Wonder if they're ready to pick up the tab for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. * Why should a 9.5 acre parcel owned by 1 person be assessed $ 88,000.00 for a water line.
    * If the assessment is going to cost more then the owner could even sell the property for, why should the owner end up on the short end.
    * There is something very wrong with a formula that supplies this kind of outcome.
    * And how will it get paid for if all you do is drive people out of the Cape because they can't afford the constantly increasing tax load (no matter what you call it ) and they go broke trying to live in the Cape.
    * And on top of this, the council wants to add a utilities tax on electric; phone; cable TV; etc.
    * Very soon it's going to be Cape Empty, the only ones left will be the "spend more Tax-payers Money" members of the council. Wonder if they're ready to pick up the tab for everyone.

    ReplyDelete