vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

1.31.2007

It's not the property tax

Sen. Mark MacDonald, the Orange County Democrat, had the Legislature's Joint Fiscal Office work up a sheet for him that examines the percent increase in property taxes, as adjusted for income, compared to other high-flying items the average Vermonter is saddled with - home heating oil, gasoline and health care.

Home heating oil: up 114.41 percent between 2002 and 2006.
Gas: up 90.44 percent.
Health care: up 32.95 percent
Property taxes: up 11.28 percent
Average annual inflation: 2.9 percent

His point: It's been too easy for Gov. Jim Douglas to rail about property taxes. And talk that the global warming debate is a waste of time? He says work on that issue will help Vermonters slice those other items.

He makes no allowances for the actual amount the average Vermonter is paying in gas or heat. Those are per-gallon prices, while the others are the average amount spent.

What do you think? Vermonters have been hollering a lot about property taxes.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 12:26 PM |

Comments:

The 'ol green house smokescreen is running out of fuel, and they're in dire need of more smoke to mask the property tax fire.

Nice try, but most people are looking for property tax relief NOW. And... they're smart enough to know that more of Peter Shumlin's hot air isn't going to do anything to defray the cost of heating their home - this year, next year, or even ten years from now.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:13 PM, January 31, 2007

That's a valid point. In terms of immediate relief, there isn't much that can be done about oil, gas, or health care. These are much larger problems with long-term solutions (hopefully). Also, the problem with the rise in property taxes is that this is due to spending. Spending cannot continue to increase at a rate more than 3 times that of inflation; it has to be brought in line and the sooner the better.

This isn't to say that we should ignore climate change, alternative energy, etc. These are 2 very different problems with 2 different solutions: cut spending to lower property taxes and conserve energy while also investing in alternative energy.

# Posted by:

John | 1:29 PM, January 31, 2007

JFO? Are these the same folks that are still trying to calculate the extent of the ed fund transfer shortfall?

So they say my property tax bill has increased by 11.28 percent since 2002? Hmmm... I smell Enron math...

In 2003 my property tax bill was $2,200. In 2006 it was $3,600. Uh - by my calculations, that's more like a 40% increase.

And to Terri's point, that's a cost that I have no control over - unlike fuel, which I can conserve to save money (and the environment).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:34 PM, January 31, 2007

I can't wait to hear the reaction when this year people don't get their prebate checks directly, but get a lower property tax bill.

Sorry, you have to take what individuals pay with a grain of salt. In some cases, town listers did not keep up with appraisals so you had property appraised at much older values mixed in with property appraised at current values. In some cases those who built new homes, payed more than their share and those that flew under the radar did not pay their share.

The 2005 grand list in my town was an enlightening read.

And then, of course, you have the folks that snuck in a kitchen or bath remodel job or similar improvements and didn't tell the town.

Yeah, change act 68. Get rid of income sensitivity.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:07 PM, January 31, 2007

I can't wait. So now, middle and upper-middle class will be subsidizing the gas and fuel needs of 60% of Vermonters.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:24 PM, January 31, 2007

My town has not reappraised since 2002, and there have been no improvements to my house since then. From 2002 to 2006, my property taxes went up by 19.6%, which averages out to 4.5% per year. I don't think a property tax increase of about 1.5% more than inflation per year is unreasonably high.

The "Revolt and Repeal" group has its greatest support in ski towns in southern Vermont - most of the people in these towns who are facing high property tax bills are not full-time year-round residents of Vermont. Thousands of school children all over Vermont have a better education because of Acts 60 and 68. If we change the property tax system, let's make sure the principal beneficiaries are Vermont students, not people from New York and Boston who own second homes in Stratton, Londonderry, Dorset, etc.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:02 PM, January 31, 2007

The mere fact that the property tax is less of a burden than other financial crosses we have to bear is not evidence that it should not be fixed; since it is the one which government controls.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:35 PM, January 31, 2007

To say that the Revolt and Repeal group has its greatest support in Southern Vermont ski towns is false. Check out there web site: http://www.revoltandrepeal.com/

They have a list of towns supporting the movement and a map - there is a pretty signficant cluster of communities in the Northeast Kingdom that are supporting the movement.

These are multi-generational families with large landholding that fall outside the 2 acre income sensitivity provisions of Act 60. These people are getting forced to subdivide their land just so they can pay their property taxes.

I live next to one of these Southern Vermont "Ski Towns" and I'm suffering from astronomical increases in property taxes - thanks to the CLA and the pressures put on it by nearby development that is outside my control. My friends and family in the community are selling off their land because they can't afford the taxes over 2 acres. That land is being bought up by the wealthy second homeowners that the previous poster speaks of.

So - just what good is Act 60 doing for our communities? NONE - its destroying them and encouraging more second home development!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:46 PM, January 31, 2007

Ask people in Shoreham about Acts 60 and 68. The school budget there is going up by 2% for 2007-08, but property taxes will go up by 14% because of the CLA. All those rich people buying lakefront property are driving up taxes for long-time Vermonters.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:05 PM, January 31, 2007

I agree with anon above that recommends a look at the R&R website that shows this "movement" of theirs is not a ski town revolt but one that has a great following from frustrated everyday Vermonters who struggle to make ends meet. In fact taxpayers from the tiny NE Kingdom town of Newark will be holding a rally on the State House steps on Thursday this week...Newark a ski town? Not hardly

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:13 PM, January 31, 2007

The way I see it, everyone wants their property values going up, but nobody wants to pay more taxes on those properties. The problem isn't the taxes, it is the ridiculously inflated housing market. Why are homes so expensive? Because there is always somebody out there making enough money to buy them. Sad to say it, but the entire state's economy needs a major readjustment, and when it happens it will not be pretty. In Vermont, I predict it will happen when IBM finally shuts its doors in Essex, as it surely will, probably within the next decade. Then the housing costs will readjust as the houses of all those overpaid workers sit empty until the banks take them and auction them off.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:07 PM, January 31, 2007

I'm growing tired of the overplayed assertion that healthcare and oil are the prime drivers behind increasing education costs. Look at any town report and you will see that health card and fuel are a small percentage of the overall budget. Yes, they are seeing increases - but they aren't responsible for the bulk of the cost increases we have seen over the past decade.

Act 60 put education spending on a J curve and the bulk of that - as the House Speaker has agreed - is coming from STAFFING. Wake up and smell the NEA.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:05 PM, January 31, 2007

Be sure to sign the Revolt & Repeal petition:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/revoltrepeal/revolt.html

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:08 PM, January 31, 2007

Check www.vtscrapwood.blogspot.com for some enlightened discussion about all these issues.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:26 PM, January 31, 2007

Huh?

20% reduction in student enrollemnt over the past 10 years and 10% increase in staff.

Please don't tell use that NCLB and healthcare are responsbible for this.

If NCLB was responsible for the increases in staffing levels, WHY would the NEA be against NCLB????

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:47 PM, January 31, 2007

"20% reduction in student enrollemnt over the past 10 years and 10% increase in staff."

How much of that staffing increase is directly related to increases in special ed?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:59 AM, February 01, 2007

The NEA is against NCLB because it's an obstacle to educating children.

Their opposition has nothing to do with staffing levels.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:01 AM, February 01, 2007

NCLB has to be reauthorized by Congress this year. Bernie Sanders is on the Senate committee on education. Now is the time for Vermonters to send comments on NCLB to Bernie.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:10 AM, February 01, 2007

Revolt and Repeal is just political hot air. No meat behind it at all.

Education is a service and as one would expect, cost is labor bound.

The largest component of school budgets is teacher salaries. These have increased while the rest of the working world has not seen increases that even meet inflation. It is true that healthcare and energy are pushing these budgets up too, but increases due to these causes are minimal when compared to increases in teacher salaries.

If you look at school expenditures, you will see that almost every component of education grew yearly at nearly double the inflation rate between 95 and 05. The growth rate axross all expenses was 5.7% per year.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:08 AM, February 01, 2007

I should add that direct teacher salaries grew annually at 4.8% while cost of benefits for those teachers grew at 8% annually.

In my view, I don't think its correct to decouple these. Cost for an employee should represent all compensation and include all benefits.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:14 AM, February 01, 2007

All the children should be homeschooled.

Close the schools.

Send the teachers to penal colonies in Greenland.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:14 AM, February 01, 2007

Public schools operate in a government-created cocoon completely isolated and immunized from free amrket forces which would compel rational decisionmaking with respect to staffing levels and expenditures. Add to that a property tax system that insulates an increasing number of "maxed out" taxpayers who have no responsibility for paying the marginal increase in taxes necessary to support budgets they approve, and you have a recipe for disaster.

# Posted by:

BarreBoy | 2:22 PM, February 01, 2007

and apparently (and unbelievably) the answer for some is more income sensitivity.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:41 PM, February 01, 2007

"Public schools operate in a government-created cocoon completely isolated and immunized from free amrket forces which would compel rational decisionmaking with respect to staffing levels and expenditures."

The same can be said for the Pentagon.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:24 PM, February 01, 2007

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

# Posted by:

BarreBoy | 3:45 PM, February 01, 2007

Agreed re Pentagon financial/procurement decisions. Military decisions, however, are a little different since there isn't a similar set of economic market forces in paly.

# Posted by:

BarreBoy | 3:55 PM, February 01, 2007

We should get rid of the military.

Those that work hard and get rich can afford their own private security.

The rest don't deserve it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:28 PM, February 01, 2007

We should just have one really wealthy man and tax him at 99%. The rest of us can just draw unemployment.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:38 PM, February 01, 2007

These stats are obviously a complete crock. Re: school funding:

1. Increasing staffing levels vs. decreasing enrollments = indefensible. Every ESL teacher needed to compensate for an increasing ratio of immigrants, for example, is one less traditional teacher needed.

2. Anyone who allows the current income sensitivity provisions to influence their vote on school budgets is an idiot who will get exactly what they deserve when those provisions are rolled back.

It's telling that the only guy left who will publicly stand up and defend Act 60/68, in a recent Times Argus opinion piece, is Paul Cillo - Act 60's co-author.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:22 PM, February 02, 2007

The problem with this little chart is our property taxes were already too high in 2002 and we don't have healthcare - lost that long ago. Besides, who's average?

The fact is we're paying too much for too little education. Give me $12,000 a year for each of our children and I can spend it a lot better than our town does.

# Posted by:

Walter Jeffries | 7:43 PM, February 03, 2007