First off, I have to admit I think it was the smart fiscal move, and I applaud the General Assembly for getting it passed and Governor Perdue for signing it. Quite simply, the money wasn’t there to fund it, and while there are certainly a number of wasteful programs throughout State government, reducing and/or ending entitlements – which is exactly what this had become – is always a good place to start trimming the fat as well. (And note that I say this even though my wife and I own our home, meaning my own taxes are being raised.)
Truly, the only thing that I don’t like about this bill is that it allowed these entitlements to come back when the money is available. I’ve got a better idea: how about we just cut the property tax by the amount of the grant? This entitlement, like all others, is simply political grandstanding at its worst, and I am glad it was at least temporarily ended.
That said, here is the link to the voting record for the entire General Assembly.
Here in SWGA, Senators John Bulloch and John Crosby voted for the bill, and Senators George Hooks and Freddie Powell-Sims voted against it.
On the House side, State Reps Mike Cheokas, Gerald Greene, Bob Hanner, Buddy Harden, Jay Powell, and Ed Rynders voted for the bill, while State Reps Winfred Dukes and Carol Fullerton voted against it.
As stated, the homeowner tax relief grant was basically eliminated because the State claimed it “did not have the money”. However, at the same time, those owning large tracts of “forest land” (200 acres more) were to be given lower property assessments by the State with the tax loss to the counties to be mandatorily covered by monies appropriated by the Legislature to the counties.
This was in Constitutional Ammendment 1 voted on and approved in November 2008, quoted in part as follows:
“This proposal directs the General Assembly to provide for a new method of ad valorem tax assessment of forest land conservation use property. Such property will include only tracts of forest land which exceed 200 acres except where the General Assembly has provided by general law for exceptions to the 200 acre limit under certain circumstances.” ***
“The General Assembly is directed to appropriate funds to local government to partially offset any loss of local revenue.
The General Assembly has enacted a law to implement this constitutional amendment. This law will become effective only if the constitutional amendment is ratified by the voters.”
Although the Amendment appeared to be for “forest conservation” in writings for the public, it was actually nothing more than a another State-funded tax break for a special interest group. Already in place was the “conservation use assessment” program limited to 2,000 acres per landowner. In the case of Lee County, the annual “tax shift” of the existing program is about $1.5 million which is passed on to other property owners.
The new program has no limit on the number of acres that can be included. The cost of this program to the State and counties is not known–it is still being implemented.
More details are at the below link:
http://www.sos.georgia.gov/elections/2008_amendments.htm
So, Jeff, I hope you are glad to know that your part of the “fat” that the State “didn’t have” to give you and others went to another group of landowners courtesy of the Legislature and the voters.
In my opinion, rather than an “entitlement”, the
terminated program was the only way for overtaxed homeowners to get a tax “reduction” –the counties certainly won’t make any tax reductions. So, don’t count me among those who feel that eliminating the program was justified.
If counties won’t reduce taxes, then the people of those counties need to step up and replace those who look at the taxpayer’s money as their own money and who feel free to spend it. The same is true for any government body who operates on the mistaken belief that people are really that stupid.
The people need to hold these people accountable, and then move on to the state level and ask why on Earth are our taxes as high as they are and demand a minimal government from Atlanta.
Of course, until we have a fundamental shift in attitudes amongst the people, it just ain’t gonna happen.
I certainly agree, Tom. But some counties have so many people that “are really that stupid”. Many who rent do not understand that they pay property taxes–in the form of increased rent–and therefore don’t have any interest in helping those who do.
Public officials do need to be held more accountable on fiscal matters but that is not happening.
And with the electorate we have, will likely not be. Your last sentence is absolutely correct.
I noticed you did not comment on feelings about the big tax break given to large property owners that we are paying for. Almost no one realizes we took a “sucker punch”on that one.
Because I believe that everyone should be getting tax breaks, even large land owners. That particular break was introduced with most of the legislation running through before anyone had a real idea that our economy would be where it is today.
It’s also important to note that the State funds far to many ridiculous things, such as this tax credit, which was nothing more than a Roy Barnes scheme to buy votes by pretending it would end property taxes for a lot of folks. Unfortunately for them, local governments started raising property taxes understanding that property owners would have to shoulder all the burden, the state would be paying part of that. Hence, the states out of control spending let to local governments’ out of control spending.
If the money wasn’t there, then they should have cut services. Period.
Absolutely! I am definitely in favor of less government and less taxes!
BOBBY, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE LEGISLATURE GAVE TAX BREAKS IN 08 TO LARGE LAND OWNERS BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE FUNDS IN 09 FOR HOMEOWNERS.