RSS Feed |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The details are hell IT'S POLITICS, not tax reform, and Georgians should be livid about this flimflam. That's the only impression possibly to be drawn from the released "details" (with more to come) of House Speaker Glenn Richardson's proposal to swap out property taxes for more sales taxes on just about everything. If the devil's in the details, then what recently appeared was an entire Hades full of imps. And the boundaries of the inferno appear to be changing almost daily, with Richardson, backpedaling furiously in face to mounting opposition, most recently saying he might now limit his plan to school property taxes only, leaving the city/county levies untouched and unchanged. This, of course, might serve to cut the near-united front of local officials' opposition in half. It's impossible to repeat all the exemptions, exceptions, ifs, ands, buts, loopholes, caps and so forth to the sales tax notion that the speaker recently dragged into view for the first time. Let it just be noted that, if actually codified into some bureaucratic legalese, it would plainly be more complicated and convoluted than the present exemptions to the state sales tax (most of which would be erased) and perhaps start rivaling the federal incometax code in size (66,000 pages at last count). No doubt early fans of this "no more property taxes" approach will be mortified to learn some will continue to hang around. It'll vary depending on where you live and what local governments have already done to get into debt, but the estimate is that about 20 percent of the existing ad valorem bills will remain. Apparently sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander because Richardson foresees the state continuing to levy its own .025 mill ... paid to cover the cost of collecting a tax that he supposedly wants to largely no longer be collected. IT'S BEEN APPARENT for some time that Richardson desires control over every penny of revenue raised in Georgia (his House is the only place where budget proposals can be launched); it's also now apparent he doesn't plan to himself give up a single penny he controls. The worst of this, however, is the blatant politics and favoritism so plainly obvious that nobody paying attention could miss it. For example, some of Richardson's biggest campaign and tax-reform fund supporters - agricultural and health-care interests - will be exempted from not only property taxes but most sales taxes. On the other hand, those not as generous to the speaker, such as the utility companies, will continue to have to pay property taxes. Given that Richardson is very good at orations with a populist bent, what he does to the "little people" is downright nasty. While he plans to give them a "credit" on their state income taxes to offset having to again pay sales taxes on groceries and prescriptions plus more, like haircuts and oil changes, day care and doctor visits, this must assume they can afford an accountant to keep track of all their receipts. And, of course, it assumes the poorest have any income taxes to pay that can be reduced to offset the sales tax they will now pay on lottery tickets. JUST HOW political this has gotten - and a tip-off on how much worse the politicians are likely to make it - shows up in the creation of two tiers of citizenship. While Richardson's proposal involves rewriting the state Constitution he can't touch the federal version and one can almost sense the civil-rights armies of lawyers gathering in the distance. Georgia citizens (with a photo ID to prove it?) get treated one way and Americans from elsewhere, as well as immigrants legal or otherwise, get treated another. For the later, there will be a 50-cent a square foot "fee" on any dwelling they occupy, up to $2,000 a year. They won't get any "credit" for paying sales taxes on groceries, prescriptions and so forth either. After all, them folks ain't us.G uess Georgia colleges would be getting a lot fewer out-of-state students. All those Atlanta-based consulates run by "resident aliens" will probably relocate to Charlotte, N.C. And do foreign-owned corporations with local business interests (look around, Greater Rome has a lot) still have to pay property taxes, too? There's nothing wrong with pursuing tax reform as such. Indeed, for years before Richardson ever arrived god-like upon the scene, this newspaper has been attacking the unfair structure of some taxes (including property taxes) and the excessive reliance on some (like property taxes). It has also routinely condemned the past legislative "giveaways" of property tax obligations in order to woo voters in election years. HOWEVER, IT would be wise for citizens to pay close attention to Richardson's ever-shifting proposal. It is not the answer to a prayer. Perhaps he indeed means well, but he is apparently such a political creature that he has no sense of how to pull it off. Sure, Gov. Sonny Perdue, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and practically every city and county commissioner and school board member in the state has voiced skepticism, if not downright hostility, toward the plan. And yes, Richardson's scheme will require two-thirds support in both House and Senate to make it to the ballot as a constitutional amendment. And no, the governor can't veto a ballot initiative. Given Richardson's dictatorial style in reigning over the House, and his absolute control of all tax money outlays - which plainly spreads his influence into the Senate - he might twist enough arms to get his plan sent to the voters. The chant of "Let the people decide!" is already being heard. Alas, the people certainly have bought pigs in a poke before when it comes to no-tax dreams. Note how careful local state legislators are phrasing their reactions to seem vaguely noncommittal and on the speaker's side at the same time. They certainly know better. All of them passed high-school math. All of them know that the sales tax is a very leaky bucket to put all state and local funding into. Indeed, in the latest state revenue report, sales-tax collections were down 9 percent. WHERE'S THE CLAUSE in Richardson's encyclopedic proposal that says, when such happens, all government/ school worker payroll checks for that month go down by 9 percent - or up if collections rise, for that matter?
Those in love with the idea of "no more property taxes" would be well advised to heed the age-old advice of "Be careful what you wish for."
|
for larger version       |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
