Issue Position: Tax Policy
Issue Position
I voted to put property tax caps into Indiana law two years ago because I understand that property owners want protection from high property taxes. But this year, the issue was whether to go further and put the 1% - 2% - 3% caps into the state constitution. I voted no as a yellow light, a caution to the voters of Indiana to weigh the costs and benefits when they cast their vote in the referendum this fall.
The caps will go into full effect this year so it's far from clear whether the combination of 1% - 2%-3% is grounded in solid public policy or is just a good campaign slogan. Frankly, it's too soon to tell. Maybe some other combination would be better. Despite the property tax caps being sold as a benefit for all homeowners, the large majority of homeowners do not receive any added tax relief from the caps. In fact, under this particular plan, in 2010 an estimated 18.5% of Delaware County homeowners will reach the caps, which means more than 80% of Delaware County homeowners will see no benefit from them.
Tax bills for most homeowners have gone down because of the new supplemental deduction and moving several costs from property taxes to the state, not because of the caps. Neither the supplemental deduction nor the cost shifts are in the constitutional amendment.
It's claimed that the caps will help economic development. Our cities and towns are our traditional engines of economic development yet the caps are crushing them. Muncie has already laid off a third of our firefighters and only a "Christmas miracle" kept our streetlights on and our animal shelter open. Fully implemented, Muncie will lose even more revenue under the caps. Good for business? The Indiana Chamber of Commerce which opposes putting the caps into the constitution doesn't think so.
When we know so little about the effects of the caps, do we want to tie the hands of future legislators who will make decisions in a world that will be very different from ours? Amending Indiana's constitution is a very difficult, multi-year process. It is just as difficult and long a process to remove an amendment if it turns out to be a mistake.
Paid for by Friends of Sue Errington, Judith B
Source