Comments on: Lunsford on the GlennTax

By: Jason Pye

Jason Pye — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:51:17 +0000

Actually, I agree with his points about the tax plan, at least as far as consolidation of power.

By: eburke

eburke — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:45:12 +0000

I tend to agree with Decaturguy:

“The only difference will be that tax collection and distribution of revenues will now be centralized in an all powerful big state government (particularly in the hands of the Speaker) rather than local government, where the elected officials are more accountable to the voters. That, if find, unacceptable.”

Is this Tax Reform or Consolidation of Power in the hands of the General Assembly? I would like to see real reform. I am very afraid of this power grab by the State Government.

By: dorian

dorian — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:08:10 +0000

Yea, jsm, kinda like the ideology and principles of local control and decentralization which many support significantly more than whether or not people pay property taxes. Coincidentally, these are the same principles our founding fathers had. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.

By: jsm

jsm — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:05:54 +0000

Glad to know that ideology and principle mean nothing to some of you.

By: Decaturguy

Decaturguy — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:46:28 +0000

Final point from me. Even Speaker Richardson says that his plan is going to generate the same amount of revenue as the current tax structure (although I find that argument flawed since it will be much easier to avoid taxes under his system). So that means that the tax burden on the public will be the same. His plan does not lower the overall tax burden.

The only difference will be that tax collection and distribution of revenues will now be centralized in an all powerful big state government (particularly in the hands of the Speaker) rather than local government, where the elected officials are more accountable to the voters. That, if find, unacceptable.

By: jaybird

jaybird — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:14:15 +0000

Question:

How does eliminating property taxes impact CID’s and TAD’s, both of which relay on taxing properties? Both of these are being used by local governments to promote economic growth such as the Beltline.

By: dorian

dorian — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:45:24 +0000

For example, the doctrine of “parens patriae” I find much more objectionable.

By: Jason Pye

Jason Pye — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:21:59 +0000

I’ve felt that way about property taxes for a long time. There is something fundamentally wrong with taxing someone’s property.

That said, I don’t support the Speaker’s plan.

By: dorian

dorian — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:14:56 +0000

You know, of all the things that the government does to find objectionable, it is a sad, sorry, state of affairs to draw your line in the sand over property taxes. Congrats on being a lemming in Glenn’s demagogue delusion. Try not to push the rest of us over the cliff with you.

By: Jason Pye

Jason Pye — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:50:05 +0000

Again, it is the principle of the issue. Who owns the land?

By: Decaturguy

Decaturguy — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:14:44 +0000

Again, Jason, someone who so blindly follows an ideology that they would take a $198,000 loss over ideology might be principled, but they are also very, very stupid.

By: Jason Pye

Jason Pye — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:49:53 +0000

I’m not the biggest fan of this proposal, but I like that debate that is ensuing around it.

Who else would let a fully paid off $200,000 house be seized by the government for non-payment of a $2,000 tax bill? A stupid person.

No, that is a principled person.

Property taxes are a sham and you do have to ask yourself who owns the property, you or the government?

By: In the loop

In the loop — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:39:57 +0000

Um, I’m pretty sure property taxes pre-date Marx. By several thousand years.

By: Decaturguy

Decaturguy — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:18:55 +0000

Glad to know that this is all about ideology rather than being about the best way to raise revenue for government services. And, yes, in this case, jsm, you are trying to protect stupid people from themselves? Who else would let a fully paid off $200,000 house be seized by the government for non-payment of a $2,000 tax bill? A stupid person.

By: jsm

jsm — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:49:40 +0000

grift, somehow I don’t think Marx came up with the idea of “promot[ing] the general welfare.” His ideology had more to do with how these services are funded and controlled. Nice try, though.

By: Painterman

Painterman — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:37:11 +0000

While the “GREAT” plan seems to generally criticized here and other political blog spots, I’m hearing from a lot of non political types, at work, grocery store, neighbors, acquaintances, who know I keep up with political issues, and all are asking me questions about the plan and if they will have a chance to vote on it. The “Average Joe”, at least those in my area, is very tired of property taxes, and is chomping at the bit for a chance to replace it with something like this.

By: midgajim

midgajim — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:35:31 +0000

Hey, Comma: you mean that legislators take their WIVES to dinner during the session?!

By: griftdrift

griftdrift — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:29:50 +0000

jsm, maybe you should disconnect the Marxist sewer and waterlines. Oh and if you ever sell don’t forget to give back any gains caused by the Marxist schools and Marxist roads that created an opportunity for your property to be sold at a higher value.

By: jsm

jsm — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:17:35 +0000

You’re missing the point, decatur. Owning something means you don’t have to pay for it anymore. Under current law, I have to pay the government every year for the privilege of continuing to occupy my property. My government even has bonds that are backed by their right to take away my property. Do you not see a problem with that? Property tax is based on Marxist ideology.

BTW, conservatives are not the group known for trying to “protect morons from themselves.”

By: Donkey Kong

Donkey Kong — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:20:21 +0000

Dingle,

That just makes Bull bipartisan!