21 comments

  1. I wonder if anyone has thought about “replacing” the “lost” revenue with an entirely different concept. Something radical like “less government.”

    That’s a crazy concept these days, I know.

  2. ugavi says:

    So we have the Lt. Gov. saying cut the income tax rate, the Speaker saying cut property taxes, and the Gov. sitting on the fence.

    Should be an interesting session.

  3. MSBassSinger says:

    Perhaps Gov. Perdue is learning. Jumping on what is politically hot can be dangerous if the concept is not thoroughly thought through. Look what happened with HB1059 – politically popular, especially with hysterical soccer moms and the husbands they control – but really bad law (that even law enforcement opposed) that protected no one, ran lots of innocent spouses and kids out of their homes and jobs, and contributed to the death of a kid in SE Georgia. Had the law been written by conservatives instead of RINOs looking for easy votes, we could have had a great law that worked.

    Changing Georgia’s tax laws to eradicate the immoral property tax and shift the burden to more people is a good idea. But it has to be thought through. Is confiscating income through taxation any more ethical than confiscating money through property taxes? Sales taxes are more broad based, and more sensible, but what effect does that have on commerce in Georgia’s many border counties where people can easily cross state lines to buy in a lower sales tax state? How do intrastate economics and commerce patterns differ from national ones that make a “Fair Tax” solution work nationally, but not for a state?

    Democrats will demagogue the issue because property and income taxes are their principle methods to control society. Conservatives want more freedom, less government. Whatever our legislature does, it needs to be intelligently and thoroughly thought through. That takes true conservatives, and after the HB1059 disaster, I fear we have far too many RINOs in the Ga legislature. I’d like to be proven wrong.

  4. Decaturguy says:

    The Governor knows that this is not about lowering taxes or less government. He knows this is nothing but a tranfer of power from local governments to the Speaker of the House.

  5. MSBassSinger says:

    >He knows this is nothing but a transfer of
    > power from local governments to the Speaker
    > of the House
    I’ve been hearing that Democrat talking point from the Democrats in my Sowega hometown for a while now.

    The local governments will still have control of how they spend the revenue – just not the opportunity to abuse the property tax system and put the homes of widows and retired people up for tax sales to those who have close relations with the local taxing authority.

  6. Decaturguy says:

    If it is a “Democrat talking point” then Democrats must be the majority party in this state because I’ve heard a lot of people who I thought were Republicans say essentially the same thing.

    Now lets get to your essential points.

    The local governments will still have control of how they spend the revenue

    Spend is the key word here. That might be true once they get the money. But they will have absolutely no control over how much money they get. That will be up to Mr. Big Government himself, the all powerful Speaker Glenn Richardson. How convenient, eh? Don’t you think Mr. Big Government is going to make local governments lobby him in order to be able spend money for particular local needs? Of course.

    Next.

    the opportunity to abuse the property tax system and put the homes of widows and retired people up for tax sales

    Right now retirees are given preferential treatment under the property tax system and pay a lower percentage of taxes than younger people. So instead, the GlennTax will tax these retirees on every doctor visit, every visit to see an accountant, or every visit to see a lawyer to do estate planning, etc. Retirees will pay more taxes under the GlenTax than they do now. Don’t just trust me, that is what Casey Cagle said the other day as well.

  7. StevePerkins says:

    The Governor knows that this is not about lowering taxes or less government. He knows this is nothing but a tranfer of power from local governments to the Speaker of the House.

    Huh? I thought it was mostly about shifting a portion of the tax burden away from (mostly Republican) homeowners, and onto (mostly Democratic) renters. I seriously doubt the Speaker’s agenda here is to wrestle control from county school boards so he can spend the rest of his career having to argue over Charles Darwin.

  8. midgajim says:

    Singer – I assume you’ve got an example of a local government “put(ting) the homes of widows and retired people up for tax sales to thsoe who have close relations with the local taxing authority?”

    And–if so–you believe this to be a wide-spread practice?

  9. Decaturguy says:

    MSBassSinger,

    Get a grip. Local governments may get to spend whatever money the all powerful, Mr. Big Government, Speaker Richardson, sends their way, but they will have absolutely no controlover raising money for local needs. No, they will have to lobby Mr. Big Government to prove they are worthy of any funds. This is a tranfer of local control over to the all powerful Speaker of the House. Nothing more. Nothing less. It doesn’t lower taxes. It doesn’t reduce the size of government. It doesn’t get rid of the income tax. It’s a power grab disguised as a tax cut.

    As for your point about seniors losing their homes. Right now seniors are given preferential tax treatment on property taxes and pay less than younger homeowners. The GlennTax would get rid of that and force seniors to pay taxes on every doctor visit, ever visit to their accountant, every visit to their lawyer for estate planning. It would probably even tax their funeral director’s services!

    Elderly homeowners would pay more taxes as a result of the GlennTax. Don’t just trust me, Lt. Governor Cagle said the same thing the other day.

  10. MSBassSinger says:

    > Elderly homeowners would pay more taxes as
    > a result of the GlennTax.
    Which is way I made it clear in earlier posts that the Legislature would have to think this through in order for it to work, which I expressed skepticism over.

    These RINOs, like Glenn Richardson, Jerry Keen, et al. haven’t shown us they can lead intelligently. I never said I supported Richardson’s tax scheme as it is. I would support a change in the tax state and local tax process that eliminates losing your home to property taxes and eliminates state and local income taxes. For example, why sell a person’s home if the tax isn’t paid? Instead, put a lien on it so that when the house is sold, the taxes are paid at closing.

  11. IndyInjun says:

    Lessee, the state would thereby cap local spending by local pols while continuing its own profligate ways funded by the income tax.

    It is like telling local officials “Hey, we are stopping your wild spending ways with this legislation, but it won’t affect US!

    Ironclad spending restraints are needed at state and local levels.

    To bad the electorate irresponsibly rewards the big spenders.

    Sometimes we just ought to look in a mirror when looking for whom to blame.

  12. AubieTurtle says:

    You must remember that when Sonny’s term is over, he either goes home to Bonaire or moves up in the political food chain (to DC). In either case, he’s no longer in state government so adding power there doesn’t help him any.

    If he becomes a member of Congress, he gets grief from his constituents about the bad folks in Atlanta taking away all of the goodies they use to be able to buy with their locally generated taxes. If he goes back to being a private citizen, he has to deal with people on the state level, many of who he has made angry, for anything he wants done in his local jurisdiction.

  13. Mad Dog says:

    Why would anyone want to reduce their personal purchasing power by 2 to 4 percent?

    The real political attraction for these sales tax plans is the loss of transparency.

    Are you going to save each sales receipt for each year, total those up and see how much or how little you have paid for local government?

    Currently, the costs of local government and your share of local government costs are very transparent.

    Hiding your local taxes in everyday items is a road to a bigger tax burden, less accountability for politicians, and a bigger central government.

    Speaker Richardson wants to be governor. And, when he’s governor, he wants to be as powerful in the state as he is in his home county.

    That man was long ago corrupted by power.

  14. GodHatesTrash says:

    Goobernor Sonny Purdoofuss ain’t goin’ nowhere on the national level.

    Dixie is now for the GOP like New England is for the Dems – the Dems balance their national ticket by making sure they have someone from Dixie on the ticket – every election since 1960 (except for the debacles of McGovern Eagleton in 1972 and Mondale-Ferraro in 1984, and in 1968 when you bigot southron yahoos voted for George Corley Wallace) they’ve had someone from the CSA on the ticket – LBJ in 1960, 1964, Carter in 1976, 1980 Bentsen in 1988, Clinton in 1992, 1996 Gore in 2000, Edwards in 2004.

    Look at the 2008 GOP candidates: Frontrunners are Guiliani, Romney, and Fred. Both Guiliani and Romney might be tempted to do some ticket balancing, but whatever they do, they are going to figure Georgia is in their column – face it – if they can’t get the yahoo vote in Georgia on their own, they are sunk.

    Perdue would only get them votes in Georgia, the more educated and civilized portions (which is pretty much all the rest of it) of the country ain’t gonna cotton too well to a moonfaced mushmouth, ‘ceptin’ those of y’all that are yellow dog GOPers anyway. Fred – he’s got the hillbilly/goober vote tied down – he’ll have to go Yankee to balance his ticket.

    Of course, President Fred might start hisself a Department of Peanuts and Cornlikker, then Sonny might get a cabinet post, if Zell turns Fred down…

Comments are closed.