Freezing Taxes

From the Senate:

Senate President Pro Tempore Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) pre-filed legislation today to create a Constitutional Amendment that would freeze existing residential property taxes.


  1. Romegaguy says:

    Now they want to tax us when the temperature drops below 32 F. If only Paul Broun was sworn in, he could save us!!!

  2. EAVDad says:

    It has to come with a promise from the legislature though — they will freeze legislation that costs money.

  3. jrgarland says:

    I’m all for it. This proposal sounds very much like one I had back in 2006, when I ran for the Athens-Clarke County Commission. Scroll down to

  4. Chris says:

    There are two property tax abuses that need to be addressed. The first the the county explicitly raising the millage rate. The second is them reapraising the value of the property.

    Most of the abuse comes in the second form. I sounds like Sen. Johnson’s plan will address both abuses, but without a link to the legislation I can’t say for sure.

    Either way, Kudos to Eric Johnson for the proposal.

  5. Chris says:

    Heh, if it weren’t for the speaker’s plan the GMA would be sharpening the knives to go after Johnson. Now his proposal sounds like a middle ground approach.

  6. I wonder what businesses (who don’t have homestead exemptions for their property) will think of this? In essence the counties can raise the rate on homeowners (ie voters) as high as they want because they’ll never pay the increases.

  7. Burdell says:

    The Senate has been under Republican control for 5 years and they’re just now getting around to doing this?

    Sorry, but I’m not impressed.

  8. bowersville says:

    I wonder if the sliding homestead exemption will be retroactive to the original purchase price.

    If it’s not, it leaves the door open for a very large increase after reassessment before the law takes takes affect.

  9. Rpolitic says:

    With all due respect to the Senator this has been done for years by local legislation. Most Cobb cities as well as the county have had it, cherokee begged for it but the legislative delegation blocked 4 years ago, the alpharetta city council ran from the idea because they didn’t have the stones to raise taxes directly but it has been around for quite some time.

  10. Konop, it helps restrict the flow of revenue and forces a raise of hands for tax increase.

    Burdell, the Senate passed it 4 years ago, after GOP control, but Dem House killed it.

    Rpolitic, Chatham was the first (not counting Columbus who has a 20+ year old constitutional freeze in place. Two dozen local counties have adopted it after Chatham, but many like Fulton and Cherokee have refused. This grandfathers the older version so they don’t get a hike.

  11. NonPartisanGA says:

    Any tax cuts we get at the state level will be offset by the “Global Warming” taxes imposed by the UN.

    The only question is will we dillute our national sovereinty first by signing the dreaded “Law of the Seas Treaty” moving forward again in congress now that Ronald Regan was smart enough to reject:

    Beware the Law of the Seas Treaty
    by Carolina Mendoza
    November 27, 2007 02:00 PM EST

    For over 200 years, American vessels have had the freedom of the seas. This month the Senate of the United States is considering turning this boundless freedom over to the control and ownership of the United Nations as they attempt to ratify the Law of the Seas Treaty (LOST). LOST is the largest United Nations power grab the world has ever seen, with control of over 70% of the earth

  12. Still Looking says:

    One of Sen Johnson basis for introducing this legislation is homeowners “ability to pay is not tied to the tax”. While that is not entirely true since the value of property is an indication of wealth, the Senator implies he is in favor of the progressive income tax, which is the tax most closely associated with the ability to pay. Should local governments be given the power to tax income? Should the State adopt a more progressive scale that taxes higher income residents at a higher rate?

  13. bowersville says:

    The base question remains despite all comments, is the property owners homeowners’ tax based on the original purchase price in 1931 or 1951 or the reassessed value of 2007?

  14. DavidAtlanta says:

    I’m not sure I like this. I fear unintended consequences.

    For one, it makes the bulk of homeowners immune from tax increases, which makes them less likely to object to higher taxes.

    New homeowners, many of whom are younger than long-term residents, will end up paying more than their fair share of the tax burden.

    Another concern I have is the impact that this would have on home values. A looming tax increase will depress home resale values.

  15. Bull Moose says:

    Good going Eric! I like your proposal more so than the others out there! Only one question, would you consider expanding it to include any and all property owned by instate residents that may or may not be owner occupied?

    This way, it does shift the higher taxes onto investors and the like.

  16. dogface says:

    Senator Johnson, clearly a good idea. Kudos. But what about the small biz guy? Counties would be limited in how much they could raise property taxes on homeowners, but if they sought additional $$$, they would make up the need/desire on business … on small business, which probably lives as hand-to-mouth as a I do! Shouldn’t the freeze apply across the board? If not, I think many small businesses will be put out of business by money-grabbing local taxers.

  17. John Konop says:

    Senator Eric Johnson

    In all due respect Senator Johnson but the game of shifting taxes is what we have seen in the past. All I am saying is like businesses tie the tax burden to what you spend tax payer

  18. StevePerkins says:

    Is there a “spending freeze” written on the flip-side of that cocktail napkin, or will the government just have to raise taxes elsewhere to compensate? You “tax reform” enthusiasts baffle me… getting terribly excited over a zero-sum game with no net benefit to you.

  19. Burdell says:

    Sen. Johnson, glad to see it came up sooner. This still begs the question, why has it not come up in the three years since when the House has be Republican as well?

    If you didn’t think the House would be amiable to the the bill then, what has changed?

    Don’t get me wrong, I hope something like this passes, but I feel frustrated at the seemingly arbitrary timing and time wasted waiting on this kind of legislation.

  20. Tommy_a2b says:

    To all the posters here worried about a lack of tax revenue do to this legislation, keep in mind that people move on average once every 5 years.

  21. John Konop says:


    I am old school tie revenue to expenses. Zero base budgeting! I was trained by very high net worth businessman. They had a simple instructions when I did deals if we cannot understand how we make money on the back of a napkin do not do the deal. Always tie what you spend to what you make. Call it simple and stupid but it has worked for my career in business.

    I do not understand why you would not want this from our office holders. It is our money not theirs!

  22. Tommy_a2b says:

    It is our money but it is also suppose to be our land. When older ladies are forced to sell their family lands inorder to pay the taxes it is a crime the every elected official should feel guilty about.

  23. John Konop says:


    You can make that argument about any tax. What happens if you do not pay the State income tax? The issue is what are we paying and what are we getting. And do the office holders take care of our tax dollars and spend it wisely.

  24. Still Looking says:

    If high property taxes are such a big issue, why aren’t there candidates for local government running on this issue? Problem solved.

Comments are closed.