Chlorophyll

Who do you suggest I vote for, if I believe that economics is the basis of politics and a Green candidate with a libertarian economic outlook runs against a status quo Democrat?

Marakay Rogers, the green candidate for Governor from York County, PA "opposes the state property tax" in the second point on her agenda:
http://www.geocities.com/mjr91/RogersforAG.html

In an email to me, Mrs Rogers repeated her position, even suggesting that property taxes were unconstitutional. (The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the property tax is constitutional ten years ago.)

Green Party candidate Ed Gately, running for the state Senate's 28th District appears to agree: "We have a growing population. The value of our properties are skyrocketing. People are finding it difficult."

Property tax must go, candidates say
York County Taxpayers Council held a Candidates Night at Penn State York
http://www.ydr.com/politics/ci_4416621

==========================================
Yet Greens in Wisconsin are fighting Republicans' efforts to freeze the property tax. What do you think?

Greens Oppose Property Tax Freeze Proposed by Republicans
http://wisconsingreenparty.org/blogs/WIGPnews/archives/000129.shtml

The Irish Green Party's Manifesto (1989) states, "The land tax, used together with energy and other ('sin') taxes (and user fees) as a source of funding of guaranteed basic income, is a means of ensuring that everyone shares in the wealth of the land by virtue of citizenship."

Giving Life to the Property Tax Shift (PTS) by Jeffery J. Smith and Kris Nelson of The Geonomy Society
( The article appears to support a "shift" and an increase in the tax to make it more progressive, arguing from a Green perspective )
http://www.progress.org/geonomy/rppaper.html

Personally, I believe that the government should reform the current property tax, steeply grading it and exempting modest owner-occupied houses and farming homesteads.

It would heavily tax the richest 1% of our population who own 40% of the nation's wealth. Destroying the property tax would only cause the richest 1% to massively invest in real estate to avoid taxes in other markets.

The following articles discuss reforming property taxes to meet progressive needs, not destroying them as wealthy conservatives want.

Rakovsky

==================================

The Property Tax is a Progressive Tax
by M. Mason Gaffney
Proceedings of the Sixty-Fourth Annual Conference on Taxation,
sponsored by the National Tax Association, 1971
http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Gaffney_PTiaPT.html

==================================
Property Tax Homestead Exemptions
www.itepnet.org/pb12home.pdf

=======================================

Cracking the Property Tax Nut

The property tax debate has long been a tough nut to crack for progressives. Especially since the 1990s, when it became the rage for rightwing legislators to cut spending at the state level, leaving county and local governments with few options other than raising property taxes to address shortfalls for key services like education.

The worst part is that these tax shifts increased property taxes, which already tend to be regressive in nature. By shifting the taxes to a regressive system that can also witness wild fluctuations during housing booms, conservatives primed the pump for property tax revolts that would leave key services underfunded.

Fortunately, progressives have a shining example in Montana of how to deal with the issue without sacrificing progressive values.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has introduced an outstanding property tax rebate that addresses the property tax question through a progressive rebate system that also ensures long-term fiscal health. Read all about it in today's Stateside Dispatch [discussed in the next article below], as well as a few other policies that can be used to prevent property tax revolts by addressing the root problems that property tax systems face: the regressive nature of property taxes; the instability of property values; and the impact of shifting an increased tax burden on to residential property owners.

=======================================

Property Tax Relief for Regular Folks, Not Paris Hilton by David Sirota

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) is once again putting his populist economic agenda into action, this time introducing a major property tax relief plan that shows how progressives can redefine the entire tax debate.

Chuck Johnson, the dean of the Montana press corps, reports that Schweitzer's plan promises "$100 million in one-time property tax relief - $400 a piece for all 250,000 Montana households" and it "figures to be a cornerstone of Democratic legislative candidates' pledges." Check out the details - and how the property tax relief is targeted at the vast majority of Montanans, rather than the GOP plan to give away most tax relief to the wealthy and big out-of-state corporations:

"The Schweitzer plan, part of his new Square Deal, provides no tax relief for second homes owned by Montanans or recreation homes owned here by out-of-staters. It would give no tax relief to businesses or corporations, which he said had reaped millions of dollars in tax relief under Republicans. 'This is by far the largest rebate in Montana history,' Schweitzer said in Billings. 'This dwarfs what the Republicans do.' He poked holes in the Republican plan, saying it would shortchange Montana homeowners while dispatching millions of dollars in tax relief to out-of-state corporations such as PPL and BNSF Railway.

Schweitzer said the GOP plan would cut statewide tax mills permanently for all classes of property -- residential, agricultural, business and industrial. His, in contrast, is aimed squarely at homeowners."

Schweitzer also notes that consevatives' so-called "Stop Over Spending" ballot initiative (a euphemism for so-called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" legislation that has created disaster in other states) would actually bar his tax cuts:

"Schweitzer used his rebate plan as a tool in the fight against Constitutional Initiative 97. The measure would cap state spending at no more than the combined increase in inflation and population. Schweitzer said CI-97 would stop the $400 check per household from being delivered. The initiative would require any rebates to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to all taxpayers across all classes, based on how much they paid. If CI-97 passes and Schweitzer's rebate plan passes, instead of every homeowner receiving an identical $400 check, Revenue Director Dan Bucks said the owner of a $100,000 home would get only $123, while the owner of $1 million home would collect $1,234.

Out-of-staters with trophy homes here would share in the rebates, as would businesses and corporations."

In its editorial supporting Schweitzer's plan, the Helena Independent Record points out exactly how the governor's ideas contrast with Montana Republicans' efforts to simply fork over more hard-earned taxpayer cash to the wealthy:

"An 8-percent cut on all classifications of property taxes proposed by some Republicans last week would net the owner of a $100,000 house just $88, compared to $400 under Schweitzer's plan. But to the out-of-state owner of a $1 million vacation home, the GOP's plan would fork over $887 (the California owner of an actual $16,263,247 home in Flathead County would get $14,263). Likewise, such a property tax cut for PPL Montana would send $1,793,839 to the company's headquarters in Pennsylvania. Not exactly a boon to our state's economy."

So there you have it, folks - that's the contrast between Montana conservatives and Montana progressives. The former is openly trying to give away more of our state's wealth to already-wealthy out-of-state corporations and individuals (think zillionaires like Paris Hilton), while feeding the rest of us crumbs. Meanwhile, the latter is working to provide real property tax relief to the vast majority of in-state residents in a fiscally responsible way.

Who do you suggest I vote for, if I believe that economics is the basis of politics and a Green candidate with a libertarian economic outlook runs against a status quo Democrat?

Marakay Rogers, the green candidate for Governor from York County, PA "opposes the state property tax" in the second point on her agenda:
http://www.geocities.com/mjr91/RogersforAG.html

In an email to me, Mrs Rogers repeated her position, even suggesting that property taxes were unconstitutional. (The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the property tax is constitutional ten years ago.)

Green Party candidate Ed Gately, running for the state Senate's 28th District appears to agree: "We have a growing population. The value of our properties are skyrocketing. People are finding it difficult."

Property tax must go, candidates say
York County Taxpayers Council held a Candidates Night at Penn State York
http://www.ydr.com/politics/ci_4416621

==========================================
Yet Greens in Wisconsin are fighting Republicans' efforts to freeze the property tax. What do you think?

Greens Oppose Property Tax Freeze Proposed by Republicans
http://wisconsingreenparty.org/blogs/WIGPnews/archives/000129.shtml

The Irish Green Party's Manifesto (1989) states, "The land tax, used together with energy and other ('sin') taxes (and user fees) as a source of funding of guaranteed basic income, is a means of ensuring that everyone shares in the wealth of the land by virtue of citizenship."

Giving Life to the Property Tax Shift (PTS) by Jeffery J. Smith and Kris Nelson of The Geonomy Society
( The article appears to support a "shift" and an increase in the tax to make it more progressive, arguing from a Green perspective )
http://www.progress.org/geonomy/rppaper.html

Personally, I believe that the government should reform the current property tax, steeply grading it and exempting modest owner-occupied houses and farming homesteads.

It would heavily tax the richest 1% of our population who own 40% of the nation's wealth. Destroying the property tax would only cause the richest 1% to massively invest in real estate to avoid taxes in other markets.

The following articles discuss reforming property taxes to meet progressive needs, not destroying them as wealthy conservatives want.

Rakovsky

==================================

The Property Tax is a Progressive Tax
by M. Mason Gaffney
Proceedings of the Sixty-Fourth Annual Conference on Taxation,
sponsored by the National Tax Association, 1971
http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Gaffney_PTiaPT.html

==================================
Property Tax Homestead Exemptions
www.itepnet.org/pb12home.pdf

=======================================

Cracking the Property Tax Nut

The property tax debate has long been a tough nut to crack for progressives. Especially since the 1990s, when it became the rage for rightwing legislators to cut spending at the state level, leaving county and local governments with few options other than raising property taxes to address shortfalls for key services like education.

The worst part is that these tax shifts increased property taxes, which already tend to be regressive in nature. By shifting the taxes to a regressive system that can also witness wild fluctuations during housing booms, conservatives primed the pump for property tax revolts that would leave key services underfunded.

Fortunately, progressives have a shining example in Montana of how to deal with the issue without sacrificing progressive values.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has introduced an outstanding property tax rebate that addresses the property tax question through a progressive rebate system that also ensures long-term fiscal health. Read all about it in today's Stateside Dispatch [discussed in the next article below], as well as a few other policies that can be used to prevent property tax revolts by addressing the root problems that property tax systems face: the regressive nature of property taxes; the instability of property values; and the impact of shifting an increased tax burden on to residential property owners.

=======================================

Property Tax Relief for Regular Folks, Not Paris Hilton by David Sirota

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) is once again putting his populist economic agenda into action, this time introducing a major property tax relief plan that shows how progressives can redefine the entire tax debate.

Chuck Johnson, the dean of the Montana press corps, reports that Schweitzer's plan promises "$100 million in one-time property tax relief - $400 a piece for all 250,000 Montana households" and it "figures to be a cornerstone of Democratic legislative candidates' pledges." Check out the details - and how the property tax relief is targeted at the vast majority of Montanans, rather than the GOP plan to give away most tax relief to the wealthy and big out-of-state corporations:

"The Schweitzer plan, part of his new Square Deal, provides no tax relief for second homes owned by Montanans or recreation homes owned here by out-of-staters. It would give no tax relief to businesses or corporations, which he said had reaped millions of dollars in tax relief under Republicans. 'This is by far the largest rebate in Montana history,' Schweitzer said in Billings. 'This dwarfs what the Republicans do.' He poked holes in the Republican plan, saying it would shortchange Montana homeowners while dispatching millions of dollars in tax relief to out-of-state corporations such as PPL and BNSF Railway.

Schweitzer said the GOP plan would cut statewide tax mills permanently for all classes of property -- residential, agricultural, business and industrial. His, in contrast, is aimed squarely at homeowners."

Schweitzer also notes that consevatives' so-called "Stop Over Spending" ballot initiative (a euphemism for so-called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" legislation that has created disaster in other states) would actually bar his tax cuts:

"Schweitzer used his rebate plan as a tool in the fight against Constitutional Initiative 97. The measure would cap state spending at no more than the combined increase in inflation and population. Schweitzer said CI-97 would stop the $400 check per household from being delivered. The initiative would require any rebates to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to all taxpayers across all classes, based on how much they paid. If CI-97 passes and Schweitzer's rebate plan passes, instead of every homeowner receiving an identical $400 check, Revenue Director Dan Bucks said the owner of a $100,000 home would get only $123, while the owner of $1 million home would collect $1,234.

Out-of-staters with trophy homes here would share in the rebates, as would businesses and corporations."

In its editorial supporting Schweitzer's plan, the Helena Independent Record points out exactly how the governor's ideas contrast with Montana Republicans' efforts to simply fork over more hard-earned taxpayer cash to the wealthy:

"An 8-percent cut on all classifications of property taxes proposed by some Republicans last week would net the owner of a $100,000 house just $88, compared to $400 under Schweitzer's plan. But to the out-of-state owner of a $1 million vacation home, the GOP's plan would fork over $887 (the California owner of an actual $16,263,247 home in Flathead County would get $14,263). Likewise, such a property tax cut for PPL Montana would send $1,793,839 to the company's headquarters in Pennsylvania. Not exactly a boon to our state's economy."

So there you have it, folks - that's the contrast between Montana conservatives and Montana progressives. The former is openly trying to give away more of our state's wealth to already-wealthy out-of-state corporations and individuals (think zillionaires like Paris Hilton), while feeding the rest of us crumbs. Meanwhile, the latter is working to provide real property tax relief to the vast majority of in-state residents in a fiscally responsible way.

rakovsky, post things like this as articles!

I live in Wisconsin. The page you cited is correct as far as it goes, but it speaks of a property tax in isolation. A better idea is what Nelson Eisman, the Wisconsin Green Party's gubernatorial candidate, wants: shift the property tax into the income tax. This would be limted to the state share of the property tax, not local, and would only apply to one's primary residence.

This would do a lot of good for folks who are retired and/or living on a fixed income. Over all, it would have the effect of shifting the tax burden upwards, which I find appropriate.