It’s barely been a full month since the NC Legislature convened, and many of the politicians are filing bills for new taxes. Representative Michaux of Durham recently filed a bill that would allow for a menu of home taxes (including a tax on the transfer of land, homes, a sales tax, and a meals tax). That’s right—a menu of taxes. They want local officials to have lots of options to tax their constituents. It’s a smorgasbord for tax-hungry politicians—and you get to pay the tab.
This menu of taxes is a bad idea because it primarily singles out first time homeowners, seniors, and young working families who own a home or property. We don’t need to tax the American Dream. A home tax is counterproductive and punishes folks for hard work and success.
The legislature and local governments “claim” they need to raise more money. Assuming this is true, punishing homeowners is the wrong way.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Enough with the scare tactics already. Authority for a menu of options is a way for local governments to decide along with their taxpayers the most appropriate way to pay for services in a timely manner within their jurisdiction. It’s about choice, not loading up at the buffet.
In high growth counties the burdens of the immediate needs of growth have fallen disproportionately on existing payers of property and sales tax. Counties with low or negative growth, and low wealth like Bertie and Hyde are hamstrung by reliance on property and sales taxes and can’t even fully fund basic services, let alone growth.
Some counties already have some of these options. All counties should have all these options available in order to match the tool to the task. We are already paying the tab in property taxes and sales tax and taxpayers are tired of drawing from the same well.
It’s time that the State stopped micro-managing our neighborhoods from Jones Street and allowed local governments to meet the needs of taxpayers with revenue streams most appropriate to their circumstances.
Property tax and sales tax are the claw hammer and flat-head screwdriver of revenue streams. They’ll always be needed but we need some more sophisticated tools on hand to match a variety of jobs.
Once again, the politicians are looking to the citizens to pay for their inability to control their spending habits. We should call this bill the “credit card” legislation. Transfer taxes, impact taxes, income taxes, etc…. The way to grow government is to grow the economy. It is that simple. Taking money out of the economy will only make society less productive. Government does not creat wealth for its citizens, it keeps its citizens from creating wealth.
Once again, the politicians are looking to the citizens to pay for their inability to control their spending habits. We should call this bill the “credit card” legislation. Transfer taxes, impact taxes, income taxes, etc…. The way to grow government is to grow the economy. It is that simple. Taking money out of the economy will only make society less productive. Government does not create wealth for its citizens, it keeps its citizens from creating wealth.
Gregg,
Have you been to California lately? Average impact fees and transfer taxes are around $50,000 per home. New home taxes are not as “sophisticated” as you think. I don’t want our state’s high growth areas to end up with the CA way of raising funds where only the wealthy can afford a decent home.
Hey, Chris, go back and read Greg’s opening line — he said “Enough with the scare tactics already”. Your ridiculous comparison to California can be nothing else.
Once again, the development/builder lobby is looking to the citizens to subsidize their profits. Don’t be fooled by the whining about taxes; they *DO* like some of the taxes on the menu, such as a sales tax, because everyone pays that, which continues the taxpayer subsidy. They don’t object to taxes, and they don’t really object to the menu of taxes, they object to some of the items on that menu.
So, Chris, how again are all of us picking up the tab for, say, a land transfer tax? And how do you propose paying for new school construction? So far you’ve advocated property tax increases (bonds), a sales tax increase and you’ve offered the PPP diversion.
Seems to me that your way is the way where we all pick up the tab.
In all of this debate on if growth pays for itself and if the municipalities should have a menu of choices for taxaation, There are two things that can be done to generate more tax revenue, without raising taxes.
1. Reassessment of property every 2 to 4 years rather than every 8 years. New construction has to be devalued every year back to the base year. the means a home built in year one of reassessment is assessed at full value. A home built in year 7 has to be devalued back 7 years to year one values. If we reassessed every 2 to 4 years the most the devaluation would be would be 3 years, thus you gain revenue on the last 4 years. The same holds true for exinsting home that appreciate in value and then are devalued back to the base year. There seems to be some discussions on this finally. Property owners would not be hit with these large changes in values all at one time. In other states they also allow for the reassessment of propery upon resale. Who can argue that you should be paying taxes on your new home, no matter if it is a new or an existing home at the value that you paid for it.
2. New construction is valued at its stage of construction as of January 1 of each year. If that lot is empty on January 1, it is asseessed that whole year as a vacant lot. If a house is built on that lot and sold on July 1 of the same year. The home owner escrows for taxes based on the value of the home, but pays the taxes at the end of the year on an empty lot. Therefore they have over paid their escrow account for their taxes and get a refund back. Two things happen. the municipality does not collect any taxes on the improved value of the land for the first year and the homeowner, gets a refund the first year and their taxes are then adjusted to what they paid in the previous year. So at the end of the second year they have a shortage in their escrow account to pay the taxes, so in the the third year they must make up the shortfall, plus have the taxes adjusted back to what they should have escrowed in the first place. Millions of dollars in taxes could be collected, if they just changed the law to allow for the taxes to be adjusted to the full value of the house for the balance of that tax year. The homeowner is escrowing the taxes, so it is not additional cost to them and the county and local governments collect on the full value of the house for the remainer of the year.
For example, For example if there was a $1,000 per house left on the table and there are 12,000 new homes sold in Wake County each year, that is 12 million dollars in additional revenues that are being escrowed and not paid.
Jim W.
Re-evaluation occurs every 1 - 2 years in our Virginia town. True, it’s a shock since valuations increased 20% in one year, but it’s still fair and fewer strange fees to trip across. I understand re-evaluation.
Larry K.
Facts should not be viewed as scare tactics, even though the facts are pretty scary indeed.
Looking to California, who led the way on exactly the kinds of taxes being proposed here makes perfect sense. It is where we will end up if we keep going down this road.
You must log in to post a comment.