Continued: New 1% Transfer tax proposal question

[NC YIPPIE]

Is it possible that the Land Transfer Tax will be a proactive way to stop another raising of our property taxes to pay for new schools and infrastructure?  As the Perquimans County Manager states, “We rely heavily on our Land Transfer funds for our school projects. We are able to make necessary capital improvements that would otherwise have to come from increased property tax.”

This is a continuation of the topic at http://chatham-county-nc.com/bulletinboard/index.php/topic,1961.0.html

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

Is it possible that the Land Transfer Tax will be a proactive way to stop another raising of our property taxes to pay for new schools and infrastructure?  As the Perquimans County Manager states, “We rely heavily on our Land Transfer funds for our school projects. We are able to make necessary capital improvements that would otherwise have to come from increased property tax.”

Is it possible that the tax increase is a way to avoid a tax increase?  No.

Yes, obviously government will rely on taxes. The obvious question is: Why are we like these Northern Coastal Counties, rather than like every other county in our region of the state, which do not use the Transfer Tax?

[Analyst]

Chr,
The real answer is the legislature allowed them the land transfer tax while the real estate and builder's lobbies were asleep.  Since that time in the late 1980's or early 90's that lobby has effectively blocked this tax option for other counties. 

However, this year since many counties are facing the high cost of schools and pressure to keep tax property taxes rates from going though the ceiling the legislature may pass additional taxing options for all counties and from what I have read this would include a land transfer tax. 

I would point out that Dare County which has a population of 34,000 and the land transfer tax spends substantially more on schools than Chatham has fewer students and has a property tax rate of 0.25.

Some persist in thinking that there is a magic solution to pay for cost of community services that come with residential growth when there is not. 

A

[WolfpackFan]

I reposted this in case you missed it Analyst:

Analyst, let try and see what we agree on, and what we disagree on.

1.  I haven't gone throught the rest of your links, but the previous ones all say the same thing.  Based on averages, residential development cost more in services than it produces in revenue, while farmland generated more in revenue than uses in services.

Do we at least agree that this is what they say?

2.  The COCC calculations that are generally used in these reports are inaccurate when applied to individual subdivisions, which is why they are based on averages over a given land mass.

Agree or disagree?

3.  One of the links says that some subdivisions pay more than they use while others use more than they generate.

Agree or disagree?

4.  No matter how much the houses cost in a subdivision, they will always use more services than they generate in revenue.

Agree or disagree?


I hope this can help us move toward some meaningful communication.

PS. I am all for someone like Keith Brown reading the links and commenting.  While I may disagree with him sometimes, he is able to articulate his thoughts on the board.

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

Analist,

Thanks. It is good to know who has helped block this tax increase on the state level.  I accept that you believe this is about schools and other infrastructure like police and fire and roads. However, the evidence suggest to me that this tax increase is desired(I originally typed needed, but switched it in deference to Keith B, LOL)  by our BOC so they can fund things like Multicultural Museums and other non-essential services. This is what people are talking about when they talk about prioritizing things. Let's first spend our money on what's important, like educating out children and running the fire department and sheriff's dept. Then, whatever is left over can be spent on lower priorities. 

I assume you and your family do that, same as me and my family.  We pay for Taxes, food, clothing, and Shelter. Then we think about whether we can afford entertainment.  Again, I would pose the question, why can't government prioritize and budget just like my family or any business? 

[keith_moon]

I am not herein supporting this museum you mention, but let's put it in perspective before we get our panties in a wad.

It's less than a tenth of one percent of the annual budget.

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

Yeah, like the old Senator said, "A million here and a million there and pretty soon your talking real money!"

[Keith_Brown]

Analist,

Thanks. It is good to know who has helped block this tax increase on the state level.  I accept that you believe this is about schools and other infrastructure like police and fire and roads. However, the evidence suggest to me that this tax increase is desired(I originally typed needed, but switched it in deference to Keith B, LOL)  by our BOC so they can fund things like Multicultural Museums and other non-essential services. This is what people are talking about when they talk about prioritizing things. Let's first spend our money on what's important, like educating out children and running the fire department and sheriff's dept. Then, whatever is left over can be spent on lower priorities. 

I assume you and your family do that, same as me and my family.  We pay for Taxes, food, clothing, and Shelter. Then we think about whether we can afford entertainment.  Again, I would pose the question, why can't government prioritize and budget just like my family or any business? 

 
   My reading of the article is that a group, represented by a former commissioner, presented a proposal to the current BoC at a meeting designed to elicit countywide input on the budget process.  The commissioners were interested in the proposal and said nice things.   

   We obviously cannot allow citizens proposing things that might possibly cost a minute fraction of the budget.  I propose a ban on all citizen input to the BoC if there is the remotest chance that it might lead to an expenditure.

   Has anyone here been incensed enough at this proposal to actually contact a commissioner and speak against it?  That would be an example of democracy in action, after all.  One group proposes, another opposes, input from both sides; a novel idea given the past 4 years, but who knows, it might just catch on.

[WolfpackFan]

Doesn't the article say that all of the CIP things were approved?  (I can't get the link to work right now)

Quote from the article:
"After the morning presentations, the commissioners voted unanimously to approve the county's fiscal and budgetary policies as well as the Capital Improvements Program."


I believe that the museum is a CIP because it will be over 50 grand, but I could be wrong and it is a separate thing.

[Keith_Brown]

Doesn't the article say that all of the CIP things were approved?  (I can't get the link to work right now)

Quote from the article:
"After the morning presentations, the commissioners voted unanimously to approve the county's fiscal and budgetary policies as well as the Capital Improvements Program."


I believe that the museum is a CIP because it will be over 50 grand, but I could be wrong and it is a separate thing.

http://www.heraldsun.com/chatham/13-807350.cfm

  My reading is that *current* CIPs were approved, but if the museum idea was only introduced Monday, I would think it would have to be on future proposals.  That should give plenty of time for those who are incensed to join in the process. 

[curlygirl]

CHF,

You are brilliant at conflating the facts, reductio ad absurd um tactics, and mischaracterizations. Maybe you will be our region's next Carl Rove.

#1.  The transfer tax is NOT an ad valorem tax increase, intangible asset tax nor personal property tax.  It is essentially a cost of doing business that will keep your tax rate static or lower it while bringing in far more revenue to the county and if structured properly its municipalities. 

#2    Comparing a few million dollars here and there to a simple request for $75,000 is silly.  The budget game in Washington is much different than a small county and the people you have proclaimed in past posts to admire greatly have been guilty of running up a tremendous deficit and debt. In fact it now stands at approximately $28,000 per US citizen.  Nice work by Dubya and the Hastert/Delay congress...

#3.   You mention essential services such as fire protection, police protection, etc.  Sprawl development  contributes greatly to stretching the budget.  A transfer tax will place the burden where it belongs and would be not be so problematic if impact fees were eliminated from the equation.

#4    The fire department would not be affected by any grant of money for a museum. Why? They have there own protected and guaranteed money every year from tax dollars.  Some simpleton like integrity ticket slammed JOCCA and if you had real cojones check into how these budgets are put together and how these dollars are spent.  Easy to attack the working poor, women and minorities---not so easy to question your volunteer fire departments....

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

CHF,

You are brilliant at conflating the facts, reductio ad absurdum tactics, and mischaracterizations. maybe you will be our region's next Carl Rove.

#1.  The transfer tax is NOT an ad valorem tax increase, intangible asset tax nor personal property tax.  It is essentially a cost of doing business that will keep your tax rate static or lower it while bringing in far more revenue to the county and if structured propery its municipalities. 

#2

Neither is it a zebra nor an elephant. What is the point of talking about what it is not??

What it IS is a TAX INCREASE.  Many of its backers will tell you that this WILL INCREASE REVENUE. It is NOT revenue neutral.  Therefore, it IS a tax increase by definition. 

It is based on actual property value, since the sale of a property is the only way to know actual value and this tax is due at the time of sale. Now, Curly, I clearly understand that this is being sold as a tax on OTHER PEOPLE. But that is deceptive, since costs always permeate a community. Also, this tax will effect current residents as much or more than those wishing to move to our community, since the tax is due from the seller, at least by my reading of the bill that was previously proposed and is referred to to be proposed again.  This will not be a tax on outsiders at all, but on Chatham County citizens. 

[curlygirl]

Since you are not a builder, developer, nor real estate professional why are you so dogged?

You would only be affected if you sold your home.  The tax is a cost of doing business and it is progressive.  A $150,000 new home pays $1,500 as opposed to the $2,900 currently collected in impact fees.  The pricier real estate will pay more and the least expensive will pay less.  The fee is tax deductible. 

Maybe your possible worries of hurting resales could be worked into the proposed bill.

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

CHF,

You are brilliant at conflating the facts, reductio ad absurdum tactics, and mischaracterizations. maybe you will be our region's next Carl Rove.

#1.  The transfer tax is NOT an ad valorem tax increase, intangible asset tax nor personal property tax.  It is essentially a cost of doing business that will keep your tax rate static or lower it while bringing in far more revenue to the county and if structured propery its municipalities. 

#2

Neither is it a zebra nor an elephant. What is the point of talking about what it is not??

What it IS is a TAX INCREASE.  Many of its backers will tell you that this WILL INCREASE REVENUE. It is NOT revenue neutral.  Therefore, it IS a tax increase by definition. 

It is based on actual property value, since the sale of a property is the only way to know actual value and this tax is due at the time of sale. It will be 1% of the sales price of the property.  Neither the current proposed bill, nor the resolution requesting it do away with impact fees, so this is in addition to them.  I believe one commissioner has now gone on record that they will not be additive, but that is not what is in writing.  Now, Curly, I clearly understand that this is being sold as a tax on OTHER PEOPLE. But that is deceptive, since costs always permeate a community. Also, this tax will effect current residents as much or more than those wishing to move to our community, since the tax is due from the seller, at least by my reading of the bill that was previously proposed and is referred to to be proposed again.  This will not be a tax on outsiders at all, but on Chatham County citizens. 

People think this is going to raise millions.  Just who do they think it will raise that money from, if not from people and their families? 

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

Since you are not a builder, developer, nor real estate professional why are you so dogged?

You would only be affected if you sold your home.  The tax is a cost of doing business and it is progressive.  A $150,000 new home pays $1,500 as opposed to the $2,900 currently collected in impact fees.  The pricier real estate will pay more and the least expensive will pay less.  The fee is tax deductible. 

Maybe your possible worries of hurting resales could be worked into the proposed bill.

It will effect me when I sell my home. Most of my savings, like many working Americans is in the value of my home. It is an asset that I should be able to use for my retirement or to leave to my kids.  The current proposal does not protect me or other Chatham County citizens. 

I guess I would have to ask you why YOU are NOT concerned about this? Are you really that wealthy?

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else