Sen. Harsdorf Gives In To Borderwhiners - Adopts New Logo



S. Lumber said...

Shelia can't win with her pals at OTBL. She damned if she does and damned if she don't.

I think her idea of moving the tech school funding to the state tax rolls is a good idea. Granted it requires tax funding, but it can move it to the income tax rolls -- making it more of a progressive tax -- and remove it from the property tax rolls -- which is a regressive tax.

As some of the recent posts on this blog site show, the OTBL'ers want education removed from the tax roles entirely. Or do they want lower property tax? Or is the economy doing good? Or is the economy doing bad? It's hard to tell from sludge they are currently posting.

Anonymous said...

Please explain a "progressive" tax vs. a "regressive" tax, and why the change would be good. Using the words is meaningless if you don't state the reasoning behind the statement.

JPN said...

"Progressive" taxes are those were the percentage you are taxed increases as your income increase. The more you make, the larger the percentage you take. Income taxes, on the face, fall into this category.

"Proportional" taxes mean the same percentage is taken regardless of the income level. Social security taxes are proportional until you reach the maximum income level around $80,000. After that point you are not longer taxed. If the SS tax is 7.0 percent, you pay that percentage from $1 to $80,000. At $80K you would have paid $5,600. If you make $500,000, you would have only paid 1.12 percent in taxes (5600/500000.

"Regressive" taxes are those where the more you make the smaller the percentage they take. Besides SS taxes, property taxes are regressive for people on a fixed income. When property taxes rise and you income is fixed, the percentage you pay increases.

Anonymous said...

You say that property taxes don't rise with income. Property taxes are a tax on the property that a person owns, and have nothing to do with income (except that a person with higer income is more likely to have property with higher value).

It isn't a "regressive" tax - it is a tax that is evenly applied to property owners based on property value, regardless of their income.

So why would moving tech school funding to the state income tax be better?

jpn said...

Moving tech school funding to the state roles would reduce the local property tax burden. Whether this is good or bad is a philosophical value judgement. My friends at the OTBL blog site say all taxes are pretty much bad.

I say shifting tech school funding to the state tax roles moves the financing to a more liquid from of tax source, i.e., personal income. It also moves it to a more progressive source of taxing. It also reduces the local burden on elderly who may have spend decades in their home but a facing increasing financial stress from rising property taxes and a fixed income with increasing demands from health care and medical costs.

Property values are a not as liquid as income. To get the value out of you house, you have to sell it...or borrow money on it via an equity loan.

Maybe I'm am just being sentimental to the elderly. In a liaise-fare economy advocated by the OTBL bloggers, the elderly would either pony up their tax bill with their assets (income, savings, insurance, etc.) or sell their homes and move on to some part of the country more conducive to their personal assets.

Of maybe we only put the burden of funding public education on the users of the system? If you don't have kids in school, you don't pay for any of the schooling. If corporate America needs an educated workforce to keep its stock value climbing, they can kick into the financing of public education at all levels.

The same goes for public roads. Why should I pay for state highways around Platteville when I never been there in my life and don't plan to go there?