Chances of Eliminating or capping the Property Tax in Maine?

Eliminate? Not a chance.

Cap? It's at least plausible.

They tried this in California and see where it got them. Until you find a way to limit politicians to making rules that conform to the limits prescribed by the constitutions they take an oath to uphold they will continue to steal your money to give them the power to perpetuate it. Government has morphed into the thief that we hired them to protect us from.

I'd love to see it, but you have to remember TABOR. TABOR had only very, very moderate caps on taxes, and yet the liberals went around screaming that police, fire, and snow plowing would be eliminated and children would freeze in the classroom. It lost by more than 10 points - twice. You can't help people that don't want to be helped. The best approach is to get people in office that will reduce taxes, much like the state senate recently voted to do.

Interesting that fiscal issues, all by themselves, don't do so well at the polls.

I would say the chances are slim and none, unless we find oil or natural gas etc.

The linked article and another I saw this morning would have us believe that the bill won't pass but there's always hope. I think genuine prosperity and near full employment are two considerations that give it a fighting chance. Maine has a long way to go to get anywhere near either.

Islander: If someone did find gas or oil in Maine the government would find a way to prevent its exploitation. They are already working on banning fracing.

That's fracking. (Couldn't help it!)

There is a new procedure being developed that will use a jelly like substance made from LP gas and will in all likelyhood stop the use of water for fracking completely.
Time will tell.

Fracking is already being used in Maine for wells, leech fields etc. but if it were to be used for cheap energy then yes you can bet the progressives would shut it down, just look at what they have done to hydro power.

California passed Prop 13 in 1978. It reset the property tax valuations, and then limited annual increases.

Having lived under the law for 18 years, including all the years our children were in public schools, I hereby testify that there was no noticable impact on our collective lives, other than avoiding property tax surprises. Schools didn't close, fire stations didn't shut down, and police didn't get laid off.

Go figure. Of course, CA had a growing economy, meaning tax revenues grew even though the rates were constrained.

Funny how that works.

I am all for property tax caps. There are at least several threads on this subject.

California also has a local sales tax. Property tax is a small part of muncipal revenues.

California did not have a 'local sales tax' during my years there. They may now, but I really wouldn't know. They did have a state sales tax, which as I recall, was in the 5%-6% range during those years.

You can figure for some people, Prop 13 is saving them $5,000 or more per year.

Here's a policy question to ponder.

If you could choose to reduce Maine's (a) income tax rate (b) sales tax rate or (c) property tax rate by a revenue-neutral (in the first year of implementation) amount, which tax rate would you choose to reduce- a, b, or c?

I would say the chances are slim and none, unless we find oil or natural gas etc.

Yes, and that's the point - North Dakota has a huge surplus, and is looking for taxes to cut.

Not so here.

I would pick C, only because it is a tax we cannot change as opposed to how much we work or spend. Also affects retired people on a fixed income.

Property taxes are the easiest to change, particularly in small-town Maine. Just a seat or 2 on the Board of Selectmen can do it. The hard part is finding fiscally conservative candidates who will run, get elected and not be steamrolled by the status quo. Here in Kennebunk, from a majority of former conservative board members, we were given a ballot yesterday with twenty, count them, twenty questions. Each of them concerned spending money, making it easier to spend money, or giving up a small slice of freedom. They all passed. Very discouraging, but par for the gold coast course.

FWIW, I would eliminate the income tax. It is forced confiscation of property. Further, a reduction or elimination of the income tax would benefit individual citizens and the economy the most.

Economike, your revenue neutral stipulation makes this too hard for me. I was going to say (a) but then I saw the revenue neutral bit and I'm not sure I can just lower (a) without changing something else. The recent people's veto of the tax reform legislation comes to mind.

Economike, your revenue neutral stipulation makes this too hard for me. I was going to say (a) but then I saw the revenue neutral bit and I'm not sure I can just lower (a) without changing something else.

mainemom -

You've hit at the gist of my question, which is to provoke consideration of balanced tax policy.

I'd say (a) too, but also would have a problem with possibly creating an even greater distorting tax burden somewhere else.

Let's bust up the gov't school monopoly and privately fund scholarships and exhorbitant property taxes will be a bad memory.

The folks back at headquarters have been looking around for new homes.

"According to . . the National Association of Realtors this week, buyers from China and Hong Kong . . accounting for $9bn of sales."

"That is a 23 per cent increase on the $7.3bn of sales . . in the previous 12 months and an 88 per cent increase from $4.8bn of sales in 2010."

"Sales to . . Chinese buyers still represent only a tiny fraction of the overall US market, which recorded $928.2bn in sales in the year to March." (My emphasis)

Economike . . please whip out the TA-BA2 and answer for me, with the current 1% market share and the reported rate of growth, how long will it be before they've bought the whole place with our money? I don't know how much territory they've already taken so let's assume they've captured 2% in the previous 5 years. I'm not bad at math but I can't remember how to input the '99 bottles of beer take one down . . , 98 bottles of beer . . 97 bottles . .' equation.

The really good news is they seem well acquainted with our idea of real property 'ownership'. Heck, they may have actually invented it . .

"In China, all land is owned by the state and investors can only buy leasing rights of usually up to 70 years, rather than to secure outright ownership."

Of course you can call it your own . . for a small fee.

To the Economike question . . A. Eliminate it and reduce the size of government commensurately. Begin with what Mr. Cenci said.

Please remember that the property tax is an "adjustable rate tax;" the rate is set anew every year, based on how much money the taxing agency wants to extract from the populace.

That makes it distinct from the income tax rates and sales tax rate, which are essentially fixed by statute, until the political will and courage to change them is mustered.

If you believe ARMs are 'predatory,' then so are ARTs.

Tom C .taxfoe and Islander hit it. This is a moot point unless the state has amassed a surplus like ND. Given the histrionics that would accompany it I doubt we will ever see the "boom" such as that
here in Maine based on oil and gas.

We could have a boom based on our natural resources such as Timber, biofuels, Tidal Power, Hydropower, Aquaculture . . .and our clean and green Agricultural base . . . don't you agree, Bruce?

I see a very, very rich State here if we manage our resources well and just nullify the efforts of Environmental Special Interests . . . don't you agree? It is not all about Oil and Gas . . . we have a trove of natural resources that have been bottled up over the last 40 years with Democrats beholden to the Envrionmentalists who cry foul with every industry proposed . . . we need to get a spine and fight back and give our electorate well paying jobs by opening up new mills, hydropower plants, lowering our energy costs and eventually making our State a Silicon Valley of the East . . . Then we can propose getting rid of our Property taxes . . .we have lots of work to do and it must be done . . . otherwise we will continue to send our kids outside of the State to make a living . . . I do not want this for my own teenage son.

I clicked on this AMG link because I had never heard of Steve Woods. By the way, if he still fancies himself as a candidate and continues to promote his campaign on his radio program, doesn't he open up himself or WLOB to equal time issues? That's not my point. If you follow the link to his bio, you can then get to an interview he did with Richard Pfeffer. During the interview, while discussing ME's economic prospects, Woods gave an interesting analogy: Maine is a big ship with a small engine, meaning Maine has a large land area to manage and a small population to fund it. That struck me as good basis for a ME v ND comparison:

Of the 50 . .

ND is 17th in land area, ME is 39th. 70,704 square miles to 33,128.
Bismarck manages a 672,591 population, Augusta rules 1,328,361.
Western Meadowlark's have 9.5 people per square mile, Black-Capped Chickadee's have 40.
American Elm unemployment is 3.0%, White Pine is 7.2.
Fighting Siouxs on WIC is 2.17%, Black Bears 2.04
Wild Prairie Roses on SNAP is 8.9%, Pine Cone and Tassels 17.29

The numbers speak for themselves: Maine has a bigger engine, we abuse our children equally and a jobless recovery is a bad idea.

The other North Dakota fact to consider, is that because of their proximity to the Soviet Union (over the polar cap,) and low population density, there are many nuclear weapons in North Dakota.

If the seceded, they be like the 5 largest nuclear power, or something.

No, you don't want to mess with North Dakota.

The way I read the North Dakota vote, the people voted against the measure because they do not want to become more reliant on state government for funding of local schools, roads, and so forth.

I see wisdom in this.
Given the preference for local control, it follows that local entities (county or municipality) require a mechanism for rasing revenue to fund the public services.

The choices are property tax, local income tax, or local sales/consumption tax.
Of the three, the property tax is the one that most closely assigns tax obligation to the actual residents of the local entity. It is also the one that has the least potential for mischief, manipulation, and favoritism from politicians.

I think we're stuck with the local property tax because it's the best of three painful choices.

For my family the property tax has been a disaster. With the last revaluation in Yarmouth in 2003, our tax doubled from $3300 to $6600. It is now over $7,000. We were forced to move and rent our home in order to keep it.
In the meantime, the Yarmouth School Department spends money as if it were water: Can you imagine $2M for a soccer field? Why do the schools need kayaks and canoes? How about 78 sports, grades 7-12? But the Town is as profligate: $650K for a ladder truck (70-ft extension) in a community where the tallest building is three stories.

During the last 8 years I have heard from many families who are suffering from local spending. LD 1, enacted in early 2005, was supposed to provide state money to ease the burden of the property tax. The State would increase spending K-12 from 42% to 55%, and require munis to use the difference to reduce property taxes. LD 1 also contained a spending cap, which was more a joke than anything else: The "cap" contains a simple majority override! How's that for teeth? Has anyone anywhere seen a reduction in their property taxes?

If the PT is to be "fair", it should be based upon replacement costs. For example, the initial base would be land acquisition and construction costs. This sum, along with the expenses of improvements (not those made by home owners), would be added and the whole figure adjusted according the inflation calculator.
The present system violates the State Constitution as no one knows Fair Market Value until property is sold.

Jack Wibby

Understood, Jack.
But let's face it.
The one best way to lower the property tax is to privatize education.
Ain't gonna happen.

What about this scenario . . . we have block grants sent from the state for each student enrolled at a public/private school . . . no matter the locale . . .this goes to each town . . . so every student has the equal amount of tuition for the school of choice . . we cut out the influence of the DOE at the Federal level and tell the Feds that the requirements are too expensive for our rural residents and the curriculum requirements, etc., are not needed and wanted in Maine . . .we need to cut out all of the Guidance and Health . . . and get back to the three R's with a Science and Technology emphasis.

In Maine, we make our Educational Employees "Right to Work" and they can decide on an individual basis if they wish to join a teachers union . . .We as taxpayers, will no longer pay the high salaries of Superintendents . . . Our school boards can handle our Parent Driven Local Curriculum and costs very well . . . . thank you! We bring back Special Ed classes for those that need it due to learning disability. Inclusiveness while it means well . . . it just too expensive for most small communities . . we cannot afford $70,000 per student who needs one on one care in the classroom . . . this is INSANE! It hikes our tax mileage rate per Special Ed Student at least $2.00 per thousand in some cases. . . . and frankly . . . I am sick of this. In my day we had a "Special Ed" class . . . and those kids did very well and were included in recess, lunch and after school activities . . . parents were also very involved. . . . now not so much. . .

We refurbish and upgrade old schools . . . and only build new when absolutely neccessary . . . and then we build to a standard that was seen over a century ago . . . and build our schools to last over 100 years . . .

I can go on and on here Mainemom . . . . but the reality here is that students in Maine cost well over $10,000 per year today . . . and we did it all on less that $3,000 per student in the late 1970's - 1980's . . . and many of us had a much better education then . . . than the kids do today.