PROPERTY TAX CAPS MOVE IN SENATE On Thursday afternoon, the Indiana Senate approved Senate Joint Resolution 1 (Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville) on second reading, setting it up for final passage sometime next week. Second reading is that step in the legislative process where any member, not just a committee member, may offer an amendment to a bill or resolution. The adoption of SJR 1 is the next step in the effort to amend the Indiana Constitution to legitimize the 1-2-3 property tax caps that the General Assembly approved last year. If the resolution passes both Houses, the constitutional amendment would be placed before the state’s voters in the 2010 general election. Farm Bureau policy opposes the 1-2-3 caps and the constitutional amendment.
ASK YOUR STATE SENATOR TO VOTE NO ON SJR 1 Please contact your state senator this weekend and ask him or her to vote NO on SJR 1. Senators know that Farm Bureau opposes SJR 1. But they need to hear it from their constituents. Here are the reasons Farm Bureau is opposed to the 1-2-3 property tax caps; these help you explain Farm Bureau’s position to your senator.
· They are deceptive. Despite what you may have heard, they won’t freeze your property taxes. Your tax bill will increase as your assessment increases.
· They are unjust. Why should the taxes on a farmer’s $250,000 combine or the equipment worth $250,000 that is owned by a small business be three times as much as the tax on a house worth the same thing? People use services, not land and not equipment.
· They are unconstitutional. Why should we change the state's constitution to justify unequal treatment of taxpayers?
· They are hard on businesses. At any time, but particularly during a recession, does Indiana really need to penalize companies that create jobs?
· They are untested. Rather than rushing to make permanent an unknown and untried concept that could have serious implications for citizens, state governments, county governments and schools, why not wait a year so that the consequences of the caps are more fully understood?
No comments:
Post a Comment