|
Iowa | You’re correct. It penalizes growth above 3%. Now I have no issue with capping current tax growth on existing property at 3%, we’ve all seen where, because of valuation increases a certain piece of property has a 25% increase in taxes - this is wrong. However if you build a new shop, or new house it should stand alone - otherwise current property is in effect subsidizing new property. The other piece to this is that the state tells how to spend some of the money on a $/1000 rate - so if your levy was 3.50, and is now 3.40 (grew more than 3% so the levy rate is down) you still have x amount of funds that the state mandates you spend in certain areas - they need to allow % of revenue vs a mil rate. What the state did is the right idea, just lack of understanding in the process, but local voted on levies need to stay, that was a local choice.
I think the state needs to look at other funding mechanisms as well. We have a small number of people paying an awful lot of the bills, as this number shrinks we’re at risk of being like Nebraska, where urban voters view rural property tax as their cash cow. I’ve noticed this on school bonds - we have lots of voters who have very little skin in the game. The initial goal is to provide education, not field turf, new gymnasiums and preforming arts centers - I think those should be partially assessed on parents who’s kids use the school (I have multiple kids in school, there’s nothing wrong with a $1-500/ kid assessment on your state income tax to use the new stuff you vote for). Kids need education, not million dollar athletic facilities- Iowa state still plays on grass, iowa just switched to field turf in the last decade, so why do schools with 400 kids need to have it?
Edited by timis 3/18/2024 12:06
| |
|
Property taxes…oof!
