S.C. paying piper for Act 388 tax cuts
Boost in sales levy has not offset drop from real estate
Charleston resident Emerson Read's crusade against property taxes resulted in sweeping changes in South Carolina, and prompted Gov. Mark Sanford to present him with the state's highest civilian honor, the Order of the Palmetto.
Tuesday's story
Legislators cut taxes, increased spending, published 01/13/2009
In Charleston, where owners of the city's most valuable properties watched their property tax bills drop by thousands of dollars in 2007, Read was given a humanitarian award by The French Society.
The Act 388 property tax reductions for homes were indeed popular, but an analysis by The Post and Courier found that they have made the state's budget crisis worse in several ways.
An $81 million shortfall in the sales tax collections that were supposed to fund property tax relief will account for about 15 percent of the gap anticipated in the next state budget. That means the state will have to cut spending elsewhere to pay for property tax breaks.
That was not supposed to happen.
A growing shortfall
When Act 388 exempted owner-occupied homes from the property taxes that fund school operations, the law also increased the statewide sales tax to 6 cents on the dollar.
The Post and Courier
The sales tax increase was supposed to raise the roughly half-billion dollars schools used to collect from homes, and state economists predicted that the sales tax would raise enough to fund extra property tax relief.
Instead, there's been a growing shortfall every year, totalling $143 million since Act 388 was approved in 2006.
"If it hadn't been for the economy, there would have been more than enough," Read said. "They need to increase the sales tax if they need more money."
The Office of State Budget projects that sales taxes will rise enough to cover the tax shift in 2010, before falling short again in 2011. Unlike property taxes, sales tax collections tend to rise and fall with the economy, which nose-dived last year.
"We traded the most unpopular but most stable tax, the property tax, for the least unpopular but most unstable tax, the sales tax," state Board of Economic Advisors Chairman John Rainey said. "It's all snowballing."
House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, R-Cayce, said it's appropriate to reduce taxes on basic needs such as homes, and the sales tax is preferred by voters.
For more information
Historic state budget data, 1994-2008 (104 page PDF)
"It's how people prefer to be taxed," he said. "They don't like their home being taxed."
The property tax law requires the state to give school districts at least the amount of money they would have collected in property tax from exempted homes, with annual adjustments for population and inflation. However, the state can, and has, reduced other sources of funding to schools.
The Department of Education budget was cut by $253 million in the current state budget.
Expensive groceries
In a compromise meant to insulate low-income residents from the impact of the rising sales tax, Act 388 reduced the tax rate on unprepared food.
About the series
South Carolina is deep in a historic budget crisis, affecting everything from higher education to the monitoring of sex offenders. The Post and Courier examines the causes and potential solutions in a three-day series.
TUESDAY: Sub-prime lending, mortgage-backed securities and a spike in the price of oil all helped precipitate South Carolina's downturn, but public policy also had a role to play. How much of the blame should be placed on the state's taxing and spending policies?
WEDNESDAY: The statewide property tax changes approved in 2006 were popular, but they are proving to be expensive, and those policies are adding to the state's budget woes.
THURSDAY: State estimates are forecasting budget gaps, and the need for more spending cuts, through 2012. Where do we go from here, and what is the solution to ending South Carolina's cycles of boom-and-bust budgeting?
The grocery sales tax cut in 2006 opened the door to the elimination of the remaining tax on groceries in 2007.
Together, those changes stripped $354 million from the general fund and cut Education Improvement Act funding to levels last seen in 2006.
As William Gillespie, the state's chief economist, told the Government Finance Officers Association at a meeting in October, "Essentially the school districts have eaten the full 5 percent cut in the food tax."
Realtors unhappy
On top of the funding problems, real estate professionals, including Read, now say the changes in property tax laws are hurting the real estate market.
That's because of a provision that requires properties to be immediately reassessed when they change hands. Despite the current real estate downtown, reassessment would mean a tax increase in most cases.
The South Carolina Realtors say the law is depressing sales.
"This point-of-sale assessment, we did our best to try and keep that out of it," Read said. "We're trying to get the Legislature to eliminate that.
"Just about every Realtor has lost sales," he said. "I hate to tell you how much my income is off."
Businesses on the spot
Businesses also are looking for changes in the law.
Otis Rawl, president of the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, said Act 388 was bad policy, and he is concerned that businesses will see their local property taxes increase to fund schools.
School districts still can collect and raise property taxes to pay for their operations. They just can't tax homeowners.
"There's only one sector of the economy left to support schools, and that's the business community. That gives us great concern," Rawl said.
Previous stories
Legislators cut taxes, increased spending, published 01/13/09
Tax bill breaks might surprise, published 09/23/07
2006 tax reform has some recent buyers seeing red, published 01/14/08
Sanford in 2006 supported the property tax swap, but warned that the legislation "creates the possibility of future tax increases on business owners and farm owners as homeowners demand education-related services they no longer have to foot the bill for."
Critics said it was bad policy to place so much reliance on the sales tax while creating disproportionate tax breaks for the most valuable properties.
"Maybe you need to only provide property tax relief on the first $200,000 of a home's value," said Holly Hewitt Ulbrich, a senior scholar at The Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University.
Before Act 388, the state already provided significant relief from school taxes on up to $100,000 of a home's taxable value. The elderly were exempt from property tax on the first $50,000 of a home's value.
House Minority Leader Harry Ott, D-St. Matthews, said his 80-year-old mother already paid no property tax on her modest home, but now she pays higher sales tax. Ott voted for Act 388, but tried to limit tax breaks to the first $500,000 of property value.
Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D- Orangeburg, said she had asked what would happen to school funding in an economic downtown, under Act 388, and was told the money would come from general fund revenues.
"Now, that's not there," she said.
Yvonne Wenger contributed to this report. Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
BillytheKid (anonymous) says...
You didn't mention lottery in your article. I wonder why? Maybe you would have had to bring up just where that money is going.
Oh we are saving money by not paying for our schools in any way now.
Our children are the future. Pay attention.
January 14, 2009 at 4:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
karmann (anonymous) says...
Trading one tax for another. How come it is so difficult to come up with a simply solution to taxes. Set a percentage and go with that. And why was one man so able to influence the whole state?
January 14, 2009 at 6:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gencon1 (anonymous) says...
The real problem is that the State legislature is spending our money like a bunch of drunken sailors. We have plenty of tax revenue, the problem is that we keep growing state government like kudzu. The state 2007-2008 budget was a prime example of wasteful spending. Let me share some of the brilliant decisions by our legislature last year:
• It takes in $1.5 billion in new unanticipated funds and creates a recurring budget deficit of approximately $270 million by paying for recurring items with non-recurring dollars.
• It makes a much too modest $63 million payment towards our state's $10 billion in unfunded health care liabilities for retirees. This is irresponsible in the extreme and has the potential to cause us significant trouble with our state's credit rating.
• It grows government by almost 16% next year. This is on top of the previous two year's growth of 25% an amount that is double the national average for government growth.
• In its current form, this budget will lead to our third straight year of double-digit growth in spending and a cumulative increase of over 40% over the past three years.
Here is the problem people! It's not property tax relief. We are becoming a nanny state where the government is supposed to take care of everyone. Cut the size of state government by 30% and you can have all the schools you want.
"Maybe you need to only provide property tax relief on the first $200,000 of a home's value," said Holly Hewitt Ulbrich, a senior scholar at The Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University. "
Tax the evil rich! Tax the only people that can help our economic recovery, business owners! Just Brilliant. Exactly what I would expect from a professor at a state funded university.
Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D- Orangeburg, said she had asked what would happen to school funding in an economic downtown, under Act 388, and was told the money would come from general fund revenues.
"Now, that's not there," she said. That's cause ya'll spent it Gilda!
January 14, 2009 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whycantitbebetterhere (anonymous) says...
It is no wonder that this was not properly forecast, apparently the economists that did the work up on the numbers attended South Carolina public schools. Also, Mark Sanford's witch hunt on the "waste" in government is proving to not bear "witches" - perhaps he is wrong and government is appropriately sized and funded. Everyone loves to think that there is waste in government, but in this case, perhaps there wasn't - because if there was - they wouldn't be cutting funding for education to make up for the shortfall. Sanford flat did not know what he was talking about. When are people going to wake up and understand that he does not know what he is talking about when it comes to government services or economics!!
January 14, 2009 at 7:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
gencon1; Thank yo for explaining in far more detail than I what the real problem is.
Power hungry idiots who probably can't manage their own financial affairs, put in charge of mismanaging the taxpayers money.
Comrades, tighten your belts, we need more money to piss away!
January 14, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
How in the heck can anyone say there isn't waste in government? They spend more than they take in, year after year. When there is a surplus they not only spend it, they create programs that have to be paid for every year, not just one year out of surpluses, and when there isn't a surplus they borrow, adding to future debts, and again often creating programs that have to be funded every year.
We fund the freaking Grit festival, the Okra festival, Spoleto. Joe Riley just got a 2 million dollar sidewalk from state and federal funds. We built a million dollar golf cart tunnel in Charleston, everyone from the state to the county has a slush fund to just hand out. It costs more to "educate" a kindergartner than it does to go to college. And there's no waste?
Gencon is right, it's the spending. Look what this foolish crap with property taxes caused. I don't like property taxes either, but it wasn't the tax itself that was the problem, it was the incredible increases year after year.
January 14, 2009 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinadude (anonymous) says...
The property taxes were deductible on the federal tax return. The sales tax is not. Reed got the "order of the palmetto". He ought to get recognition for being "public enemy #1. The tax system in this state was not broken and was recognized as a "three legged stool" indicative of a well balanced and equitable system of taxation. Gee thanks Emerson Reed!
January 14, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Zod (anonymous) says...
It seems some got off point for a moment.
"Together, those changes stripped $354 million from the general fund....."
.......and here is what the champion of property tax cut had to say about the result:
"If it hadn't been for the economy, there would have been more than enough," Read said. "They need to increase the sales tax if they need more money."
.......and every time I say that I do not trust the fair tax nor the flat tax crowd, I am told to "read the book". Mr. Read just told you the conclusion that was never placed in print of said book.
January 14, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RPSERV (anonymous) says...
If you want to know what really fueled the sales tax for property tax swap in 2006, just look at some tax records on Charleston County's website. A house valued at 11.5 million dollars received a tax reduction of $40,000 (55% decrease) while a house valued at 59 thousand dollars received a tax reduction of $34 (11% decrease).
January 14, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
RPSERV, thank you for remembering the truth. The have's were subsidized at the expense of the rest.
January 14, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zekemire (anonymous) says...
The property tax needs to be totally eliminated, including business owned property! Increase the sales tax to an amount that in an average year would offset at break even! Then in years that the tax is a surplus, DO NOT SPEND IT ON RECURRING MANDATES! Funny, this is what Sanford tried to do previously, but, the nuts in the legislature could not wait to create new socialist programs! When a surplus occurs, that money must be put aside in a "rainy day" fund with no upper limit! Then when the economy is down those funds will offset the deficit! This would also help by making South Carolina's credit rating for bonds and other borrowed funds significantly higher! Propert taxes are an affront to the Constitution and private property ownership! The state needs to quit spending money buying property to preserve it! Even with the shortfall they are spending almost $10 million to buy the Belfast property in Newberry/Laurens counties to "preserve" it for public use! This is not the constitutional authority of government! How many hundreds of millions have been wasted on these projects in the last 10 years?
January 14, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
"We traded the most unpopular but most stable tax, the property tax, for the least unpopular but most unstable tax, the sales tax," state Board of Economic Advisors Chairman John Rainey said. "It's all snowballing."I guess that Rainey is so stupid that he can not figure that a lot of States have increased property taxes on their citizens by as much as $5,000 dollars in one year and they are being KICKED out of them because the economy is bad for them also. The citizens of South Carolina need to call their Legislators who voted for act 388 and thank them for SAVING their homes from the GREEDY schools. The problen is that the State and Feds are cutting School funding. The swap was only 3% of the total school funding and it was a trade. Everyone is blaming the primary home owner for the revenue problems. Businesses are crying because they are being taxed,they can pass it on. Rental properties and store rentals can pass it on. Most 2nd and 3rd homes are rented most of the year. Most but not all homeowners are on fixed or limited incomes and they CAN NOT pass it on to anyone. If they don't pay the goverment TAKES it and puts them in the street so House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, R-Cayce is right in saying that how we want to pay taxes. If the economy goes down everyone has to tighen their belts.
January 14, 2009 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
"The have's were subsidized at the expense of the rest."
How very true, but is that not how our state government and the republicans does things?
January 14, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
Otis Rawl, president of the S.C. Chamber of Commerce wants to take the taxes off of businesses, second and third homes, personal property, manufacturing and utilities (who have the ability to pay more when they pass it to the customer); and greatly increase the taxes on primary homeowners (many of whom are retired, on fixed incomes and people who are one step away from foreclosure). I guess Realors think it will not hurt homes sales by increasing the property taxes.
Maybe Holly Hewitt Ulbrich, a senior scholar at The Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University, is right when "Maybe you need to only provide property tax relief on the first $200,000 of a home's value," because that takes care of 90% of the homes.
School districts still can collect and raise property taxes to pay for their operations. They just can't tax homeowners. Maybe they need to put the rate of increase to CPI plus GROWTH on all property taxes.
Reps. Kenny Bingham of Cayce and Mac Toole of West Columbia want the Legislature to form a state tax reform commission similar to the federal BRAC that worked on base closings. They want it to be a commission that would provide an objective, non-partisan, independent analysis of the state's complex tax laws. This would be fine if they appointed a group of people to represent all the citizens of South Carolina . If they appointed other people besides business people. It should be represented by every type of taxpayer in equal numbers. They should appoint one person from business, homeowner, private farmer, utilities, transportation industry, education, budget and control, Senator, Representative, stoptax (tax protest group) and Sierra club ( environmental group). This would be a balanced commission. Otherwise they would stack the deck against the homeowner. I think everyone should call their state Legislator and say they are for this proposal as written in this article.
January 14, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
Charleston resident Emerson Read's crusade against property taxes resulted in sweeping changes in South Carolina, and prompted Gov. Mark Sanford to present him with the state's highest civilian honor, the Order of the Palmetto.
I see that Reed got all the credit, so let him see if he can change anything else by himself.
January 14, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
"The citizens of South Carolina need to call their Legislators who voted for act 388 and thank them for SAVING their homes from the GREEDY schools...."
This all is according to plan to do away with public education in SC......again we have the mentality of to hell with everybody else, as long as I get mine and you do not raise my taxes.
January 14, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crankyyankee (anonymous) says...
How has more money ever improved the local school system? We are presently spending about the national average per student for education and we have the worst school system in the Country. Looking at the equation even closer the State schools with the highest per capita spending are the worst of the lot, so how does more money help anything? Why don't they look at any one of the other 49 States and see what they are doing different? Oh, wait that would mean admitting you not as smart as ya'll think. Your right let's spend more money!
January 14, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
johnny, are you not one of these ones that want to do away with public education??? Come on and tell the truth? I bet with a screen name like jonnyholmes, you have a way with the women..... Having the screen name of a porn star surely impresses the women we all know! NOT! LMAO
January 14, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tc1 (anonymous) says...
"again we have the mentality of to hell with everybody else, as long as I get mine and you do not raise my taxes."
That is in no way the case for me and my wife. We have ours. We paid for it with hard work and sacrifice. We can retire not in debt or with handouts from others. The only entity that can legally steal/extort it from us is our government.
The mentality that is the problem here is very much like the middle east, I don't care how many of my own I destroy as long as I destroy the infidels, read "rich", and have everyone faithful to my god, read "have everyone pay for what I think matters even if I have to take their home".
BTW with all the screams about "fair" here how can anyone with a clear mind claim that it is fair for anyone to pay Hugely greater proportions of the cost of government. Yes, they have the ability to pay more but in a free country why do you have the right to say they "Must"?
Your attitude seems to be to hell with everbody else as long as I get what I want and everybody else pays what I say in property or life. Of course if your objective is to have everybody totally dependent on the government, read you and your comrades, then that is a logical tactic.
January 14, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
This is what happens when we accept obvious stupidity as making sense of some kind simply because "authority" says so. Until the majority of people STOP WORSHIPPING AUTHORITY and start THINKING LOGICALLY, we will have a plethora of things like this to comment on.
January 14, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
tc1,When someone comments about anything having to do with the public good on this site, they are branded a communist, Marxist or whatever, which is a very tired tactic that the right always uses! You see because of your extremist viewpoints, you and others like you like to paint a picture of any other apposing viewpoints as being just as extreme as yours.
While the reality is some people are unable to afford the private education system. The public school system has more of a challenge since they have to educate the masses, a burden private schools do not have. While money is not the end all to be all when it comes to public education, we still have to adequately fund public education, to attract quality teachers, to give a comfortable environment conducive of learning and then pay for all of the logistical planning that takes place in a growing district.
A quality public education system is the foundation of any countries strength and is the ultimate investment into our state's future. This is the only way that we will still be competitive in a global economy, and the shift from a more post industrial economy, than what we have had in the industrial economy. Yes, it will take more than just money, yet under funding will cause more problems, and in our state, education should be priority one and how it is funded.
Again, people that are against public education display the attitude that as long as I get mine, to hell with everybody else and by god do not raise my taxes.
January 14, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Larz13 (anonymous) says...
Gov. Sanford when he was first elected wanted to reduce the income tax and IMO, would have served all of the working citizens of SC the best. The legislature did not go along and he brought pigs for them to play with.
Emerson Reed, a downtown realtor came up with the idea that he would give homeowners a break by reducing the property tax on houses. (HINT: homeowners only benefitted from this policy). IMO, he was playing to the folks who own 6 million dollar homes who pay $50K in taxes each year (Mr. Reed may be included in this group). If you are fortunate enough to own a $6M home, you should pay your fair share of taxes. If it was in NY or PA, the tax would probably be in the neighborhood of $100K per year. Reed wanted to further his business and now he complains about reassessment when homes are sold are hurting his business. Guess what Mr. Reed, if you have not noticed, there is a market slowdown and credit tightening. That is probably affecting your business more than reassessment. And one other thing, if you are in position to buy a $1M house and the taxes go from $3K to $5K per year, do you think that is going to be a deal-breaker in preventing people to buy? This guy was dead wrong and still is.
January 14, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
In reality, a house is a consumers' good, just like an automobile or a refrigerator. If not for inflation and the rise in prices that it produces, it would be very clear that housing is a wasting asset, a slowly wasting asset to be sure, but a wasting asset nonetheless. In addition, the price of a house that was 5, 10, or 20 years old would be significantly less than the price of a new house. We mustforce the assessors to lower the value of our homes to their true values. That is about 50% of what they sold for in 2007. It is robbery and lieing for an assessor to say a 20 year old house is worth the same as a new one the same size next to you. We must shut down this stealing from the taxpayers for the goverments GREED.
January 14, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
guidedbystewart is unbelievably confused, since the public education system this poster WORSHIPS produces clearly inferior results.
Of course, the obvious answer is vouchers. This would introduce the dynamics of the free market to ALL education. What this poster does not understand and will never accept due to being intellectually misguided is that private education is superior, period. Vouchers would put PARENTS in total charge of their children's education and introduce the dynamic of COMPETITION to ALL elementary and secondary education. The inevitable result would be MASSIVE improvement in education instead of perpetual failure and inferiority. All children are NOT created equal, except before the law . Some are superior in intelligence from birth, some "average", and some are inferior in intelligence. A free market system would result in schools being DESIGNED for different levels of talent and deficiencies in performance by educators would swiftly result in LOSS OF INCOME and dismissal. Facing the PRESSURE of performing well or having no choice but to find ANOTHER way to make money, currently lazy and incompetent educators would respond by focusing on doing their jobs. Those that are incapable of same would be where they belong--on the street in disgrace until they accepted the fact that they are lousy at education and find another way to make money. We would have schools designed and intended for children ranging from the best of the best (Porter Gaud, for example) on down to schools designed for those who, for whatever reason, are unfortunately suited only for menial and repetitive jobs once they become adults and everyone in between. The most important thing of all is that the free market wouldn't tolerate delusional fantasies. The discipline of the market would provide the best results possible for the vast majority of individuals and also collectively for society and would also cost a lot less money.
January 14, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
B_Fwank (anonymous) says...
postman01 "guidedbystewart is unbelievably confused, since the public education system this poster WORSHIPS produces clearly inferior results."
postman01, you are correct on both points, guidedbystewart is very confused and the public education system is an abysmal failure.
More money will not fix the education system. It has become a means to dumb down kids, feminizing boys, practicing history revision to suit the left, with the agenda to produce more and more ignorant, government dependent voters.
This of course benefits democrats. As demonstrated in the last election.
As always, those that pay taxes are forced to support yet another failed government run institution while the 40% of those that pay no taxes scream and yell for more of their "fair share".
January 14, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
postman01
Your pedantic bombast does not impress me. Your harangues have little substance and are little more than just opinionated refuse. True, not everyone has the same intellectual capabilities (though Bush sure did think so with his "No Child Left Behind" educational policy), but scenarios like yours sounds like something out of New Brave World. Anyone with any intelligence knows that mental capabilities are relative and that almost anyone has their own mental strengths and weakness, and people do not know their potential may be until they are truly challenged. While public education is not a perfect institution, it is the only affordable way to educate the masses. If you can afford private school, then fine, you pay for it. But if you really want to cause an education system dilemma just introduce private school vouchers.
Again, postman01, you display the mentality of "I got mine, now to hell with the rest of the people".
BTW, my publically educated wits are more than capable of matching your pedantic big headed wits.
January 14, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SpiderJohn (anonymous) says...
When we pay more per student and less per prisoner maybe we will see a difference in the SC education system.
Priorities people!
January 14, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SpiderJohn (anonymous) says...
Also.....who do you think will be taking care of you in the old folks home?
Don't you want them to be educated?
No, screw the children of today and you will only screw yourself in the future.
January 14, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fredderf (anonymous) says...
Property taxes are un-American as it gets. Once the government levies taxes on personal property, you no longer own anything. You simply pay the government, what amounts to rent, to be able to pretend you own the property.
If you think there is actually private ownership in America, quit paying property taxes and you'll soon find out who REALLY owns the property. The State, that's who...
That is the real issue here!!
Initially the proposal was a complete elimination of property tax, in favor of higher sales tax, which I fully supported (and still do). I am 100% opposed the current tax swap because it was only a partial swap. It was clear to me that the property taxes would simply rise again under this legislation
I have no problem with increasing sales tax to help fund schools. Let's eliminate the ALL property tax and increase sales tax to the levels required to fund the school system, but only after we eliminate the top heavy bureaucracy that exists in the system and eliminate the massive waste that is occurring.
I also noticed this article failed to mention the idiocy of the school system locking in fuel costs when it was near it's peak. Let's fire anyone who supported that stupid move!!
January 14, 2009 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
I support public education when it is done right. Show me one school, not 2 of them, just one that graduates all of its students who passed the exit exams and can read, write, and cipher...show it to me. The state education system cannot produce 1 and tells me that the amount of money that I pay now is too little and shamefull on my part and that I am an ignorant dog for not wanting to pay more whether they can produce 1 successful school or not, and they have no idea how much more they need to produce 1 successful school. One of us is nuts; today I'm betting it's not me.
January 14, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Posted by guidedbystewart yesterday,
"I post while I am on break or when a program is downloadng, and do not have the time to fact check."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You don't have time to check something as insignificant s facts but you have plenty of time to comment on selected bytes out of the P&C articles then spew out your left wing talking points.
Bush did it, the Republicans did it, tax breaks for the wealthy, more money for education, people who are fed up with high property taxes are greedy and you sir are one afflicted demagogue.
Can you come up with one, just one sensible suggestion to striking a balance between taxes collected and a reasonable level of spending that doesn't have some stupid blame component assigned to it?
Your posts look like the work of Barney Frank.
Everybody is wrong except me!
January 14, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Whopper (anonymous) says...
The poor government does not have a surplus, must prioritze, must be frugil . . . all because property tax law was revised. Good--that it was the government should do. One of the main reasons it was revised was because low or no income people could not pay their own property taxes for their owned homes which appreciated in value over the years. Property tax law must be applied evenly across the board without any regard to the income of the owner -- the only thing that should matter is the value of the property itself. It's also nice to know that real estate agents "believe" they have lost some income from the revised property tax law. Boohooo.
January 14, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fredderf (anonymous) says...
I can't believe all you people are arguing over left -vs- right, while missing the big picture and the real issue at hand.
We should be marching in the streets to eliminate all forms of property tax. Government ownership of all property is communism, which is what we have now.
If you think there is actually private ownership in America, quit paying property taxes and you'll soon find out who REALLY owns the property. The State, that's who...
Later Comrades!!
January 14, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
Nice....
http://www.myspace.com/guidedbystewart
January 14, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
guidedbystewart, you need to mature and stop the insults. I detect what I think is your passion. What I do not understand is the apparent inability to clinically analyze the facts which are supported by massive evidence. Why do you wear your heart on your shoulder regarding "public schools"? It is very likely that you were CHEATED for life by a relatively poor public education system, especially if you attended same here. If you reasoned LOGICALLY, you would be mad as h__l at public schools for shortchanging you so enormously instead of engaging in puerile attacks that feature perjoratives and completely unfounded assumptions about a person (me) that you've never met and know NOTHING about except for my opinions as expressed in my post. I hope you also realize that your posts come really close to getting flagged and then having your posts removed along with your posting PRIVILEGES revoked.
You are also illogical about intellectual capabilties. If you are aware of someone with better intellectual capabilities, that rational approach is to be a smart student instead of getting angry and defensive.
January 14, 2009 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Posted by Valkyrie on January 14, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice....
http://www.myspace.com/guidedbystewart
==============================================================
Nice? I went there months ago. This is typical of the attention getting antics of a young boy approaching pubescence.
January 14, 2009 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
yird - Nice.... = sarcasm
January 14, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Again postman01 your arrogance is outstanding and laughable. Your opinions and the way you say them are all I need to know to infer the type of person you are and from these opinions I am just calling a spade a spade. You see all of the pejoratives expressed were evident in your post, your pedantic bombast, your stomach churning arrogance, and something in me just feels compelled to call you out in it.
You see I do wear my passion my shoulder because I care for the well being of my State; and by this I all of the people in my State and not just the privileged few that can afford it. I know, I know, I know it is hard for a person with the self absorbed mentality that you display, and from which I infer from your post, to understand my viewpoint but this is the case. So what about the people that can not afford private schools, even with the vouchers? Should their schools suffer just so a few people can pay less for their private education? Sure private schools have some advantages that public schools do not. Private schools do not have to take in every body, they can be select in who they enroll. Parental involvement is more common place and what about class sizes? Also when you have a public school that have the ability it be selective in who they enroll, displays parental involvement and has the proper funding to maintain smaller, these schools prosper regardless of whether they are private or public. Wasn't the Academic Magnet ranked one of the best schools in the country? Besides public education has served me well and since, like you said, you don't know me but like me you should at least infer this from my post:
Last if not least, if the P & C bans me then so be it. I know a person like yourself would love to see apposing viewpoints to go away, but unlike fox news (sarcasm) , I am not fair or balance and will never claim to be. Yet in my post I have remained relevant to topic, did not use foul language, so really they have no reason to ban me. To be honest I am surprised I have lasted this long because I am sure that I have ruffled a few feathers. Anyways this is Bush's last week (yep, good riddance), we are approaching a new era, I am sorry that you have been unable to get over the loss of the election but there is always the next election.
January 14, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
BTW postman01, your arrogant condescension was as offensive, if not more so, than any pejorative I used in any of my previous posts.
January 14, 2009 at 7:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinadude (anonymous) says...
Summary
In June 2006, the South Carolina General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, H. 4449
(R. 417) legislation that will radically change the state's revenue system. The new law shifts
the burden of funding public school operations from local to state government by replacing the
local school district tax on owner-occupied residential property with a one-cent increase in the
state retail sales tax. The law is intended to provide a clean, revenue-neutral swap of sales for
property taxes, with the state government reimbursing the local governments for the revenue loss
created by elimination of the property tax.
What home owners gain in the form of reduced property taxes, consumers will suffer in the form
of increased sales taxes. Moreover, the hoped-for relief to property owners will prove illusory.
Soon after the old taxes are removed, we predict, local taxpayers, particularly business taxpayers,
can expect to find themselves burdened by new taxes, which will be imposed to replace the old
taxes removed by H4449. The new taxes will be imposed to satisfy local governments' appetite
for revenue and from state government's failure to impose a local spending cap.
We believe that local governments will, by 2010, have completely recouped the revenue loss
attributable to the 2006 tax cut. They will thus be receiving a sizeable transfer from the state,
while offering no relief to local taxpayers. This push could take a number of paths, with the
renewed burden of local taxes falling in different ways on businesses and homeowners. In the
report that follows we sketch one plausible outcome. In summary, we predict that, by FY 2010:
ï ï The entire 2008 reduction in property taxes will have been extinguished by the
introduction of new property taxes. And, because the 1• increase in the state sales tax
will be in effect, the state will be collecting $594 million more in sales tax revenue.
ï ï The 2008 reduction in property taxes will have been extinguished through the imposition
of new taxes on commercial property and on residential property that remains taxed
under H. 4449. We foresee a state of affairs in which:
o Business, which saw no relief in taxes taxes over and above
what they would have paid had H. 4449 not been adopted.
o Home owners will find that their initial tax cut has been reduced by 45% (or
$281 million) from $632 million to $351 million.
Tax Changes in South Carolina: No Relief in Sight 4
By 2010, the state will find that it has merely increased the sales tax while effecting a
redistribution in property-tax burdens from home owners (who will pay somewhat less than they
would have, absent the new law) to businesses (which pay much more).
These political developments will have adverse consequences for the state economy.
January 14, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinadude (anonymous) says...
The above post is a portion of the executive summary of the SC Policy Council's White Paper done 2 or 3 yrs ago regarding the projected outcomes of the tax shift. Apparently we the people need for the lawmakers to pay more close attention to the folks at the Policy Council rather than relying solely upon the whims of this special interest group led by Emerson Reed. This was a bill largely for the lawmakers themselves and their "beach buddies" and "golf buddies" in the gated communities to have taxes shifted from themselves, the haves to us, the have nots. LOL. What a huge mess. Do you think that perhaps they could do a "system restore" to restore "the three legged stool"? The disaster is mounting and will continue to worsen without "speding caps" for local governments and school districts and without strict enforcement in SC of our immigration laws. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HAD BY OUR SC LAWMAKERS!! WHAT ELSE IS NEW? THROW THE BUMS OUT IN 2010.
January 14, 2009 at 7:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Postman,what did guidedbystupidity say?
Something to the effect that you should infer from his posts that public education served him well?
I had determined just the opposite but then maybe I'm not astute enough to detect the nuanced message contained in his diatribe.
January 14, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
No Yird, we have a very defensive, immature, and confused poster here. I literally do not understand his (or her) anger.
January 14, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stonehead (anonymous) says...
Carolinadude Well said. Those analyses are right on.
All this "tax reform" did, was to redistribute the property tax burden to business properties, second home owners and land owners, and new buyers. Also with the 15% reassessment cap, it transfers the burden from high appreciation properties to low appreciation properties. The sales tax went up, and eventually the property tax will catch up again since the law did not cap the tax rate.
All you people who supported this and claim you are an anti-tax conservative, look yourself in the mirror you are not really anti tax, you are only anti "your tax". You are happy as long as you can transfer your tax to someone else.
Need money to support your neighborhood school, let's tax the businesses, tourists, and second home owners who live in Vermont, anyone but yourself. Taxation without representation. What a novel idea! The collective wisdom of South Carolinians at full display!
In the end you'll loss more than you gain.
January 14, 2009 at 10:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
"Just about every Realtor has lost sales," he said. "I hate to tell you how much my income is off."
No your sales are off because realtor are one step up above used car sales people in the sense they too would put anyone in a home. They are part of the blame of over inflated pricing. This reassesmenmt/tax issue will be another reason our home sales will be stalled.
January 14, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nappyd (anonymous) says...
Having reduced property taxes is a nice DOUBLE TAX BREAK for homeowners in SC. Of course they hate having property taxes, it wipes out the refund they get on income taxes.
January 15, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.