[Oriz]

I think universal health care CAN be a good thing, IF done right. Until I see all the details on how they plan to do this, I have no opinion about it. I do know I dislike Obamacare. I am like 80% libertarian so for me to talk about universal healthcare being a good thing is not easy, but I also don't like to fit into any molds or labels. So while in many ways I consider myself a libertarian, there are very few and specific things I see slightly different. Living most of my life in a country that does have universal health care might have shaped my views about that differently. I think it is insane for people to have to go bankrupt cause they are sick. Maybe it is also the fact that my wife has lupus and back in Wisconsin where she is from she has been denied so many times. I think where I draw the line between no government intervention and government intervention is where it can actually directly physically harm people. You can say "well if someone doesn't have a job that can harm them too" but I don't believe it is the government's job to create jobs, and that would not be as direct as someone literally needing medical treatment. I also think it's a good thing for people to be able to get paid sick leave - so I have no problem with them trying to pass that, but again in Israel where I am from we have that. I just don't think sick people should be forced to go to work in fear of being written up or losing their job or not getting paid - it's not only bad for them but bad for everyone around them that they are going to make sick. But I don't like stimulous, or insane government spending on public schools, insane social programs, etc...I would have no problem paying higher taxes for better health care for everyone, but not for those things. I do think the property taxes here are ridiculous, but I do not think most things outside of housing and healthcare are unaffordable.

So the bottom line is - let me see what it is all about first, then I'll decide if I support it or not, but I'm not gonna say it's a horrible thing at this point in time.

[68vette]

Originally Posted by cgregor

The universal health care system we are working toward is estimated (by five separate studies) to cost no more than about $2.2 billion. At this time, 20% of Vermonters have very good insurance policies, another 40% have inadequate ones, and 40% have nothing. For this, they all pay $3.2 billion in premiums, co-pays, deductibles and ER visits. So, a health care system that would cover everybody (no pre-existing conditions excluded) all the time (even if you lose your job, you and your family are covered) using their present providers at affordable co-pays would save Vermonters about $1 billion. If you move here, you'll definitely want to make sure it's properly crafted.

A retiree myself, I find the property taxes quite bearable. The only complaint I have is that second home rates were capped when the present rates were established, so now full-time residents pay higher taxes than the snowbirds who have their legal residence elsewhere.

I think you need to examine your figures. We have about 620,000 residents in the state of Vermont. Vermont has around 47,000 uninsured and 150,000 underinsured residents. not 40% and 40%. The majority of residents have perfectly adequate insurance that they are happy with or I should say, that they were happy with before Obamacare. The other issue is the single payer system will not be free by any means. You make it sound like we are all going to have free health care. Nothing is free. I have been around long enough and been involved in government contracting to know nothing the government estimates is on target or under. If it came in at 2.2 billion, who is paying for that? That number is close to the entire tax revenue of the state of Vermont.
Our lawmakers are getting frustrated because the Governor wants this put in place, but he has failed to say how it is going to be paid for. This is a recent quote from Montpelier:

“There are only a few options that can raise this kind of money in Vermont — one is the income tax, and two is the payroll tax.” “I’ve seen reports that we have a 6 percent sales tax on many goods right now. If we were to raise $2 billion with a sales tax, it would have to jump up to 29 percent. Can you imagine a 29 percent sales tax in a state of 600,000 people?”

If the state uses the payroll tax to generate the $2 billion, that tax would spike to 17 percent. The bottom line is everyone is going to pay and we will pay big. This is not the type of tax you can put on the wealthier residents of the state. If you did, do you know what would happen? They will move out of state and then the less fortunate in the state will be stuck with the bill.

[Logs and Dogs]

Originally Posted by cgregor

A retiree myself, I find the property taxes quite bearable. The only complaint I have is that second home rates were capped when the present rates were established, so now full-time residents pay higher taxes than the snowbirds who have their legal residence elsewhere.

Can you walk me through your thought process on this?

What I do know is since I am technically a non-resident I pay a higher tax rate than any of my resident friends. Now if that is capped at the upper end for second homes so be it, but I'm not sure where that upper end is as every second home owner I have encountered is paying a higher school tax rate as established by the State.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by Logs and Dogs

Property tax credit......How it works?

In short, I go to work for 70-80hrs per week to pay 100% of my property tax and more as a non-resident as I technically spend more time working in MA/RI than living in VT and then you get a discount on your property taxes which I help pay for.

It works something like that...... :-)

You forgot one thing...we pay 100% plus AND we have no say in how these taxes are spent. Modern day taxation without representation.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by cgregor

A retiree myself, I find the property taxes quite bearable. The only complaint I have is that second home rates were capped when the present rates were established, so now full-time residents pay higher taxes than the snowbirds who have their legal residence elsewhere.

Citation, please?

[FrugalYankee]

Actually that can happen, at least based on what I hear from the town office.

I do find the crack about out-of-state property owners being "snowbirds" a bit presumptuous.

I inherited a house in VT when my mother passed away. I live in snowy NH so this does not exactly make me a snowbird. The house ended up a liability more than anything else, as it is not in a desirable location and requires maintenence. I certainly did not enjoy getting hit with the full property tax. There were a couple of years where hubby and I could have even gotten property tax relief in NH but we are not the type to apply for it. After resisting low-ball offers from town slumlords who wanted to turn it into yet another drug den I finally sold it to some poor slob for dirt cheap who wanted it as a primary residence. This was after I grieved the assessment from about $150k to $50 k.

But yeah, the town office explained that the calculation of property taxes is sufficiently complex that it is possible for an out-of-state owner to have lower property taxes than if it is a homestead. We just don't qualify for the VT relief.

[Logs and Dogs]

Well, again, what I can say is this non-resident pays a clearly higher rate as laid out for all to see in the town rates each year. And every other non-resident I have spoken to is in the same boat.

I'm sure there is some rare set of circumstances by which the sun and moon align correctly on a leap year in which a resident would pay a higher rate than a non-resident.....but like bigfoot, I haven't seen it.....

[arctichomesteader]

There are some towns with a higher homestead rate than the non-homestead rate. The property tax laws/calculations are just absurdly complex.

[Logs and Dogs]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

There are some towns with a higher homestead rate than the non-homestead rate. The property tax laws/calculations are just absurdly complex.

Some, but when I looked the last time they came up, it was a small minority that were setup that way.

BTW, I think we are looking at a long mud season this year........might need a snorkle and floaties for turkey season this year

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

There are some towns with a higher homestead rate than the non-homestead rate. The property tax laws/calculations are just absurdly complex.

Chester is $1.24 per for Homestead and $1.35 per nonresidential. Going through records Chester nonres has been about .10 to .15 over the homestead rate.

While us nonres and homestead alike are hit with CLA, it's the base spending which is factored into homestaed taxes. This creates the possibility of homestead rates being greater than nonres. Going into my 11th year in Chester and have yet to see my tax rate less than a homestead.

I hope that the local students do well in school