[timberline742]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Only for the state education tax not municipal taxes. And only on the homestead portion. If you have a 5 or 10 acre lot (the norm in many areas of this state) only a small portion of the lot falls under the homestead portion. The rest is taxed at the full rate. But you will still face a tax sale of your home if you can't afford the taxes on that. Even if your income is near 0 for a year (let's say you have a major health problem or an accident, that is entirely possible), you will still need to come up with the property taxes (likely still in the thousands) or lose your home. It is and will always be a regressive tax.

That doesn't make it regressive, since there is some relief and higher taxing of wealthier people. By definition it's progressive, it's just not progressive enough for you. The solution would be to vote in more progressive politicians or lobby your current politicians even more progressive tax policies.

It's also rather easy to reduce the tax rate on forests and farmland (and other open acreage) through CRs and similar methods.

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Alabama is not really relevant here. And tax sales happen all the time in VT before the owners die.

So much money is actually spent administering property taxes at local and state levels here in various ways (listers or hired assessors, tax appeals/hearings, the state tax department processing forms and records, courts hearing appeals, on and on) that simply raising the income tax a bit and eliminating the property tax would likely increase revenue for the state.

It is relevant because you brought up "regressive" taxation. Arguably, in response to your canard, Alabama's tax on food is much more regressive than property tax if you accept the common standard of Maslow's definition of hierarchy of needs. As an aside, I always found it refreshing that in southern states, any business selling food MUST offer free water. It was a recognition of life and death trumping profit.

Trying to clarify our stances, New Hampshire is considered to be ... different... in that it refused sales tax and taxes property heavily. It also has been a bastion of the right, championed by a certain influential newspaper.

Vermont, since reapportionment in the 1960s, has had a different path that is in some ways much more complex.

On income tax, IIRC, states may charge a percentage of Federal income tax, but not devise a tax that is based upon a different set of parameters - in other words, if Vermont wanted to charge 90% income tax on the wealthy, it could not. The progressive or regressive nature of income tax is a fixed FEDERAL decision.

States CAN charge more or less tax in other areas - provided that those are primarily inTRAstate and not inTERstate in nature (investments are a different issue). That creates issues of fair taxation of the rich fifteenth home owners who "legally" reside in another state and whose fourteenth home is their major mansion - in Vermont, where their property covers two school districts in acreage. (I use a hypothetical extreme to make a point.)

Our nation originally only "taxed" imports for its income. That was in no way progressive or regressive. Taxation within the nation (or a state) is an entirely different ball of wax. If you recognize that the PRIMARY purpose of any government IS government (IOW staying in power by whatever means) then any state government is going to, at its core, make decisions that allow that. Progressive or regressive taxation - or even NO taxation - reflects that. Example: (cough) Alaska. It has sufficient money coming in from oil production to not tax. Take away oil revenue and guess what???

Vermont has NO possibility of such an extreme income outside of some taxation of residents. Put another way, if you want to live in the state, you will need to pay for the privilege.

Raising income taxes for more revenue would drive even more people out of state. I was driven out of state by various factors and that one was not ignored in my choices of places to land.

I am attempting to point out to you that there ARE things much more regressive in taxation than what you said you could not imagine as "anything worse."

[timberline742]

Well, they could move to rural Alaska that doesn't have property taxes due to oil revenue, a nice socialism benefit.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by timberline742

That doesn't make it regressive, since there is some relief and higher taxing of wealthier people. By definition it's progressive, it's just not progressive enough for you. The solution would be to vote in more progressive politicians or lobby your current politicians even more progressive tax policies.

It's also rather easy to reduce the tax rate on forests and farmland (and other open acreage) through CRs and similar methods.

No it is still regressive. Maybe slightly less than before but it is still regressive. There is no reduction on municipal taxes nor on your land beyond a small portion. There is no real reason to continue with this system. It's a relic of a time when it was near impossible to have an income tax instead. The subject comes up now regularly in the legislature but they ultimately never seem to get beyond studies.

Current use requires 25 acres or more for forest, or income minimums for ag. And forest current use requires periodic plans by a licensed forester. So small landowners basically get hit the worst with taxes.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

No it is still regressive. Maybe slightly less than before but it is still regressive.

I really don't think you get the difference between progressive and regressive taxation, as another poster already pointed out. Good luck.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

No it is still regressive. Maybe slightly less than before but it is still regressive. There is no reduction on municipal taxes nor on your land beyond a small portion. There is no real reason to continue with this system. It's a relic of a time when it was near impossible to have an income tax instead. The subject comes up now regularly in the legislature but they ultimately never seem to get beyond studies.

Current use requires 25 acres or more for forest, or income minimums for ag. And forest current use requires periodic plans by a licensed forester. So small landowners basically get hit the worst with taxes.

It’s a real stretch to pull in 25 acres of forest or ag land to try to claim Vermont property taxes are regressive. The median lot size is 78,408 square feet so less than 2 acres. That means it’s subject to Act 68 means testing. That would be, err, progressive taxation.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I really don't think you get the difference between progressive and regressive taxation, as another poster already pointed out. Good luck.

Yes I do. There is no means testing for municipal property taxes at all. There is only a very limited reduction for lower incomes on the state tax. You still need to come up with those thousands each year regardless of your ability to pay it or lose your home. The income tax taxes only what you actually make. You are arguing that VT's property tax is less regressive than other states but it is still regressive and an abomination that belongs only in a history book.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

It’s a real stretch to pull in 25 acres of forest or ag land to try to claim Vermont property taxes are regressive. The median lot size is 78,408 square feet so less than 2 acres. That means it’s subject to Act 68 means testing. That would be, err, progressive taxation.

Urban and suburban residents have smaller lots generally but more rural areas are a different story.

Most of my 10 acres is woods. It is unbuildable due to grade, soils, and a brook. Where my house is, is the only spot that a septic would work. But I'm taxed as though the land could be developed. It's not even as though I could split off the 8 acres either that are called non homestead. But for many smaller landowners who could chop their land up further, property taxes are the driving force behind forest fragmentation.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

It is relevant because you brought up "regressive" taxation. Arguably, in response to your canard, Alabama's tax on food is much more regressive than property tax if you accept the common standard of Maslow's definition of hierarchy of needs. As an aside, I always found it refreshing that in southern states, any business selling food MUST offer free water. It was a recognition of life and death trumping profit.

Trying to clarify our stances, New Hampshire is considered to be ... different... in that it refused sales tax and taxes property heavily. It also has been a bastion of the right, championed by a certain influential newspaper.

Vermont, since reapportionment in the 1960s, has had a different path that is in some ways much more complex.

On income tax, IIRC, states may charge a percentage of Federal income tax, but not devise a tax that is based upon a different set of parameters - in other words, if Vermont wanted to charge 90% income tax on the wealthy, it could not. The progressive or regressive nature of income tax is a fixed FEDERAL decision.

States CAN charge more or less tax in other areas - provided that those are primarily inTRAstate and not inTERstate in nature (investments are a different issue). That creates issues of fair taxation of the rich fifteenth home owners who "legally" reside in another state and whose fourteenth home is their major mansion - in Vermont, where their property covers two school districts in acreage. (I use a hypothetical extreme to make a point.)

Our nation originally only "taxed" imports for its income. That was in no way progressive or regressive. Taxation within the nation (or a state) is an entirely different ball of wax. If you recognize that the PRIMARY purpose of any government IS government (IOW staying in power by whatever means) then any state government is going to, at its core, make decisions that allow that. Progressive or regressive taxation - or even NO taxation - reflects that. Example: (cough) Alaska. It has sufficient money coming in from oil production to not tax. Take away oil revenue and guess what???

Vermont has NO possibility of such an extreme income outside of some taxation of residents. Put another way, if you want to live in the state, you will need to pay for the privilege.

Raising income taxes for more revenue would drive even more people out of state. I was driven out of state by various factors and that one was not ignored in my choices of places to land.

I am attempting to point out to you that there ARE things much more regressive in taxation than what you said you could not imagine as "anything worse."

I can grow and raise enough food, but how do you avoid a tax on your home?

Housing affordability is the major issue in VT yet everyone dances around the obvious problems. High property taxes. Red tape and high costs before even being allowed to build in many instances.

I think eliminating property taxes would make VT much more attractive for a lot of people, and more affordable.

The feds have no control over a state's income tax.

[JGBigGreen]

How do you avoid a tax on your home? Apparently, you move to certain parts of Alaska.

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

I can grow and raise enough food, but how do you avoid a tax on your home?

Housing affordability is the major issue in VT yet everyone dances around the obvious problems. High property taxes. Red tape and high costs before even being allowed to build in many instances.

I think eliminating property taxes would make VT much more attractive for a lot of people, and more affordable.

The feds have no control over a state's income tax.