 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Jim_Green
Posts:30
 | | 07/16/2008 4:10 PM |
 Alert | I watched the council meeting last night from the comfort of my own home! Thanks to the city and Orbitel cable. The headlines in the media today should read: "Councilpersons Diedrich, Brown, and Griffin Decide to Give Back $153,000 to the State" Why? We don't understand it either! It's true, by approving to raise the city property tax 2%, the state of Arizona would send Maricopa $153,000 more dollars than it currently does. The 2% increase would not cost the residents of Maricopa one cent more than they currently pay. It's hard to explain, but the presentation given by an expert last night is available from the city. Basically, state law says our combined primary property tax (includes Colleges, schools, city, and county taxes) tops out at 10 (not sure if that is % or $). Regardless, our combined property tax has been has been over 10 since the city incorporated. Thus the state makes up the difference. So by declining the 2% increase last night, those 3 councilpeople almost turned down an additional $153k Maricopa would receive from the state. Councilman Estes almost didn't get it. But then he got it! Thank god Mayor Smith, ViceMayor Murphree, and Councilman Farrell all got it. Why would we not accept an additional $153k from the state? Do these new councilpeople really have what we need to run this city? | | | |
| | JoeMan
Posts:65
| | 07/16/2008 4:18 PM |
Alert | Well said, Jim. I couldn't believe my ears when they voted to not accept the 153000 from the state! I was like "WHAT!".
Who voted for these people. | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2569
| | 07/16/2008 9:19 PM |
Alert | Hey, careful guys. I would hate to see you hurt yourselves patting each other on the back. The vote was to increase the "base tax rate" which means every year after this year, the 2% is still part of the base rate. Each year then, you can add another 2% to the base, causing a multiplier effect. People who only look at the effect that today's taxes have on today are the one's who don't have vision. Regardless of the current situation with the $153,000 there is no justification for creating that cumulative effect today when nobody knows how long we will be in this economic situation. Oh, Mr. Man, to answer your question, "Who voted for these people?", simple answer: The Majority. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | JAG
Posts:740
| | 07/16/2008 10:47 PM |
Alert | The thing I do not understand is why tax is a bad thing? I mean we have very low taxes, I paid more twice the tax in Mass with twice as small house. We need taxes to build things and have nice infrastructures, don't we? I am also mifted that they voted against putting the Bonds on the ballot. What exactly is wrong with bonds? | | | |
|
| | BSpearsBdyGuard
Posts:157
| | 07/16/2008 11:50 PM |
Alert | | They voted to put the bonds on the November ballot in a 7-0 vote, Jag. | | | |
|
| | JAG
Posts:740
| | 07/17/2008 3:39 AM |
Alert | Posted By BSpearsBdyGuard on 07/16/2008 11:50 PM
They voted to put the bonds on the November ballot in a 7-0 vote, Jag. My bad I read that wrong. Thanks  | | | |
|
|  | Java Lover
Posts:170
| | 07/17/2008 8:39 AM |
Alert | Part of what the public is missing is the $10 cap on our primary taxes. The 2% does not effect that, what is effected is how much the state sends MUSD.
Vote YES on the PRL bond on November 4th!  | | | |
|
| | JoeMan
Posts:65
| | 07/17/2008 9:19 AM |
Alert | Posted By DesertDweller on 07/16/2008 9:19 PM Hey, careful guys. I would hate to see you hurt yourselves patting each other on the back. The vote was to increase the "base tax rate" which means every year after this year, the 2% is still part of the base rate. Each year then, you can add another 2% to the base, causing a multiplier effect. People who only look at the effect that today's taxes have on today are the one's who don't have vision. Regardless of the current situation with the $153,000 there is no justification for creating that cumulative effect today when nobody knows how long we will be in this economic situation. Oh, Mr. Man, to answer your question, "Who voted for these people?", simple answer: The Majority.
DD, I'm not looking at the short picture. This tax law is in place to protect school systems. It is complicated, but if you watched the council meeting you will hear that the state tax expert who presented indicated that the max amount paid by taxpayers in any given city would likely not change or go away, even in the future. The law is created to ensure schools have enough money to operate in new cities. The law is there for cities to take advantage of.
Had we not had 4 councilpeople who got that, we would have turned down $153K. Bottom line, Diedrich, Brown, and Griffin need to do their homework and be prepared to understand before they vote. Maricopa does not need to turn down $153k that helps our city. As the city grows, more population will end up spreading the taxes, lowering them below the 10 mark represented by the law. At that point, the state will not longer send money our way. Until then, we need to take advantage of it. | | | |
|
| | JoeMan
Posts:65
| | 07/17/2008 9:20 AM |
Alert | Posted By Java Lover on 07/17/2008 8:39 AM
Part of what the public is missing is the $10 cap on our primary taxes. The 2% does not effect that, what is effected is how much the state sends MUSD.
Vote YES on the PRL bond on November 4th! 
That's absolutely correct, Java Lover.
| | | |
|
| | MaryMan
Posts:12
| | 07/17/2008 10:15 AM |
Alert | DD, I know you are good friends with the Diedrichs, so no wonder you want to protect them.
However, I don't think if the state wanted to give you 153000 dollars, to improve your spot in the desert, that you would turn it down, would you? Especially, since it would cost you nothing!
This tax increase will cost the Maricopa home owner nothing, but will give the city 153000 dollars more. It's part of the state tax law, it's not going away, it's there for small cities. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|