Amendment to limit increase in home's taxable value?

[CheshireCat]

What is your opinion of the amendment to the SC Constitution that would limit increases in the taxable value of a home to 15 percent every five years?


I have been trying to figure out the long-term effect of this amendment, but I could use your help. It seems to me that for the most part, this will be a win for the upper classes. Since their homes will increase in value more than the homes of the lower and middle classes, the upper class will pay less property tax. Who do you think will make up the lost revenue? Seems to me this is just another way to put the tax burden on the lower and middle classes. What do you think?

Please let me hear your opinions, South Carolinians!

[SCDem]

1. I voted No

I think they are slowly by surely trying to shift taxes to increase sales tax. And sales tax is a heavy burden on the lower and dwindling middle classes.

Also I don't think you should legislate the percentage increase in taxable value. We have no idea where our economy is going to be in 15 years let alone 5.

We have a US Senator that claimed before he ran and won office that those making under $85,000 were the "non-tax paying citizens". But people voted the DeMented man in and our State policies reflect that.

[CheshireCat]

2. I am voting NO, too.

Thank you so much for your response. I agree with you, totally!

Since I posted the question, I have done more research. No doubt, this is another attempt to shift taxes to the lower and middle classes.

Those pushing the amendment are trying to confuse the issue. They claim to be offering protection to the poor and elderly facing the lose of their homes due to a sharp increase in the property value, such as with persons who have owned homes in coastal areas for generations. While the property is often owned outright, these people still cannot afford to pay the property taxes because of the increased value of property in coastal areas.

Yes, this is a problem that should be corrected, but this amendment is not the way to do it. It's like agreeing to raise the minimum wage only if estate taxes are eliminated. In other words, it's a trick!

[SCantiGOP]

3. no, no, no

This is more tilted towards the wealthy at the expense of the 'lower' 90% of society than Bush's tax cuts. If people understood it, it would be defeated overwhelmingly. Here's an analysis from S C Fair Share:

Proposed Constitutional Amendment 4 — Property Tax Reassessment Cap

Amendment 4 would raise property taxes for about two-thirds of us. This amendment does not affect the amount of property taxes which are collected—just who pays them. It limits to 15 % the increase in assessed value over a five year period—absent sale, transfer or improvements. This eliminates our wise practice of uniformly assessing property for tax purposes at its actual value. Identical homes standing next to one another will pay different taxes because one was sold more recently.

The county, city and school district are each going to collect its budget. What share you pay is based on your assessed value. Capping assessments doesn’t change the amount that gets collected—just who pays it. Property tax assessments are a zero sum game. If you pay less, somebody will pay more. If they pay less, you will pay more.

Taxes go up because of inflation, new services and services shifted from the federal or state governments onto local jurisdictions. Reassessment does not increase overall property taxes. Reassessment more fairly allocates responsibility for those taxes based on the current value of the property.

Property values have gone up all over the state. But, if everyone’s property values go up at the same rate, no one pays any more taxes because of rising assessments. However, if property values increase at different rates in different parts of a community, those people with faster growing values will pay higher bills … and everyone else will pay lower bills. People with property on water have especially seen their values and their tax bills go up. Those are the folks who have driven this property tax change.

The reassessment cap will make building schools and public facilities more difficult. Our local jurisdictions can’t borrow more than 8 % of assessed value without a referendum. This amendment will shrink the tax base. Schools, counties and cities will have to hold more bond referendums. The bulk of voters will have to pay a larger share of that debt to make up for those given reassessment relief. Those approvals will be even more difficult to get.

Owner-occupied homes will stop paying property taxes for school operations next year. However, those homeowners will still pay property taxes to pay off school debt. And they will pay taxes for county, city and special purpose districts and on their cars.

There are situations in which reassessment has forced lower-income folks off their land. That is wrong. However, the General Assembly rejected solutions like income-based circuit breakers or tax deferrals which would have stopped that.

Who will pay more so that beach, river and lake homes pay less? Every other homeowner. Businesses. Apartment owners … and thus renters. Utilities … and their ratepayers. Car owners. This proposed amendment is good for the beach house, but bad for the bungalow. It should be defeated.

[CheshireCat]

4. AGREE

I thought that is what I said. This will end up hurting most of us. Reread my post. But you have given me much more detail which is what I wanted. Thanks!

[lapauvre]

5. I voted no on all amendments.

Voted absentee. Anybody with thoughts on lack of support for Ellisor from the State party, when we are trying to win back seats in the legislatures?

[CheshireCat]

6. The state Democratic party needs new leadership.

Every time I try to deal with the state party, I come away frustrated. People call them and offer to help, only to be told their is nothing for them to do.

I don't know much about Ellisor, but how could he be any worse than Joe Wilson?