State questions, November 6th, 2012

[nathanm]

You are wanting to tax unrealized gains by your plan.

Unrealized gains are already taxed. That's how property tax works. What I would like to do is defer increases greater than the Social Security COLA until the home is sold for the elderly so that we don't have to have a general cap that ends up increasing everyone's tax rate.

[Red Arrow]

Unrealized gains are already taxed. That's how property tax works.

Just another injustice in our tax system.

[nathanm]

Just another injustice in our tax system.

I think we've had a debate about the propriety of property tax in general in the past. What we're talking about now is how to keep the system we already have and which is not being eliminated from forcing retirees out of their homes. I'm confused as to why you think that deferring the tax until death or sale of the property is such a bad thing.

And whether or not you agree that property should or should not be taxed, it is. That being the case, why should some people be exempt merely because of the form in which they keep their property?

[Townsend]

A reminder of the state questions.

http://www.ok.gov/elections/documents/Oklahoma%20State%20Questions%202012.pdf

O K L A H O M A S T A T E E L E C T I O N B O A R D

Oklahoma

STATE QUESTIONS FOR GENERAL ELECTION November 6, 2012

STATE QUESTION NO. 758 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 358

This measure amends the State Constitution. It amends Section 8B of Article 10.
The measure deals with real property taxes also called ad valorem taxes. These taxes are based on several factors. One factor is the fair cash value of the property.
The measure changes the limits on increases in fair cash value. Now, increases are limited to 5% of fair cash value in any taxable year.
The measure changes the cap on increases to 3% for some property. The 3% cap would apply to homestead exempted property. The cap would also apply to agricultural land.
The measure also removes obsolete language.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTIONS

General Election — November 6, 2012

STATE QUESTION NO. 759 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 359

This measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds Section 36 to Article II.

The measure deals with three areas of government action. These areas are employment, education and contracting.
In these areas, the measure does not allow affirmative action programs. Affirmative action programs give preferred treatment based on race, color or gender. They also give preferred treatment based on ethnicity or national origin. Discrimination on these bases is also not permitted.
The measure permits affirmative action in three instances. 1. When gender is a bonafide qualification, it is allowed. 2. Existing court orders and consent decrees that require preferred treatment will continue and can be followed. 3. Affirmative action is allowed when needed to keep or obtain federal funds.
The measure applies to the State and its agencies. It applies to counties, cities and towns. It applies to school districts. It applies to other State subdivisions.
The measure applies only to actions taken after its approval by the people.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

STATE QUESTION NO. 762 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 360

This measure amends Section 10 of Article 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution. It changes current law, decreasing the power and authority of the Governor by removing the Governor from the parole process for persons convicted of certain offenses defined as nonviolent offenses. It enlarges the power and authority of the Pardon and Parole Board by authorizing that Board, in place of the Governor, to grant parole to persons convicted of certain offenses defined as nonviolent offenses.
The Legislature defines what offenses are nonviolent offenses and the Legislature may change that definition.
The measure authorizes the Pardon and Parole Board to recommend to the Governor, but not to itself grant, parole for persons convicted of certain offenses, specifically those offenses identified by law as crimes for which persons are required to serve not less than eighty-five percent of their sentence prior to being considered for parole and those designated by the Legislature as exceptions to nonviolent offenses. For those offenses for which persons are required to serve a minimum mandatory period of confinement prior to being eligible to be considered for parole, the Pardon and Parole Board may not recommend parole until that period of confinement has been served.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTIONS

General Election — November 6, 2012

STATE QUESTION NO. 764 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 361

This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds a new Section 39A to Article 10. It would allow the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to issue bonds. Any bonds issued would be used to provide a reserve fund for the Board. The fund would be a reserve fund for certain water resource and sewage treatment funding programs. The fund could only be used to pay other bonds and obligations for the funding programs. The bonds could only be issued after other monies and sources are used for repayment. The bonds would be general obligation bonds. Not more than Three Hundred Million Dollars worth of bonds could be issued. The Legislature would provide the monies to pay for the bonds. The Legislature would provide for methods for issuing the bonds. The Legislature would provide for how the fund is administered.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

STATE QUESTION NO. 765 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 362

The measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It abolishes the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Commission of Human Services and the position of Director of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. These entities were created under different names by Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Article 25 of the Oklahoma Constitution and given duties and responsibilities related to the care of the aged and needy. The measure repeals these sections of the Constitution and consequently, removes the power of the Commission of Human Services to establish policy and adopt rules and regulations. Under the measure, the Legislature and the people by initiative petition retain the power to adopt legislation for these purposes.
The measure adds a provision to the Constitution authorizing the Legislature to create a department or departments to administer and carry out laws to provide for the care of the aged and the needy. The measure also authorizes the Legislature to enact laws requiring the newly-created department or departments to perform other duties.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTIONS

General Election — November 6, 2012

STATE QUESTION NO. 766 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 363

This measure amends Section 6A of Article 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution. At present that section exempts some intangible personal property from ad valorem property taxation. This measure would exempt all intangible personal property from ad valorem property taxation.
An ad valorem property tax is a tax imposed upon the value of property.
Intangible Personal Property is property whose value is not derived from its physical attributes, but rather from what it represents or evidences.
Intangible Personal Property which is still currently taxed but would not be taxed if the measure is adopted, includes items such as:
 patents, inventions, formulas, designs, and trade secrets;
 licenses, franchise, and contracts;
 land leases, mineral interests, and insurance policies;
 custom computer software; and
 trademarks, trade names and brand names.
If adopted, the measure would apply to property taxation starting with the tax year that begins on January 1, 2013.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

[Townsend]

KJRH story on State Question 758.

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Does-Oklahoma-State-Question-758-lower-your-tax-bill

TULSA - Rebecca Caldwell and her husband love playing with their pets at their Broken Arrow home.
     
They also love their tax bill.

"We live in Wagoner County so our taxes are lower," said Caldwell.

So for them, the thought of paying even less in property taxes, thanks to State Question 758, sounds too good to be true.

Tulsa County Assessor Ken Yazel says that's because it is.

"Most citizens including senior citizens interpret it to be a limit on their taxation and it is not," said Yazel.

SQ 758 would not put a cap on how much a homeowner's taxes are raised from year to year.   

What it would do is cap how much the assessed value of a home can increase from year to year. 

It would limit 'property tax assessment increases' to three percent, thereby capping fast-rising property values. Meaning if this passes, you will be paying less in taxes. 

State representative Mike Ritze is a strong supporter of 758.

"We thought it was a good thing to try to keep the property taxes down at a certain level," said Ritze, R-Broken Arrow.

But Yazel said it would actually do just the opposite. He says since counties across the state still need to generate the same amount of revenue, those whose home values are rising slowly will pay more in taxes.

"You shift the burden to those other people to pay and raise the same amount of money," said Yazel.

Yazel says if 758 passes, about 90 percent of Tulsa homeowners will pay higher taxes.

"Well I respect the assessor very much and I would have to assume his position is something that's well-studied but that's not what the intent of the legislation was," said Ritze.

Despite this, the Caldwells know they face a complicated election day decision.

"I think we are paying about what we should be paying," said Caldwell.




Read more: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Does-Oklahoma-State-Question-758-lower-your-tax-bill#ixzz2AK1wqO1L

So this sounds like the way our state legislature works:  "Well I respect the assessor very much and I would have to assume his position is something that's well-studied but that's not what the intent of the legislation was," said Ritze.   Then fix it dumbass.

[DTowner]

KJRH story on State Question 758.

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Does-Oklahoma-State-Question-758-lower-your-tax-bill

So this sounds like the way our state legislature works:  "Well I respect the assessor very much and I would have to assume his position is something that's well-studied but that's not what the intent of the legislation was," said Ritze.   Then fix it dumbass.

With all due respect, I'm not so sure Yazel's positon is so well-studied.  Is Yazel saying that tax rates in counties with slow property value growth will have to go up to keep up with current county needs?  I get the basic logic of that idea – assuming what he is saying is that it costs more each year to provide the same level of services – but what's that got to do with a cap on the increase in property values?  If a county has slow property value growth, the cap isn't going to make any difference – it only matters where growth exceeds the cap.  Tax rates in slow growth counties will go up because of the slow growth not because of the proposed cap.

On the other hand, it seems likely that the cap will cause tax rates in high growth counties to go up because the cap will restrict tax growth below fast growing needs.  However, I assume they do not want to rely on that scenario because it is exactly what the proponents are tying to prevent - fast rising home appraisals pushing up tax bills.

[nathanm]

On the other hand, it seems likely that the cap will cause tax rates in high growth counties to go up because the cap will restrict tax growth below fast growing needs.  However, I assume they do not want to rely on that scenario because it is exactly what the proponents are tying to prevent - fast rising home appraisals pushing up tax bills.

If we demand the same services and inflation runs above the assessment cap, property tax rates will have to increase, which will slowly push the costs of government onto renters, since their landlords don't get the benefit of said cap. Either that or sales tax rates will go up. We already have a limit of 5%, so it seems like we've already got the "nobody gets thrown out of their house on the back of fast-rising property tax assessments" covered.

Normally, housing prices rise about in line with inflation, so property tax naturally grows with it. That hasn't been the case in the past couple of years, but that's not the usual scenario and it appears to be getting back to normal as we speak.

[Conan71]

If we demand the same services and inflation runs above the assessment cap, property tax rates will have to increase, which will slowly push the costs of government onto renters, since their landlords don't get the benefit of said cap. Either that or sales tax rates will go up. We already have a limit of 5%, so it seems like we've already got the "nobody gets thrown out of their house on the back of fast-rising property tax assessments" covered.

Normally, housing prices rise about in line with inflation, so property tax naturally grows with it. That hasn't been the case in the past couple of years, but that's not the usual scenario and it appears to be getting back to normal as we speak.

I'm really not buying that line about landlords getting hit harder.  Is anyone aware of valuations ever increasing more than 3 to 5% over a year in recent times?

[DTowner]

If we demand the same services and inflation runs above the assessment cap, property tax rates will have to increase, which will slowly push the costs of government onto renters, since their landlords don't get the benefit of said cap. Either that or sales tax rates will go up. We already have a limit of 5%, so it seems like we've already got the "nobody gets thrown out of their house on the back of fast-rising property tax assessments" covered.

Normally, housing prices rise about in line with inflation, so property tax naturally grows with it. That hasn't been the case in the past couple of years, but that's not the usual scenario and it appears to be getting back to normal as we speak.

I don't disagree generally, but I read the premise of Yazel's argument to be that slow growth counties will be worse off if the 3% cap passes.  By definition, property values in slow growth counties are not keeping up with inflation now (otherwise, they would be normal growth counties), so why would a reduction from a 5% to 3% cap make a difference if prices are growing at less than 3%?  I'm not advocating for or against the 3% cap, I just don't understand Yazel's argument as a basis for opposing it.

[nathanm]

I'm really not buying that line about landlords getting hit harder.  Is anyone aware of valuations ever increasing more than 3 to 5% over a year in recent times?

It's not that they are at present, it's that they could. Statewide, at least, average selling prices do occasionally go over 5% per year on occasion. I don't have any county level numbers at hand. Here's a nifty graph showing YoY increases in the index in blue and inflation in red:



The landlord (and their renters) thing is simple logic. They don't get the benefit of the cap, so they pay the full ride no matter how much the property appreciates. In a scenario where rates also go up because of the cap, they pay twice. Once for the assessment increase and once for the higher tax rate.

As I said before, I'm not completely opposed to a cap. I am definitely opposed to a 3% cap and would rather see no (constitutional) cap at all except for retirees. I'd rather the legislature deal with it as needed.

[DTowner]

A nice graphic portrayal of Oklahoma's oil boom and bust in late '70s/early '80s.

[Townsend]

Oklahoma Observer's quick thoughts on the state questions:

http://tinyurl.com/9ya25g2

The Observer urges Oklahoma voters to defeat five of the six proposed constitutional amendments on the general election ballot.

Only SQ 762 – which would remove the governor from the parole process involving non-violent offenders – is worthy of support. The others are either bad public policy or bald-faced power grabs by the state's wealthy corporatists – or both:

SQ 758 is appealing, at first blush. It would lower from 5% to 3% the annual cap on property tax increases. Good news for those on fixed incomes or struggling to make ends meet, right?

Actually, it would put Oklahoma on the same slippery slope as California with its Prop 13 that has plunged the once-Golden State into fiscal chaos – a $16 billion budget deficit that is crippling vital state services.

It would be dangerous to further tie the hands of Oklahoma's elected leaders. Thanks to SQ 640, it's virtually impossible already to raise taxes, no matter how grave the emergency. SQ 758 would make matters much worse.

Among the casualties would be the state's already underfunded public schools – it would cost $6.5 million the first year from a system already 49th in teacher salaries and 47th in student finding.

Recommendation: No.

SQ 759 is a solution in search of a problem. It would ban something that doesn't exist – affirmative action quotas in state employment, education and contracting. So why is this even on the ballot?

It is evidently the closest thing to a hot-button, social issue the Republican legislative majority could conjure this year, playing to the preposterous notion that white males are victims of rampant reverse discrimination.

Here's the reality: Approving SQ 759 would send a terrible message to the rest of the nation – and the world – that Oklahoma doesn't give a damn about equal opportunity.

Moreover, SQ 759 if approved would ban the one thing that is required of state agencies – a mandate to periodically report to the public how well they're doing in hiring a workforce that reflects Oklahoma's increasingly diverse population.

Call it Return of the Good Old Boy System.

Recommendation: No.

SQ 762 would move the governor from the parole process when it comes to non-violent offenders.

Oklahoma is bankrupting itself thanks to a three-strikes mentality – more women incarcerated per capita than any other state, fourth per capita in men.

Taking the governor out of the parole process will speed the transition of non-violent offenders from expensive state incarceration – averaging $16,000-plus per inmate per year – to less expensive community-based supervision and treatment. The savings could be used to invest in underfunded vital state services such as education.

Recommendation: Yes.

SQ 764 is another proposal that looks good at first, but doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. It would create a $300 million bonding authority under the Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB] to help municipalities rebuild, update and expand water and wastewater infrastructure – an estimated $82 billion will be needed over the next 50 years.

The problem is, OWRB would control the money and the projects – which means the State Chamber and the Oklahoma City powers-that-be would be in charge.

Given how OWRB and OKC handled Sardis Lake, that's more than disconcerting. It evokes fear of a slush fund for the privileged few, helping make the rich richer in Oklahoma City while leaving Oklahoma to wither.

Recommendation: No.

SQ 765 would throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the state Department of Human Services. It would eliminate the DHS commission and transfer its powers to the governor and the Legislature.

That's hardly a comforting thought. The last thing DHS needs is to be politicized further. What it really needs is to be funded – fully. It never has been, leaving child welfare workers, for example, with crushing caseloads far beyond professional standards.

Recommendation: No.

SQ 766 is a corporatist's dream come true – a tax avoidance scheme that would make Mitt Romney proud.

The proposal would provide huge tax cuts to major business interests – think utilities, telecommunications companies, airlines and railroads – by exempting intangible property, including stocks, bonds and investments, from their net worth.

It would cost local governments an estimated $50 million annually – 60% of which goes to schools and roads, among other vital services.

Recommendation: No.

[RecycleMichael]

I am voting NO on all the state questions.

Hell no.

[nathanm]

The League of Women Voters would like you to reconsider your position on SQ 762.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Have you looked at your ballot?  Busy bee ballot this go 'round.

I've got questions about the judges for you guys with any knowledge.

I already voted, so this info comes too late. 


Judges - goes to my basic philosophy of voting against incumbents every chance I get.  I 'no' them well...