There are several property tax bills being considered by the State Legislature that are of interest to citizens and city governments in Minnesota. I pleased to report that one of the bills that I talked about last week - a new economic development tool being considered to help subsidize a parking ramp for the new phase II development at the Mall of America - has been amended so that it is now revenue-neutral for Twin Cities commercial/industrial taxpayers. That’s good. In fact, the legislature is going to consider developing criteria and rules for the use of that particular tool in the future, which would also be good.
Another property tax development that is under consideration is the proposal outlined by the Star Tribune’s Lori Sturdevant in the story below that appeared in Saturday’s paper. Like many bills, it has its positive and negative sides. For places like Eden Prairie, I think it will impact our citizens greater than average because we have a higher proportion of our population with total family income of $200,000 or more.
One of its positive impacts is that it directs state property tax relief directly from the state to the individual. In the current property tax relief system, the state routes some (but not all) of its property tax relief through city governments. This is problematic for city governments because sometimes the state reimburses us for their property tax relief programs, and sometimes they don’t. I like the idea of getting city governments out of the middle of that transaction.
Read Ms. Sturdevant’s story:
As property taxes bear down, pair offers a leg up
By LORI STURDEVANT, Star Tribune
April 26, 2008
For the last few years, rising residential property taxes have been the weather issue at the Minnesota Legislature — the thing everybody talks about, but nobody does much about.
It’s not for lack of trying, or lack of ideas. But each party’s pet idea for controlling property taxes is anathema to the other, and this crowd tends to cling to its pets like toddlers to their favorite toys.
Against that backdrop last week came a new property tax relief idea from House DFL tax chair Ann Lenczewski and property tax division chair Paul Marquart. It came with a label not often attached to DFL tax proposals: “revenue neutral.”
The idea featured a few other surprises: It did not involve a state tax increase. (That was tried and vetoed last year.) It did not involve a huge increase in aid to local governments (never popular with Republicans, who tend to favor local control more in principle than in practice). It did not rely on unsustainable one-time money gimmicks (which are in vogue in both parties this year but are detested by fiscal prudes, including editorial writers).
Lenczewski and Marquart proposed to ease the property tax burden on homeowners least able to bear it, by putting the state’s property tax refund program, or “circuit breaker,” on steroids. It would bulk up state refunds to homeowners whose property tax burdens are disproportionately high relative to their incomes, making it big enough to block next year’s expected property tax increases for a majority of Minnesotans.
The circuit breaker’s growth would be funded by scaling down or eliminating the itemized state income tax deduction for property taxes and the market value homestead credit, which is unrelated to the size of either a homeowner’s tax bill or income.
That would mean higher taxes for homeowners with high incomes and comparatively low property taxes — particularly those with household incomes after deductions of more than $200,000. They’re only about 5 percent of Minnesotans. But their ranks may include more potential campaign donors than legislators and Gov. Tim Pawlenty are willing to afflict in an election year.
Yet the high-end earners who would lose a prized tax deduction under this plan should be advised that the existing state-plus-local tax structure in Minnesota grants them most-favored-taxpayer status. The tax cuts of 1999-2001 produced a fairness gap that favors the rich, and it’s growing. The latest calculations say top earners pay about 9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, compared with 12.5 percent for middle earners.
Lenczewski is a zealot about arresting that regressive trend. In that sense, her proposal is true to eight decades of emphasis by the DFL or its Farmer-Labor antecedent on basing taxation on ability to pay.
But in another sense, Lenczewski and Marquart are breaking with DFL orthodoxy. They favor direct aid to taxpayers over local governments. That’s an implicit acceptance of Republican arguments about the virtue of putting money into individual pockets and of exposing more taxpayers to the full impact of local government decisions.
That bow in the GOP direction ought to give their idea at least a remote chance to get through Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s “no new taxes” filter and become law. It should, that is, if easing property tax pain for those who are really hurting outweighs the election-year thrill of stomping on any idea that originates with the opposite team.
What ought to be clear to legislators is that the economic hurt in Minnesota is growing, and their election certificates oblige them to do something about it, no matter whether they sit in the majority or the minority caucus.
People whose incomes are falling are particularly burdened by the 82 percent average increase in homeowners’ property taxes that’s come on Pawlenty’s watch. They can’t afford the 7.7 percent increase that’s forecast for next year. Helping people in tough circumstances stay in their homes is what Minnesotans looked to a Farmer-Labor governor and a Conservative Legislature to do 75 years ago, and they delivered. Today’s divided government owes its constituents no less.
Lori Sturdevant is a Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist. She is at lsturdevant@startribune.com.
Money Back for Minnesotans
How the House DFL plan might affect you, if you live in rural Minnesota (top set of numbers) or in the metro area (the bottom set of numbers):
If your household … and your home’s … your savings next year would be:
income after market value is …
deductions is …
$40,000 $106,900 $35
$60,000 $160,300 $101
$100,000 $213,700 $70
_________________________________________________
$60,000 $187,500 $110
$80,000 $281,100 $227
$110,000 $374,700 $365
$150,000 $374,700 $63
All savings are net of the project impact on all taxes, federal, state and local.
Source: House Research.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
According to Ms. Nina Manzi, an analyst with State House Research, the following groups/people will benefit most from this proposal:
1. High-income taxpayers (over $200K income/year) who itemize their federal deductions regardless of where they live.
2. Taxpayers who itemize their federal deductions with incomes over $100K who live in low-value homes (>$200K).
3. Taxpayers who itemize their federal deductions with incomes over $100K who live in average value homes, but have low taxes ($280,000 home, taxes of $2,300).
4. Taxpayers who itemize their federal deductions with incomes over $150K who live in average value homes ($200K) with average or high taxes ($3K and up)
5. Taxpayers who itemize their federal deductions with incomes over $100K and have average taxes (or higher). For example, an income of $100K in a home valued at $160K or more, with taxes of $1,500 or more.
Linking property tax relief to income is a new concept in Minnesota. I doubt this proposal will become law, but you never know.