the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation

Memo to Crosscut: I-1098 Does Not Cut Property Taxes by 20 Percent

It’s smart politics, of course, for I-1098 backers to get voters to only hear “20 percent off property taxes.” Voters, however, should be aware the numbers don’t quite add up that way.

Thoughts?   Add Comment -

Trent said on Jul 19 2010 at 6:53pm
That's a good catch Brett. Crosscut / Knute Berger should make a correction--the statement is clearly false.

And if the 1098 campaign told Berger that 1098 would cut property taxes by 20%, Crosscut should run a story on income tax advocates misleading journalists. Honesty is not too much to ask.

my name is Ben said on Jul 19 2010 at 10:26pm
ehhh?

What is false?
I followed the link you provided to the "state portion of the property tax" and nowhere does it explain what you are talking about (some 20% of 20% number). Maybe is substantiates it, but it does not obviously support it. Calling Knute out on misguided, errr, "offending" writing is a bit absurd and really only taking pot shots at this writer for stating nearly what is said in the initiative ("cut" rather than "reduce").

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not doubting what you have said and that Knute Berger may not be educating his readership, only that your "investigative reporting" hasn't lead us, the readers to your conclusion either.

A better explanation with web links to relative and informative information would be most helpful to those of us looking to be educated so we can make the best decisions regarding these things.

SouthernRoots said on Jul 20 2010 at 7:39am
Ben, the link is informative, and actually simple to use.

Take the King County numbers, the total property tax rate is $8.81 per thousand. Of that, $1.96 is the state portion. $1.96 is 22.25% of the $8.81 total.

Reduce the $1.96 by 20% and you get $1.57, making the new total rate $8.52. $1.57 is now 18.43% of the total.

The reduction from $8.81 to $8.52 is 3.29% showing that a "cut property taxes by 20 percent" is in reality only a 3% cut.

The impression of I-1098 cutting "property taxes by 20 percent" would result in some thinking their rate would go down to $7.05 per thousand.

It is misleading and dishonest when coming from a journalist informing the public. When coming from an advocate, it is just "marketing".

Jim Vaughn said on Jul 20 2010 at 11:36am
In addition, to misleading the public, lying to the public let’s add collusion to Initiative 1098

I wrote three tongue and cheek initiatives that in spite of the initial humor have a serious message. My most popular was Initiative 1069 to change the state seal to a tapeworm dressed in a three piece suit attached the rectum of the tax payer. Around the vignette the words, “ Committed to Sucking the Life Blood Out of Each and Every Tax Payer.”

My second initiative is a rebuttal to Bill Gates Sr. Initiative 1098. Ask yourself the following questions before you vote yes for Initiative 1098.

1. Why would Bill Gates Sr. sponsor an initiative that would tax the rich?
2. Does it have anything to do with the fact the legislature is preparing to give Microsoft a $100 million tax break and amnesty for $1 BILLION in tax evasion?
3. After two years do you believe that the legislature would change the law to tax everyone?
4. After reading section 1. below, do you believe our state is any different than Connecticut?


Panhandling and Pick Pocket Tax For State Legislatures In Lieu of a State Income Tax

Sec. 1. Whereas Initiative 960 was approved by the voters to prevent the following:

In 1991, Connecticut was facing a revenue shortfall of about $2.7 Billion. Using that crisis, Connecticut's governor pushed hard for a state income tax. The bill eventually passed. At the signing ceremony, Governor Lowell Weicker sounded optimistic. "When I sign this budget, Connecticut will be closing the book on its past and it'll be facing toward the future."

17 years later, we have a good idea of what that future looks like: The income tax that was passed to close a $2.7 Billion deficit has been raised several times and now brings in over $7.5 billion a year. Add in the $350 million a year that the state currently receives from Indian Casinos, and Connecticut now collects nearly $8 billion more in revenue than it did in 1991.

Despite all of those extra billions, Connecticut is still facing massive deficits $1.2 Billion this year and another $6 to $8 Billion over the next two years. How could this happen? In Connecticut's case, out-of-control spending was the culprit. The point is that government knows how to get bigger. Try as they might to slim down, the natural order of things will always take over and ensure they grow larger than anyone thought possible. The only way to stop that, or at least slow it down, is by taking away their source of food: money and power. For this very reason the voters of Washington State passed Initiative 960 in an attempt to remove the tapeworm that is attached to the lower intestine of the taxpayers.

Brett said on Jul 20 2010 at 11:46am
my name is Ben,

Read Part III, Section 301 of I-1098, which clearly says, "Beginning in 2012, the state property tax levy is reduced by twenty percent..."

The Property Tax Levy rates chart I linked to shows the state average is $1.98 out of total average property tax bill of $18.83, which is just over 21 percent. I rounded down to 20 percent. Hence the 20 percent of 20 percent, which is four percent.

This wasn't exactly investigative reporting; merely an error in reporting that I pointed out.

Hope this clears things up for you, Ben.

my name is Ben said on Jul 20 2010 at 10:33pm
Hey everyone, thanks! It's all so clear to me now.

Still, I do not understand why Knute's writing is called out here. He has stated the facts as they are given to him. Maybe you could say Mike McGinn is supplying faulty information but you didn't. In fact, it might be said that you are slandering Knute, but I won't say that.

For further clarification, if I owned a house in thurston county that is valued at $1,000,000 then what would my old tax rate be and what would my new tax rate be? What would the actual percent reduction be?

That would help me understand this a whole lot better than an off hand remark, a whole bunch of confusing numerical mumbo-jumbo, and a reduced critical comment.

Thanks, Ben

Brett said on Jul 20 2010 at 11:50pm
I'm not calling our Mr. Berger's writing per se; only pointing out an error--or more generously, a statement that's not entirely accurate.

I find it difficult to believe you are having such a hard time figuring out the math on this. The chart linked in the blog has a breakdown of property taxes by county, including the state's portion. Simply figure out the percentage the the state takes from whatever county and then take 20 percent of that. Once you have that percentage, you can apply that to the $1 million figure from said county, in this case, Thurston.

The bottom line is the article gives the false impression that I-1098 would grant a 20 percent reduction in your overall property tax bill.

my name is Ben said on Jul 21 2010 at 3:37pm
Brett,

I agree, that the way people are talking about the property tax portion of this legislation is incorrect, but you should keep your position on that part of it. Knute's writing is, as I said above, nearly verbatim of what the actual legislation says. He, nor you, have gone into depth in explaining what this all means. Only SouthernRoots has given this a shot and what we get from SouthernRoots is a subtraction of two numerals that results in a percentage (not math), "The reduction from $8.81 to $8.52 is 3.29%."

If you did not mean to accuse Knute's writing then you should have worded your blog post differently. That is what I have a hard time believing. You called his passage "offending." That directly relates to his writing not the legislation.

If you all are trying to help people understand then help them. Don't just rant about it, do something. Arm people with knowledge not anger. Free people don't enrage people.

Brett said on Jul 21 2010 at 4:45pm
It seems rather contradictory to me that you acknowledge I'm correct about the description in Mr. Berger's article being incorrect as far as property taxes are concerned, but then complain about my writing about it! In one of my comments to you, I even referenced the exact wording of I-1098 that references property taxes, and it's not "verbatim of what the actual legislation says." I believe I explained, quite clearly, that I-1098 only reduces by 20 percent the state's portion of the property taxes. The math is pretty simple. It's a blog, not a term paper or multi-page in-depth analysis.

Personally, I think you just want me to waste time responding to your nonsensical, supercilious comments. Assuming that's the case, well done.

SouthernRoots said on Jul 22 2010 at 8:49am
Probably a waste of time, but ....

Ben - "Knute's writing is, as I said above, nearly verbatim of what the actual legislation says".

Berger - "cut property taxes by 20 percent".

I-1098 - "Sec. 301. Beginning in 2012, the state property tax levy is reduced by twenty percent".

Nearly verbatim drops out a very improtant fact in the law.

Oblivious_Ben - "what we get from SouthernRoots is a subtraction of two numerals that results in a percentage (not math), "The reduction from $8.81 to $8.52 is 3.29%."" You can lead a horse to water......

The misleading part of the article is in the nearly verbatim statement. Most homeowners know what their total bill is, they don't necessarily know how much the individual componets are - they can look it up, but the number they focus on is the total.

The focus on "20%" leads a taxpayer to think that their $3000 [insert your own property tax number here] property tax bill will be reduced by 20%, saving them $600. In reality, only about 20% of the $3000 property tax bill will be reduced. (Look at your own tax bill and you will see that the State Property Tax Levy is about 20% of your total bill, depending on where you live - mine from 2010 is 20.62%).

$3000 x .20 = $600. So only the $600 portion, which is the State Property Tax levy, will be reduced by 20%.

$600 x .20 = $120. This means that you would save only $120, not the $600 that the nearly verbatim comment would infer.

What it also means is that the new State Property Tax levy would be $480, lowering your total property tax bill to $2880 ($3000 - $120). The reduction of $120 off your total property tax bill is $120/$3000 = 4%, a total reduction on your total property tax bill of 4%, not 20% as the nearly verbatim comment in the news article implies.

So, if the I-1098 campaign were totally truthful and forthcoming and they ran their campaign touting a 4% total property tax reduction, how would they fare?

my name is Ben said on Jul 23 2010 at 7:54pm
Brett, let me put it this way, The problem I have is that you are only complaining when you should be helping people to understand how this issue pertains to us. Knute is reporting on the issue with the intent to shed some light on the issue by talking to our elected leaders about it, albeit in a non investigative way. That's the difference on my reading of both writings.

SouthernRoots,

I don't get your egoism here. If you'd stop feeling so insulted and to actually make some sense we all would be better for it. I am glad that you took the time give us an example that is tangeable even if you think educating is a waste of time. I'm glad that your math teacher felt differently.

SouthernRoots said on Jul 23 2010 at 8:52pm
Ben, you mistake my writings. I was not insulted, but rather, I was shocked that you could not figure out what was being said to you without even more explicit details and samples.

I am glad my teachers took the time and effort. I only wish you had profited from the time and effort your teachers put into you.

my name is Ben said on Jul 27 2010 at 12:27am
SoutherRoots,

if you are not insulted by my remarks then why do you feel the need to make a personal assessment of my education? Why do you feel you need to take the high and mighty road to "teach" me some (incorrect) math lesson?

You are missing the pointof my position. My problem is with Brett not following through on educating his readership. His criticism of Knute Berger doesn't hold any value if Brett isn't willing to educate his readership to what is the truth.

Your comments are typical to right wing thinking. You focus on some trival part of a different issue and stick to it to sound supperior even though it has ver little to do with the real problem.

SouthernRoots said on Jul 27 2010 at 11:56am
Ben - I apologize for not understanding the real goal of your writings.

I had assumed that you had two purposes: one was understanding why Knute Berger's 20% income tax comment was misleading and the other was a more detailed understanding of how Brett got to his 4% comment.

Apparently, your primary goal was to reproach and attack Brett.

Once again, I apologize for letting facts and details get in the way a far more important rebuke.

my name is Ben said on Aug 01 2010 at 6:08pm
SouthernRoots,

Once again, you have it wrong. "My problem is with Brett not following through on educating his readership." If you call that reproach and attack that is your freedom to do so. It still does not excuse Brett from mis-educating his readership. His responsibility is to inform people to make opinions not to form people's opinions. That is what journalists do. He claims himself a journalist so he should be held accountable too. Otherwise Brett should refer to himself as an Opinion Columnist.