Property Tax Increase Looming
Looks like state aid to the West Bend School District is being cut by 7.73%.
The question is… how will the board react? Will they go for a tax increase to make up the entire difference? Will they find ways to cut spending to protect the taxpayers? Or will they fall somewhere in between. If you’re in the West Bend district, it’s time to start calling them to let them know your wishes - assuming you can get a hold of them.
Beaver Dam started cutting the budget for non-essentials a while ago. We’ll have to see how much it helps.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 0900 hrs
This is just round one. I would REALLY hate to be someone who voted for that budget during election time next year. When all the increases hit with their full effect - I think you are going to see some really angry voters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 0931 hrs
I will not be an angry voter Bill refers. I am smart enough to know not to spend money you don’t have…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1004 hrs
My tennants keep voting for the tax and spenders. They don’t realize that I am done absorbing the property tax increases. They will be getting a rent increase due to the increased property taxes. Maybe they will think differently when they realize they have some skin in the game. Probably not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1006 hrs
But I thought there weren’t any cuts in the state budget?
You guys are awesome, able to complain about tax increases and budget cuts simultaneously.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1036 hrs
I’m not complaining about budget cuts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1037 hrs
Lefty I would really like some of what you are taking. These are not cuts, they are reallocations. We have 5 apples i a basket and 6 people want an apple. All they did in this budget is give apples to person 1,2,3,4, and 6, tell 5 to get his apple elsewhere, and then go over to the neighbor’s apple tree and steal a couple more to give to person 7,8,9.
If you increase the budget, create new spending, add new taxes and fees, and redirect money that was spent one way to something else and then tell folks that because you took money from them in one area and put it into another that you cut the budget you are a liar and a poor one at that.
Posted by fishaddict on July 08, 2009 at 1147 hrs
Lefty must be on something.
It’s very simple. If I have to pay more in taxes - my taxes went up.
You can play all the shell games with this fund and that account you want. The bottom line remains the same.
Massively higher taxes = pissed off voters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1301 hrs
Lefty I would really like some of what you are taking. These are not cuts, they are reallocations.
And yet what is at issue in this discussion is a 7.73% cut to a school district. Now, who is impacted by cuts to school districts the most? Hmmmm, could it be, teachers? Now who is the number 1 public interest group in the Dem corner in this state? Hmmmm, could it be, teachers?
So I’m supposed to believe that while the Dems were rearranging the chairs on the Titanic this budget, they intentionally choose to not only cut state aid to school districts, but then put a cap on how much school districts can raise through property taxes, so they could fund other priorities? Is that your argument? That Dems increased spending elsewhere so they could cut money to the largest special interest group in the state? Their campaign cash cow got stuck with across the board cuts and property tax caps because they had somewhere else to take all their money?
Massively higher taxes = pissed off voters.
Very true. That’s probably why they held 99% of the state harmless from income tax increases, didn’t raise the sales tax and put in constraints that will ensure the smallest property tax increases in two decades over the next two years. Pretty shrewd.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1326 hrs
smallest property tax increases in two decades over the next two years.
... pass the pipe, Lefty…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1340 hrs
I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Lefty but I am. The caps that were put on school districts will simply cause school districts to cut staff. As expenses for salary and benefits continue to be a larger part of the overall school district budget at some point it will result in layoffs and larger class sizes. There is more to a budget than salaries and benes, schools need toilet paper too. So WEAC got rid of the QEO and will in the end lose teachers as well. SMART!
Now the other question that has to be answered is why do we have so many school districts in the first place? If you look at the list published in the MJS the list contains so many 1 school school districts it is ridiculous. Why doesn’t Erin (1 school) merge with Hartford Jt? Why cant Slinger and Richfield join together, and the worst are in the Lake Country, Swallow (1 school) Friess Lake (1) Stone Bank (1) Lake Country (1), Hartland - Lakeside (3). Could Menomonee Falls and Germantown Share resources?
The massive amount of waste at the top end with District Administrators, payroll, human resources, and the list goes on could be eliminated and taxes could be held down.
Could this be Diamond Jims overall strategy? Starve the schools to make them merge?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1358 hrs
Cigarette tax
Criminals get out jail free
UWM students fee increase
Notary fee increase
Car rental fee increase (800%)
DOT Car fee increase
Large vehicle fee increase
Land fill tipping fee increase
Background for handgun fee increase
Wireless cell phone fee (?)
Gas tax increase
Professional licensing fee increase
Court filing fee increaseFee or tax…either way we are getting the shaft.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1408 hrs
So WEAC got rid of the QEO and will in the end lose teachers as well. SMART!
Bingo! Unless you address the other parts of that “3 legged stool” that is the only option. That will mean cutting some programs too. Unions can never figure this out. They think they can legislate job security while imposing (in some cases) ridiculous work rules and protections, and mandating pay increases. They have never learned their Capitalism and History from the textile unions, steel unions, and now auto unions.
Can Germantown and MF share resources? Excellent idea. Let’s try something easier first like total peace in the middle east.
School districts and especially Superintendents want everything to be theirs and sharing with another district is trespassing on their kingdom. Take any two districts and they will say: “well we tried but the other district’s demands were too unreasonable.” It happens every time.
My company’s HR director and IT director make about half of what these school district positions are paid in an average SD(when you factor bennies). They also work less days in a year. Administrators pay structure is way out of line with the private sector.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1602 hrs
Cigarette tax
Criminals get out jail free
UWM students fee increase
Notary fee increase
Car rental fee increase (800%)
DOT Car fee increase
Large vehicle fee increase
Land fill tipping fee increase
Background for handgun fee increase
Wireless cell phone fee (?)
Gas tax increase
Professional licensing fee increase
Court filing fee increaseFee or tax…either way we are getting the shaft.
Fee or tax, either way you’re getting the shaft? Yet all we ever hear about is Wisconsin being a tax hell, because it is 7th, or 10th, or 11th (depending on the year) in overall taxes, but whenever someone points out that when you combine taxes and fees Wisconsin is 21st or 22nd, or 24th (again depending on the year) we’re told that doesn’t count.
Also, I’m pretty sure there is no gas tax increase in the budget. nor large vehicle fee increase, nor vehicle registration fee increase, nor notary fee increase for that matter. Unfortunately, when some of these ideas are proposed they get reported on as though they are going to happen, and no one bothers to pick up the story when they don’t.
... pass the pipe, Lefty…
Really Smeety? You might want to look at the budget. Local property taxes are on lock down with caps on how much counties, cities and school districts can raise. Even then, what they can raise is offset by money being poured into the first dollar tax credit to reduce any increase you may see. Over the next two years property taxes on a median valued home are expected to rise by $93 and $123 respectively.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1618 hrs
assuming you can get a hold of them.
Cheap shot Owen. It was one guy out of seven and I bet the problem has been solved. I’d like to challenge anyone from the District on this blog to give it a try. I’m sure you’ll be in contact with School Board members easily.
That said, the only choice the Board has is to cut expenses. Just like in any business, it’s a tough gig but I have faith in this Board and this Administration to make the smart moves.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1747 hrs
Local property taxes are on lock down with caps on how much counties, cities and school districts can raise.
I have to plead some ignorance here. What caps are being referred to here?
Over the next two years property taxes on a median valued home are expected to rise by $93 and $123 respectively.
Lefty, would you like to make a friendly wager based on my 2008 property tax bill? The best kind of beer is free beer…
Posted by Smeety on July 08, 2009 at 2101 hrs
There are still caps in place, but they have been loosened. PLUS, the caps don’t apply if the state reduces funding. So the school district can raise property taxes the amount allowed by the cap and then raise them above the cap to cover the money that they won’t get from the state. Taken to it’s full possibility, West Bend could see a property tax increase well over 10%.
Posted by Owen on July 08, 2009 at 2106 hrs
And you also forget with the way we fund the schools, my tax and Owen’s tax will not go down because the state is sending less money BACK to the district. We pay the same to the state into the pool that the schools draw from and yet the amount that comes BACK to the district goes down.
I say if the state decides to cut funding to a district thus “forcing the local district to raise taxes within that district to cover the reduction” the taxes that folks within that district pay to the state for the schools should also go down by an equitable amount. That is not happening so it is, in fact a massive tax increase.
Posted by fishaddict on July 09, 2009 at 0840 hrs
It seems that Lefty likes taxes and fees…so I will be sending my share of fee and taxes to you so you can pay them. After all, it’s not that much…right?
Lefty, please share a fee or a tax that Doyle didn’t like or Obama for that matter.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1024 hrs
Owen,
I would be interested in your source material that supports your claim that you could see a 10% property tax increase. I honestly don’t think that is accurate, but would be open to an explaination of how I’m wrong.
Here’s my material for my argument…
A three page summary of the impacts the state budget has on property taxes.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/2009-11Budget/Act 28/2009_07_06Property Tax Estimates Act 28.pdf
and starting on page 18 of this link a summary of the provisions for levy limits in the state budget as proposed by the Gov and passed by JFC.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/2009-11Budget/JFC/shared revenue.pdf
As you can see, local government taxing authorities are capped in terms of its levy at 3%, with certain exemptions. This is right in line with the 2 to 4 percent caps that have been in place over the last 6 years, which have always had exemptions for things like growth, emergencies or referendum.
You can also see that the first dollar tax credit has been infused with $200 million dollars. When you combine those provisions it limits the total average property tax increase to 3.3% and 4.2% over the next two years.
Now to Smeety’s point made by his wager proposal…
Those are average increases on a median home. For individual property they will vary greatly. But this budget, with Dems running everything, did more to hold the line on property tax increases than any in recent memory.
Finally, fishaddict’s premise has a serious logic flaw. The reason the amount of money the state is sending back to your community is decreasing is because the amount of money the state is taking in is decreasing due to people losing their jobs and having a huge decrease in state income tax collections. Your state tax payments may not have decreased, because you still have your job, but your neighbor’s did as he lost his.
What you are arguing is that if your school district sees a 7.73% cut in state aid, you want for you, and all your neighbors, a tax cut proportional to the aid cut (lets say it is 2% just to have a number). Under that senario the neighbor you have who lost his job is still going to have to pay 98% of the taxes he paid last year even if he saw his income greatly reduced or simply no longer has a job. Seems pretty unworkable to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1106 hrs
It seems that Lefty likes taxes and fees…so I will be sending my share of fee and taxes to you so you can pay them. After all, it’s not that much…right?
An amazingly non-compelling and pointless argument.
Lefty, please share a fee or a tax that Doyle didn’t like or Obama for that matter.
Well it seems that Doyle didn’t like an increase in state sales tax, state income tax for 99% of the state or gasoline tax. Seems to me that very small tweaks on any of those would have been an easy way to solve the budget deficit. I think a penny on the sales tax raises just under a billion a year. Given that Wisconsin has a much lower sales tax than neighboring states it would have been the simplest way to go about it. Instead he mixed increases for some in terms of taxes and fees, fed stimulus money and cuts to solve the problem. Certainly didn’t make him any friends on any side of the aisle, but to claim he just raised every tax he could to tax his way out of the problem is blatantly false.
You conservatives need to figure out what it is exactly you want. You argue for less spending, then make complaints when there is a cut in aid to your community. You don’t want to see tax increases, but asking individuals to pay higher fees for using a service is unacceptable as well.
The most detailed response I’ve ever seen on this blog to what would you cut has come from Owen. Now, he basically said he’d cut $1 billion out of this department, or $2 billion out of aids, etc, without ever identifying what specific programs, aids or benefits he is willing to cut, or by how much. That said, I don’t blame him for that. It isn’t his job to identify specifics of that nature. The people to blame are the so called budget hawks most reading this blog choose to vote for or donate money to. Not once, with all of the resources they have at their disposal with the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Congressional Budget Office or state and national think tanks have they put together proposals that cut state or federal spending by any measurable amount. Instead they tinker around the edges, talking about earmarks, pork or tax gimmicks like TABOR, never willing to wade into the dangerous waters of offering substantive ideas or bold inititatives that, while it may cost them an election, would set a clear position in the debate over government expenditures.
Because that is what this is about. Talking about taxes is missing the point. To lower taxes you need to lower expenditures. I don’t mean $10 or $20 million here and there. I mean big movement on billions in entitlements, education, transportation, aids or public safety. I’m not advocating for any of that, but I would like someone on the other side offer up something so we could at least have an honest discussion. It doesn’t start with taxes, it starts with whether or not we agree with what we are spending money on, and what we are willing to sacrafice, or just simply don’t need. Then you can honestly talk about how you are going to reduce taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1132 hrs
Left - I got a page not found when I clicked on your link for state buget impact on property taxes.
I want in on Owen’s bet. My property tax has been relatively flat the last three years. If it goes up less than 9% - I’ll buy you a case of beer. More than that - you owe me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1156 hrs
Lefty, you’ve NEVER heard me complain about cuts, but I do complain when the fees and taxes increase.
“Seems to me that very small tweaks on any of those would have been an easy way to solve the budget deficit.” -Lefty
Want to solve the budget deficit….stop spending! Doyle raided other funds in order to balance the budget in the past. Now those funds are empty so he has to increase taxes AND fees because he doesn’t know how NOT to spend. Instead of letting criminals out of jail, let’s make some cut:
bologna sandwiches, no cable, no cheese on the cheeseburger…I could go on.Let’s close some pools and libraries (start with West Bend). Sell off some parks.
Lefty you say a penny isn’t that much and when I ask for you to pay my penny you say it’s “pointless”. If it’s so pointless, why don’t you pay my penny increase or whatever the amount is????
” I think a penny on the sales tax raises just under a billion a year” -LeftyLefty- put your money where you mouth is. Typical liberal so good at spending other peoples pennies!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1226 hrs
Lefty -
Go to Charlie Sykes site and watch the video as a reporter trys to find the elusive “99% not affected”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1257 hrs
Lefty,
So are you going to bet or are you going to backtrack?
I like free beer…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1308 hrs
Smeety, I think Lefty will say your comment has no merit or point to it, say it’s a strawman or the liberals last resort…name calling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1324 hrs
Bill -
Left - I got a page not found when I clicked on your link for state buget impact on property taxes.
I can’t get them to work as links when I hit preview. I know RS had a similar problem last night with links with percentages, I don’t know how he fixed it, assistance welcome.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/2009-11Budget/Act28/2009_07_06Property Tax Estimates Act 28.pdfhttp://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/2009-11Budget/JFC/shared revenue.pdf
I want in on Owen’s bet. My property tax has been relatively flat the last three years. If it goes up less than 9% - I’ll buy you a case of beer. More than that - you owe me.
I think it was Smeety’s bet, but I was asking about Owen’s source for his 10% increase. I don’t think you want to make that bet though, as I believe Owen was saying a 10% increase over two years, not just next year, although I can’t speak for him. I’ve been arguing the increases will be in the 3% to 4% range for each of the next two years respectively.
I’ll withhold on making any bets until Owen lets us know how he arrived at the 10% number. I’m open to being proven wrong, I just don’t think I am.
Kelly -
Lefty, you’ve NEVER heard me complain about cuts, but I do complain when the fees and taxes increase.
Then I inappropriately lumped you in. These are comments made in response to an entry that highlights the cuts in state aid as cause to be on alert for a property tax increase.
Want to solve the budget deficit….stop spending!
That’s an argument, but not to the point being made. My comment about tweaks to state gas, income and sales taxes was in response to the assertion that Doyle never met a tax he didn’t like. The easiest way to solve the budget crisis, if you believe his preference was to focus on more revenue, was to raise taxes on the big three revenue generators in the state. He didn’t do that, instead he used a mix of tax and fee increases, stim money and cuts. You can disagree with the strategy, ask for more cuts, ask for more taxes, whatever. I’m just debunking the myth that he simply taxed his way out.
Instead of letting criminals out of jail, let’s make some cut:
bologna sandwiches, no cable, no cheese on the cheeseburger…I could go on.That’s fine, but you’re saving nickels, the problem is billions. You also know that no one is being let out of jail that wasn’t going to be released anyway right? They are just allowing inmates who prove their rehabilitation to earn release quicker, and those who don’t, don’t.
Let’s close some pools and libraries (start with West Bend). Sell off some parks.
Those are all decisions on the table for your local electeds. Yet the fact that those decisions aren’t made speaks more to services people want and expect than to wasteful spending by pols.
Lefty you say a penny isn’t that much and when I ask for you to pay my penny you say it’s “pointless”. If it’s so pointless, why don’t you pay my penny increase or whatever the amount is????
I know you really want me to make the argument that it isn’t a lot, and that you should just stop complaining. Then you can make the argument that I should just pay your share. Thing is, I haven’t made that argument. That is what is pointless about your comment, maybe irrelevant is a better word. You are arguing an hypothetical discussion and assigning it to me.
Baja -
Go to Charlie Sykes site and watch the video as a reporter trys to find the elusive “99% not affected”.
Not sure which clip I’m looking for. I went to the 620 site and clicked on Sykes, but don’t see anything specific to what you are talking about. Is it in the podcast?
Also, the 99% I’m referring to is the percentage of people in Wisconsin who won’t pay any more in state income tax. That is really easy to find based on their income level. If they are claiming that Dems are arguing that only 1% of the state’s population will see an increase in state or local taxes of any kind, well that is (in Kelly’s words) a strawman argument.
Smeety -
So are you going to bet or are you going to backtrack?
I’m fine with my argument, I’m interested in whether or not Owen has something specific to site before I rule out the possibility that I’m wrong.
Beyond that I’d like to know exactly what we are betting on? What is the percentage increase that is the threshold, and over how much time (one or two years) we are betting on.
Kelly - (again)
Smeety, I think Lefty will say your comment has no merit or point to it, say it’s a strawman or the liberals last resort…name calling.
I’m not sure the person who has already thrown out phrases like “typical liberal” in this thread should be making derisive predictions on whether someone else is going to start name calling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1511 hrs
Lefty:
www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes
First listing (as of this time).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 1554 hrs
Lefty,
You have declared a property tax increase per median home over the next two years. I’d assume you can equate that to a percentage. It’s safe to assume you’d want to go with the percentage vs. median amount. I’ll give you a full percent on top of that… We’ll compare my property tax bill for 2009 and 2010, and you can consequently give me the amount of beer you choose to bet… and we’ll toast to Scott Walker…
Posted by Smeety on July 09, 2009 at 1623 hrs
Just received our tax increase for our land up north. I am not happy.
In fact I may just contest it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2009 at 1626 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 09:59 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).