Click Here to See How Much Your Property Taxes Will Go Up

[raider.adam]

AVI and the $94 Million Switcheroo | Philadelphia City Paper | 06/07/2012

The numbers laid out defending why Nutter's implementation is a tax increase.

[bootsywannabe]

Here's $135 million in cost savings that could be realized in the school district. We could save a hell of a lot more money if we simply required school district employees to contribute to their juicy benefits and pensions. Getting rid of collective bargaining would also be a very good move. They will tax us out of our homes before they agree to pay a modest amount toward their benefits+pensions. This is why we must fight them and win.

Philadelphia Teachers Union Rides First Class on Gravy Train

[MariusPontmercy]

Conflicted Council gives preliminary OK for property-tax overhaul

It's now at 1.825%

This is just shameful.

[seand]

Here's $135 million in cost savings that could be realized in the school district. We could save a hell of a lot more money if we simply required school district employees to contribute to their juicy benefits and pensions. Getting rid of collective bargaining would also be a very good move. They will tax us out of our homes before they agree to pay a modest amount toward their benefits+pensions. This is why we must fight them and win.

Philadelphia Teachers Union Rides First Class on Gravy Train

Collective bargaining is a fundamental Constitutional right deriving from our fundamental rights to associate and to freedom of speech. I hate, hate the "cheater's solution" to renegotiating contracts - banning unions. Its move taken quite literally out of Communist Poland's crack down on Solidarity. Want a world with no collective bargaining rights? Move to China, they have none there.

That said, yes, our politicians have to face hard truths about not saying yes to pension systems we can no longer afford. But the way to get there is for politicians to get some gonads, not to trash people's fundamental Constitutional rights to organize.

[Naveen]

That said, yes, our politicians have to face hard truths about not saying yes to pension systems we can no longer afford. But the way to get there is for politicians to get some gonads, not to trash people's fundamental Constitutional rights to organize.

I agree people have the right to form a union. But I also think you should have the right to work someplace and not be forced into the union.

[3rd&Brown]

I was expecting to pay more...two times as much even...but if my taxes triple, I'm going to be furious. I live in a 750 sf house. I pay almost $1400 per year now (not an insignificant amount for such a small house). Under the 1% plan, I was thinking I'd pay $2200, $2500, maybe $2800. Now it's looking possible that I'll be paying $3500 or $4000.

I'm so pissed off right now it's not even funny.

Here's to hoping the assessments come in low. My only hope is that that is the case since the total value is now estimated at $80 billion instead of $100 or $120 billion.

[raider.adam]

Collective bargaining is a fundamental Constitutional right deriving from our fundamental rights to associate and to freedom of speech. I hate, hate the "cheater's solution" to renegotiating contracts - banning unions. Its move taken quite literally out of Communist Poland's crack down on Solidarity. Want a world with no collective bargaining rights? Move to China, they have none there.

Yes, the right to assemble is a fundamental protected right, but I wouldn't say collective bargaining is. I mean, you can try it, but the constitution doesn't protect that the employer has to deal with you.

[seand]

Yes, the right to assemble is a fundamental protected right, but I wouldn't say collective bargaining is. I mean, you can try it, but the constitution doesn't protect that the employer has to deal with you.

Yeah, thats right. An employer can fire their entire workforce and hire all new. But I said that right of the workers to organize through is collective bargaining is fundamental, which is different. In other words the right form unions is fundamental, how employers and unions settle it (strikes, lock-outs) is a process of negotiation but its unconstitutional to pass a law infringing on worker's ability to organize. Employees have a fundamental right to organize as they see fit and to picket to make their case. That doesn't mean they get what they ask for, but their right to organize to ask collectively is fundamental.
Thornhill v. Alabama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[raider.adam]

Yeah, thats right. An employer can fire their entire workforce and hire all new. But I said that right of the workers to organize through is collective bargaining is fundamental, which is different. In other words the right form unions is fundamental, how employers and unions settle it (strikes, lock-outs) is a process of negotiation but its unconstitutional to pass a law infringing on worker's ability to organize. Employees have a fundamental right to organize as they see fit and to picket to make their case. That doesn't mean they get what they ask for, but their right to organize to ask collectively is fundamental.
Thornhill v. Alabama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with the organizing. I guess I just took the term collective bargaining to be in reference more to the aspect that the employer has to acknowledge the organized group of labor.

[seand]

I agree with the organizing. I guess I just took the term collective bargaining to be in reference more to the aspect that the employer has to acknowledge the organized group of labor.

The right is to bargain collectively, i.e. you have the right to organize as a union. The employer can try hire an outside workforce, sure. But you can't pass a law that takes away the people's right to form a union or to picket.

Taking it back to the school district, the SRC (and the politicians who appoint them) may be forced to go to strikes to change the pension rules but they can't pass a law that says "Poof! No teacher's union". With the recent political bungling by Ramos in how he tried to sneak in a change in the rules are set for selectively breaking parts of the contract, I think a strike this fall is more and more likely, $94 million or no.

[EJW]

That is incorrect. In the current RE tax system, the city isn't being short-changed. The problem is people aren't being taxed equitably. There are a lot of properties undervalued and overvalued, but as far as the City and revenue, it doesn't really matter because they can make the rate whatever they want to get the money they want. The assessment is just the marker for equality amongst the tax payers.

I understand. But now the city is saying estimated total property value in Philadelphia is around $80 billion which necessitates the 1.8% rate.

So then, 1.8% of $80B is around $1.44B - I assume this is their revenue goal (which would match the revenue for 2012 taxes), is that right?

[seand]

I understand. But now the city is saying estimated total property value in Philadelphia is around $80 billion which necessitates the 1.8% rate.

So then, 1.8% of $80B is around $1.44B - I assume this is their revenue goal (which would match the revenue for 2012 taxes), is that right?

Yeah and it also indicates that assesments are coming lower than expected aggregate, which means slightly more people who won't see the crazy hikes in their final bill as a result of reassesment, in all likelihood.

[five apples]

So, since RE taxes also go into the general fund, and doesn't just go to schools, does this mean that the city will be getting more money in that regards or the same as last year?

[Dave]

So, since RE taxes also go into the general fund, and doesn't just go to schools, does this mean that the city will be getting more money in that regards or the same as last year?

That's exactly what my wife and I were wondering earlier today. My understanding is that 60% of RE taxes go to the school district now, up from around 50-55% a couple years ago, after a Wilson Goode Jr. bill was approved that increased the percentage for schools. I was wondering what's keeping them from increasing the percentage again, and cutting some spending from the general fund budget. Might not cover the entire $94M shortfall, but it would help.

[raider.adam]

So, since RE taxes also go into the general fund, and doesn't just go to schools, does this mean that the city will be getting more money in that regards or the same as last year?

That's exactly what my wife and I were wondering earlier today. My understanding is that 60% of RE taxes go to the school district now, up from around 50-55% a couple years ago, after a Wilson Goode Jr. bill was approved that increased the percentage for schools. I was wondering what's keeping them from increasing the percentage again, and cutting some spending from the general fund budget. Might not cover the entire $94M shortfall, but it would help.

Yes. Believe it or not, the that is where the $94 million number comes from. By Nutter making the temporary tax increases that went to the City permanent and normalizing the rates to 60-40 again, it gives the school district $94 million more. If Nutter let the temporary tax increases that only went to the City expire, there would be no $94 million for the SDP.

[borntochill]

How Philly Works: The Philadelphia Idiot’s Guide to Property Taxes and the City Schools II

[Tartan69]

AVI is needed. Enough with the games. If there was a homestead exemption of 15,000 or 20,000 to help out the most impoverished areas, where homes might only be valued at 40 or 50K, fine. But where they're setting the exemption at, it's as if a very very few will be paying for everybody.

Fully agree. I suspect my taxes will go up 260% due to AVI, but I can swallow that if everyone else is paying their fair share and has skin in the game. But setting an exemption means that too many people will not. It's the same problem as federal income tax -- if you don't have any skin in the game, then you have no incentive to think rationally about the impact of raising taxes. Having such a large underclass of disconnected voters is not healthy to the fabric of our society.

[Naveen]

Fully agree. I suspect my taxes will go up 260% due to AVI, but I can swallow that if everyone else is paying their fair share and has skin in the game. But setting an exemption means that too many people will not. It's the same problem as federal income tax -- if you don't have any skin in the game, then you have no incentive to think rationally about the impact of raising taxes. Having such a large underclass of disconnected voters is not healthy to the fabric of our society.

The one exception I'd make is if it was occupied by an elderly person. (And it needs to be occupied by that person, not just owned). Then I'd allow the homestead exemption.

But if they focus on collecting the delinquencies and keep the rate reasonable (NOT 1.8%), then I can stomach a raise. As it stands, a "hike" to 1.8% with so many accounts outstanding is unacceptable.

[Tartan69]

The one exception I'd make is if it was occupied by an elderly person. (And it needs to be occupied by that person, not just owned). Then I'd allow the homestead exemption.

But if they focus on collecting the delinquencies and keep the rate reasonable (NOT 1.8%), then I can stomach a raise. As it stands, a "hike" to 1.8% with so many accounts outstanding is unacceptable.

Why should it matter what their age is? Elderly people should have skin in the game too. Their potential lack of ability to pay a tax is not an issue with the tax itself...it is an issue with how that elderly person obtains income. Specifically, their retirement/pension/401k/social security is not enough and thus is the actual problem that needs to be fixed.

I understand you can't just change these things overnight, and sticking a low-income person with a humongous tax hike is a non-starter. But there should be a long-term plan for incrementally transitioning to a more fair environment. Pulling a number out of my arse, maybe an additional .02% every year for the next 10 years. Not only dos that bring in more revenue long-term, but it also gives people the opportunity to plan rather than hitting them over the head with it all at once.

[seand]

Pointed out in the other thread. There were proposals to to "ease-in" AVI but one of the weird results when they ran the numbers is that because of the general shift from commercial to residential when they taxed on actual sales value, the ease-in actually caused taxes on the people currently illeglly over-assessed to go up in the first years of "easing-in". There may be a way to fix this but thats why they dropped the "ease-in" idea like a hot potato.