[RP TownTalk] Taxes

Wed May 23 13:23:16 UTC 2007

Property taxes are are more stable than sales or income taxes and thus
provide an important component of state and local government revenues.

As for relative "tax burden", I think it would be unusual for someone living
here, with our tax rates, to pay more in sales tax than in property tax.  A
rough calculation shows that if your property taxes are currently, say,
$3200 per year, or $267 per month, that you would have to make taxable
purchases of $5333 per month to result in a sales tax bill of $267 (@5%).
Since we mostly tax goods (and exclude groceries) and not services, I doubt
that many RP'ers fall into that category.

On 5/23/07, Nancy Augustine <nya_md at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>  Great point, Nancy M. Everybody loves to hate the property tax, but
> there's a good chance that it's a lot lower than your state and local income
> taxes, and a lot lower than the sales taxes you pay every year. Both of
> those types of taxes go to state and local government to provide services
> and facilities.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org [mailto:
> towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org] *On Behalf Of *Nancy Mooney
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:50 AM
> *To:* towntalk at riverdale-park.org
> *Subject:* Re: [RP TownTalk] Taxes
>
> Hi All -
>
> I've been out of town and admit that I've not been able to read all the
> messages on this topic, but want to say something anyway.... : )
>
> In Oklahoma City, where my husband comes from, they have schools of
> excellent reputation and good roads.  The also pay 8.5% sales tax on
> everything INCLUDING FOOD!  It would be interesting to know what other
> cities/towns pay as a total tax, not just the property tax.  I've heard a
> lot of 'talk' here about needing more police, etc., and we know that's gotta
> cost.  I have seen improvements in our town already, from nicer looking
> common areas to more 'sightings' of our honorable servants in blue.
>
> I'm casting no vote at this point for or against the tax increase, but
> after being shocked at what my family in OK pays in taxes on theirgroceries,I'm willing to hear what the mayor has to say.  I want to live in a nice
> town that is on the move up!
>
> Hey, by the way, I've asked this before; what is going on with the person
> we hired to counsel us on improving our town commerce/town center area?  I
> can't remember her full name.  The initial meeting was quite encouraging but
> I've heard nothing since.
>
> Thanks!  Nancy Mooney
>
>
>
> *towntalk-request at riverdale-park.org* wrote:
>
> Send TownTalk mailing list submissions to
> towntalk at riverdale-park.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> towntalk-request at riverdale-park.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> towntalk-owner at riverdale-park.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TownTalk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: no vote will be taken at the budget hearing (CHRISTINA DAVIS)
> 2. Re: no vote will be taken at the budget hearing
> (Maureen Farrington)
> 3. re proposed property tax increase -- an apology (and some
> considerable relief!) (Dwight Holmes)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 08:37:29 -0400
> From: "CHRISTINA DAVIS"
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] no vote will be taken at the budget hearing
> To: "'Dwight Holmes'" , "'TownTalk'"
>
> Message-ID: <006b01c79c6d$f6813660$020aa8c0 at naw.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The budget historically has been delivered the week before the election
> (in
> election years), and preparation with town staff began 1-2 months earlier.
> Perhaps this has changed more recently, but it might be a good system to
> go
> back to. It is unusual in the town's history for a proposed budget hike of
> this size to have not been discussed during a campaign, either pro or con.
>
>
>
> Also, I have been hearing much about road improvements; streets that were
> repaired 5-10 years ago are being redone again now. This is not unusual if
> a
> utility company destroys them and pays for the complete over-hall (usually
> after much legal wrangling). But, if these newly done streets did not
> survive their proposed 20-30 year life span, then perhaps the road repair
> company should be taken to task and repair them at reduced or no cost.
>
>
>
> A now-deceased mayor from the 1960s touted himself as the "road-paving
> king," and did all of the town streets at once. Then, in the 1980s and
> early
> 1990s, they all failed at the nearly same time (as their life expectancies
> all expired at the same time), a problem which my generation of
> councilmembers inherited. A more moderate approach seemed to be warranted,
> as it would not seem prudent to pass this problem along to your children
> after the town had learned such a valuable lesson then.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org
> [mailto:towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org] On Behalf Of Dwight Holmes
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:50 PM
> To: TownTalk
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] no vote will be taken at the budget hearing
>
>
>
> Roland--Thank you for the information here you've given us that I was not
> previously aware of, and which is good to know. The value of this thread
> continues to accumulate. However, I'm puzzled a bit by your citing of my
> earlier email. What I wrote was "Like some have already said, I think it's
> too bad the discussion couldn't have started somewhat sooner -- it does
> feel
> a bit rushed, for something as momentous as this is. But it is good to
> know
> that there are at least a few meetings to go before things are finalized."
> You took a piece of that out of context. I think it misconstrued the
> meaning of what I wrote.
>
> And whether we are eventually talking about tax hike of 27% or 18% or even
> 10%, I think it's fair to say that it is momentous. I would argue at the
> very least that it *should* be seen as such. I'm not advocating for or
> against any particular proposal at this point. As a new homeowner in the
> town, I want and need much more information. That's why I've appreciated
> and
> expressed as much for the current thread(s) we've got going here. Without
> this email list I would know nothing of any of these issues. It's really
> too bad more of our residents don't join in. But mainly, I'm just saying
> that a tax increase of any amount in that range (10 - 27%) is certainly
> not
> inconsequential, is certainly significant, and may be seen by many on
> tight
> budgets as mom entous.
>
>
>
> On 5/21/07, Roland Walker wrote:
>
> [Dwight Holmes writes]
> > it does feel a bit rushed, for something as momentous as this is.
>
> Outside the world of this email list, the budget process is neither so
> rushed, nor the taxation decision so momentous.
>
> No vote will be taken tonight -- the meeting is only a hearing, one
> that is required under the laws that govern the process.
>
> The mayor's submitted budget represents, in large part, "wishlists"
> put forward by town staff, gathered up together, and proposed to the
> council.
>
> Tonight's hearing publicizes a maximum number, which our taxes cannot
> exceed. However, it is expected that the final taxation instructions
> we send to the county will be lower. The law gives us the flexibility
> to move down -- but not up -- from the publicized number. So we call
> it first on the high end.
>
> Right now, what is happening is that your councilmembers are poring
> over the budget, finding items to remove or add, generally working to
> bring the budget down by whittling away at staff wishlists. One
> councilmember has also found a revenue item which was missing.
> Citizens have also read the budget and forwarded good money-saving
> suggestions, and are encouraged to do so.
>
> The incoming council are the ones that will actually pass the budget.
> They are on point right now to see that the budget fits their policy
> priorities as described to voters.
>
> This is generally a consultative process, not an adversarial one. Mr
> Oppenheim's exhortations on the subject may be charitably explained by
> noting that having served only half a term, he is not very familiar
> with the process.
>
> The final tax rate will be lower than the advertised rate. It will
> probably represent a modest rise in rates.
>
> Vernon Archer ran for mayor in '05 on a platform or building up our
> town, and was unopposed in '07. Perhaps someone will run in '09 on a
> platform of cutting police and public works. In the meantime,
> measured, steady buildup will continue.
>
> This was the choice of the voters.
>
> R
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
> processing
> only
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~
> Map of Riverdale Park MD Trolley Hiker-Biker Trail and Cafritz Property
> http://tinyurl.com/2wsfql
> ~~
> Tracking the Washington Nationals' 2007 season (will they catch the '62
> Mets?):
> http://tinyurl.com/2m6f43
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20070522/60868111/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:24:10 -0400
> From: "Maureen Farrington"
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] no vote will be taken at the budget hearing
> To: TownTalk
> Message-ID:
> <848cd36e0705220824r4d718b23o26c7b86410c9cec at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> If repairing the roads all at once saves us money, I don't see how
> this is a bad thing for the future of the town.
>
> On 5/22/07, CHRISTINA DAVIS wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The budget historically has been delivered the week before the election
> (in
> > election years), and preparation with town staff began 1-2 months
> earlier.
> > Perhaps this has changed more recently, but it might be a good system to
> go
> > back to. It is unusual in the town's history for a proposed budget hike
> of
> > this size to have not been discussed during a campaign, either pro or
> con.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, I have been hearing much about road improvements; streets that
> were
> > repaired 5-10 years ago are being redone again now. This is not unusual
> if a
> > utility company destroys them and pays for the complete over-hall
> (usually
> > after much legal wrangling). But, if these newly done streets did not
> > survive their proposed 20-30 year life span, then perhaps the road
> repair
> > company should be taken to task and repair them at reduced or no cost.
> >
> >
> >
> > A now-deceased mayor from the 1960s touted himself as the "road-paving
> > king," and did all of the town streets at once. Then, in the 1980s and
> early
> > 1990s, they all failed at the nearly same time (as their life
> expectancies
> > all expired at the same time), a problem which my generation of
> > councilmembers inherited. A more moderate approach seemed to be
> warranted,
> > as it would not seem prudent to pass this problem along to your children
> > after the town had learned such a valuable lesson then.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org
> > [mailto:towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org] On Behalf Of
> > Dwight Holmes
> > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:50 PM
> > To: TownTalk
> > Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] no vote will be taken at the budget hearing
> >
> >
> >
> > Roland--Thank you for the information here you've given us that I was
> not
> > previously aware of, and which is good to know. The value of this thread
> > continues to accumulate. However, I'm puzzled a bit by your citing of my
> > earlier email. What I wrote was "Like some have already said, I think
> it's
> > too bad the discussion couldn't have started somewhat sooner -- it does
> feel
> > a bit rushed, for something as momentous as this is. But it is good to
> know
> > that there are at least a few meetings to go before things are
> finalized."
> > You took a piece of that out of context. I think it misconstrued the
> > meaning of what I wrote.
> >
> > And whether we are eventually talking about tax hike of 27% or 18% or
> even
> > 10%, I think it's fair to say that it is momentous. I would argue at the
> > very least that it *should* be seen as such. I'm not advocating for or
> > against any particular proposal at this point. As a new homeowner in the
> > town, I want and need much more information. That's why I've appreciated
> and
> > expressed as much for the current thread(s) we've got going here.
> Without
> > this email list I would know nothing of any of these issues. It's really
> > too bad more of our residents don't join in. But mainly, I'm just saying
> > that a tax increase of any amount in that range (10 - 27%) is certainly
> not
> > inconsequential, is certainly significant, and may be seen by many on
> tight
> > budgets as mom entous.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/21/07, Roland Walker wrote:
> >
> > [Dwight Holmes writes]
> > > it does feel a bit rushed, for something as momentous as this is.
> >
> > Outside the world of this email list, the budget process is neither so
> > rushed, nor the taxation decision so momentous.
> >
> > No vote will be taken tonight -- the meeting is only a hearing, one
> > that is required under the laws that govern the process.
> >
> > The mayor's submitted budget represents, in large part, "wishlists"
> > put forward by town staff, gathered up together, and proposed to the
> > council.
> >
> > Tonight's hearing publicizes a maximum number, which our taxes cannot
> > exceed. However, it is expected that the final taxation instructions
> > we send to the county will be lower. The law gives us the flexibility
> > to move down -- but not up -- from the publicized number. So we call
> > it first on the high end.
> >
> > Right now, what is happening is that your councilmembers are poring
> > over the budget, finding items to remove or add, generally working to
> > bring the budget down by whittling away at staff wishlists. One
> > councilmember has also found a revenue item which was missing.
> > Citizens have also read the budget and forwarded good money-saving
> > suggestions, and are encouraged to do so.
> >
> > The incoming council are the ones that will actually pass the budget.
> > They are on point right now to see that the budget fits their policy
> > priorities as described to voters.
> >
> > This is generally a consultative process, not an adversarial one. Mr
> > Oppenheim's exhortations on the subject may be charitably explained by
> > noting that having served only half a term, he is not very familiar
> > with the process.
> >
> > The final tax rate will be lower than the advertised rate. It will
> > probably represent a modest rise in rates.
> >
> > Vernon Archer ran for mayor in '05 on a platform or building up our
> > town, and was unopposed in '07. Perhaps someone will run in '09 on a
> > platform of cutting police and public works. In the meantime,
> > measured, steady buildup will continue.
> >
> > This was the choice of the voters.
> >
> > R
> > _______________________________________________
> > TownTalk mailing list
> > To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> > TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated
> > subscription processing only
> > http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
> >
> > For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> > http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~~
> > Map of Riverdale Park MD Trolley Hiker-Biker Trail and Cafritz Property
> > http://tinyurl.com/2wsfql
> > ~~
> > Tracking the Washington Nationals' 2007 season (will they catch the '62
> > Mets?):
> > http://tinyurl.com/2m6f43
> > _______________________________________________
> > TownTalk mailing list
> > To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> > TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated
> > subscription processing only
> > http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
> >
> > For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> > http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:02:20 -0400
> From: "Dwight Holmes"
> Subject: [RP TownTalk] re proposed property tax increase -- an apology
> (and some considerable relief!)
> To: TownTalk
> Message-ID:
> <8123da3c0705221102i6fbfbdccu8511e0900028ba9f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> i apologize for inadvertently giving out wrong information at last
> night's town meeting. having done a hasty,
> trying-to-get-to-the-meeting-on-time calculation, i misinterpreted our
> State of Maryland Assessment Notice, and thus came up with a number
> exactly triple of what it should have been: 19% rather than 57%. you
> can imagine that we are as relieved as anyone to know that it's not
> 57%!
>
> one reason i was so hurried in doing that calculation was it took me a
> long time to decipher the semiannual "Consolidated Tax Bill for Tax
> Year Jul 1, 2006 to Jun 30, 2007" statement.
> the reason for that being that some of the numbers on that statement
> are annual while others are semiannual -- and they kind of leave it up
> to the reader to figure that out. so it took awhile to make sense of
> it.
>
> when i did i was able to determine that our Town of Riverdale Park
> taxes make up almost exactly 33% of our total property tax bill. (PG
> County's portion is 41%, and the remaining 26% is made up of the other
> various taxing jurisdictions, the largest portion of which is Park &
> Planning)
>
> so the proposed increase that we are now discussing will affect
> roughly one-third of our bill. i have some questions about the
> entire, overall process, but i will save those until i have gathered
> more and better information.
>
> --
> ~~
> Map of Riverdale Park MD Trolley Hiker-Biker Trail and Cafritz Property
> http://tinyurl.com/2wsfql
> ~~
> Tracking the Washington Nationals' 2007 season (will they catch the '62
> Mets?):
> http://tinyurl.com/2m6f43
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us
>
> End of TownTalk Digest, Vol 10, Issue 50
> ****************************************
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
> Play Monopoly Here and Now<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48223/*http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow>(it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
> processing only
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
> http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us
>

-- 
~~
Map of Riverdale Park MD Trolley Hiker-Biker Trail and Cafritz Property
http://tinyurl.com/2wsfql
~~
Tracking the Washington Nationals' 2007 season (will they catch the '62
Mets?):
http://tinyurl.com/2m6f43
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20070523/9144839f/attachment-0003.html>