In a guest op-ed in the Seattle Times, former Washington State Republican Party Chair Chris Vance argues that the state needs to lift the absurd 1 percent cap on growth in revenue from property taxes:
Counties spend 70 to 80 percent of their general-fund revenues on law enforcement, and the growth of those funds are not keeping up with the rate of inflation and population increases. Part of the problem is due to the fact that so little sales-tax revenue is generated in unincorporated areas.
But the bigger issue is the 1 percent cap on property tax revenue. King County receives 43 percent of its general-fund revenue from the property tax. The math is obvious: Capping that revenue growth at 1 percent a year makes it virtually impossible for the county to even keep up with inflation.
It’s not Vance’s arguments that are so significant here; as he says, “the math is obvious,” and always has been. What’s new here is that these words are coming out of the mouth of a Republican. If Republicans are beginning to admit that strangling local government isn’t the solution to all our problems, then perhaps there is hope yet.
The rest of Vance’s column, I’m not so sure of. But you can be sure of two things: 1) He just pissed off a lot of people in his own party by voicing this heresy outloud, and 2) he wouldn’t be writing this if there weren’t already other people in his own party voicing these thoughts privately.
Like you Godly I was stunned that Vance finally actually went public with what is obvious to lots of Republicans but which they dare not say.
Unlike you, I was also stunned to be in agreement with the rest of his argument too. There are simply too many governments in Washington, particularly in the Puget Sound area. I’d start with ending all of the special purpose districts (there are hundreds) by merging their responsibilities into either a county or city. What surprised me is that while Vance was a King County Councilmember he once chewed me out for my “regionalist” views for advocating much the same thing he has now put in print.
When even Chris Vance can evolve, there is still hope for our world.
“It’s a trap!” …well, it’s avoiding the obvious: an income tax. Behind closed doors Vance’ll tell his rich supporters that (a) this is better than the alternative, and (2) he knows fifty ways to avoid any increase of taxes on specific mansions [Stephen Colbert grasping gesture]
What’s obvious is that Vance is a typical Republican who, faced with the unavoidable reality of growing revenue needs, is desperately seeking any conceivable alternative to a state income tax.
(I realize we’re talking about county revenues; but a state income tax, by relieving pressure on state revenues, could free up some existing revenue sources for counties, such as turning over the state portion of property tax revenues to local governments.)
The property tax has its own regressive characteristics. For most homeowners, there is zero connection between their income and the taxes on their home. Just because the paper value of your home is going up doesn’t mean you have more income. Moreover, the increased paper value of your home isn’t money you can spend; for a middle-class family struggling to make ends meet, the only thing it means is a higher tax bill.
We need to stop beating around the bush about taxes and recognize the hard facts: (1) High-income households are paying far less than their fair share of state and local taxes, and (2) tax “reform” isn’t true reform unless it looks to those undertaxed households to satisfy growing state and local government revenue needs.
Letting property taxes climb higher doesn’t satisfy that criterion. It’s still a regressive tax, and Vance is still a Republican, which is why he’s advocating this non-solution to our tax problem instead of true reform as a response to revenue needs that can no longer be ignored.
And, as Theophrastus @2 points out above, the rich will figure out ways to skirt or avoid the higher property taxes on their mansions and horse farms, and make them fall on the already-overtaxed middle-earner and working-class segments of the population.
It should be seen for what it is: Nothing more than another effort by self-serving Republicans to offload their tax responsibilities on those beneath them.
“There are simply too many governments in Washington, particularly in the Puget Sound area. I’d start with ending all of the special purpose districts (there are hundreds) by merging their responsibilities into either a county or city.”
Well, the difficulty with that idea is that it would eliminate government jobs. The people in those jobs might get a little testy about the idea.
@5. I didn’t say there wouldn’t be some issues, but many of these districts have very few employees. What they all have is some obscure elected boards. The plethora of special districts is a legacy of Washington’s populist traditions, but anytime legislators start talking about government efficiency, and yet aren’t serious about looking at these low hanging fruit, they are pandering and nothing more.
Vance’s blatant authoritarianism is truly a wonder to behold:
The best example is the unprecedented decision by King County to arbitrarily cap the jail population at 1,800 prisoners a day. In 2009, those jails held 2,400 inmates a day. Hundreds of individuals who are out on the street would have been in jail five years ago.
The last point does not necessarily follow from the previous statistics, of course, but that’s how our local Republicans “think”.
Of course, only the most liberal areas of the state need reform:
King, Pierce and Snohomish counties are a coral reef of governments — dozens of cities and hundreds of special-purpose districts, large and small, all spending money and collecting property taxes.
Vance’s call for the legislature to strong-arm — sorry, “heavy political lift” — these places into compliance with his reform ideas goes well with the recent attempt to pre-empt Seatac and Seattle from raising their minimum wages, doesn’t it?
He’s trying to avoid an income tax, and of course there are no inefficient local governments outside of central Puget Sound, but yes, having a prominent Republican admit we need some reforms is a start. Let’s see if anyone in his party responds.
So we could have a unicameral legislature.
How about being like Alaska and have one county for the whole state by gosh that would eliminate a lot of those small government entities.
Insist when the legislature passes changes to criminal laws particularly when lengthening sentencing or having more police that those changes are paid for.
The whole income tax thing has been fought over here since the 1930’s, Even touted as a way to improve government.
Encourage our finest citizens that it’s their civic duty to donate their excess money to the state. If they are Republicans and believe in this whole Christina nation thing then they can tithe 20% of their income, property, ect because god says so.
@7 Let’s get rid of the weed control districts. That would downsize government. To hell with Republican farmers.
Vance is simply trying to increase the amount of money flowing to counties so that his clients (Corrections guilds, other public safety organizations that benefit from larger county budgets, including potential privatizers) benefit in the loner run. This has nothing to do with him fending off an income tax or becoming enlightened. His clients would be happy if he lobbied for an income tax, as long as the money raised was highly likely to flow to them.