Property Taxes are Rent Payments to Government

HARBESON: What your ‘rent' is really paying for

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — I hope those of you who have property here in Floyd and/or Clark County remembered that today, May 10, is the due date for making your semiannual rent payment to county government.

Most of you probably don’t think of your property tax payment as rent. You believe that you own property you purchased. But think about what would happen if you don’t pay this rent — eventually people who represent the government will kick you off and take full possession. If this is considered a legitimate act, then do you really own the property?

Government supporters say that your property tax statement is like any other bill you receive in the voluntary market for services provided to you. But does that match with reality? When other organizations, even monopolies like water and electricity, provide services you are charged for actual usage. Most importantly, if you do not pay these bills, the service providers do not kick you out of your home and take possession. They claim ownership only for the value of services you used.

Ahh, but some people will say that the government provides services people use that cannot be “shut off” or denied due to nonpayment. Therefore, you must be forced to pay your “fair” share. Somehow (don’t ask me to explain it) the value the government itself assigns to your property directly relates to your usage of those services.

But even if you accept this as justification for kicking people out of legitimately purchased property if they don’t pay the rent, how do you draw clear lines for specific items the rent payment is applied to?

For example, take a look at your government rental bill — the largest item will likely be schools. Certainly there are many who never incur any usage of schools, and heavier users do not pay more. Should a childless couple be kicked off property they purchased if they don’t pay for schools for the six kids their neighbor chose to have?

And what about grandiose building projects? Should an individual be kicked out of her home for not funding huge enclosures of unusable space like the atrium at Floyd Central High School? Or perhaps the force is justified when such extravagance can help architecture firms boast about winning design awards?

Some people say we need to pay rent for the so-called justice system. Should people be kicked out of their homes for not funding extra costs that are the direct result of the ineptness of county prosecutors who make serious errors in judgment related to a never-ending murder trial? (Someone really ought to write a book about that one.)

Should people be forced to fund a “donation” for operations of a Sister Cities program in Clarksville? This program already has many corporate sponsors and if the people involved are so passionate shouldn’t they be going out and getting more sponsors rather than taking other people’s money?

Jeffersonville Township spent thousands of dollars to fund a specific church’s food pantry, yet many local charities run food pantries. So how is it valid to kick people out of their home for not funding this particular pantry?

This is just a sampling of how your money is being spent by local governments. If you want to really dig in for yourself, you can see details for every local government entity by going to http://gateway.ifionline.org.

Some of the items I mentioned above are paid directly from the rent you pay to the county so you can live at your current residence even though you thought you owned it, and some may be paid using other forms of taxation, but they all demonstrate how government will expand far beyond any initial justifications that people are merely being sent bills to pay for “services” used.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson has been told she has lots of empty space between her ears so she’s decided to offer it for rent. If interested write to Debbie@debbieharbeson.com.

Basketball Courts as a Government Service

HARBESON: A big ‘whoops’ to government-funded hoops

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — A couple of years ago, the town of Sellersburg decided to lease Nolan Fieldhouse, a site used for basketball and other recreational activities. The fieldhouse was originally built to operate as a private business, but closed when the owner moved from the area.

Sellersburg is losing money on this venture. Lots of money. Last year, the losses were more than $10,000 per month. So what is the proposal now that the lease commitment is about to end and they could just get out?

They want to spend more money and buy it, of course.

On the one hand, officials say that purchasing the property would save money on monthly costs. But then when the details are reported and everyone can see the savings won’t come close to covering the losses, suddenly it’s not about saving money at all. It’s about providing a government “service.”

How can this not be about the money? Well, it has to do with how governments play the game. Let me see if I can explain it in basketball terms. This is how a game scenario would play out if government participated: It’s the last few seconds and the government team is behind. A councilperson pulls up for a jumper and shoots. It’s an air ball, of course, and the buzzer sounds.

Now, a normal game would be over but in this game the government team — and it’s always only the government team that gets to use this special rule — simply directs the scorekeeper to take points earned by the opposing team and give them to the government team.

Understand it better now? Numbers are not as important when you can just take what’s earned by others.

Of course, Sellersburg isn’t the only government that’s involved in playtime. They all do it. It’s costly — the Clarksville Redevelopment Commission just committed funds to the Clarksville Parks and Recreation Department for equipment and property maintenance in the amount of $300,000 — this is per year, for five years.

It’s also divisive; we’ve seen the battles Jeffersonville is experiencing with the new RiverStage, wooded hiking paths and softball fields.

It’s difficult to stop this growth once it gets rolling, but Sellersburg has the chance. If the taxpayers stand strong, maybe they can block this shot and convince the council not to turn more private property into government property.

Maybe Sellersburg can avoid the costs, divisiveness and problems that follow increases in government control.

Don’t misunderstand. Sports facilities are great; I’ve spent a lot of time and money in private sports facilities. But I still do not support using government to force other people who do not use the fieldhouse to pay for it. People can fund the recreational activities of their choice.

If those who enjoy using the fieldhouse really want it to remain, they need to get in the game and find a way to make it happen using private and voluntary means rather than having their recreational choices partially funded by Sellersburg taxpayers, particularly the ones who have no interest in the activities offered there.

Perhaps the person running the Fieldhouse’s Facebook page could focus on networking to search for ways to run it privately rather than encouraging fans to attend government meetings to push for continued government involvement.

I don’t know if the fieldhouse can operate privately and be successful. But if the owner can’t make it work, perhaps someone else wants the property for another business venture. There were other businesses interested at the time Sellersburg decided to lease two years ago.

I don’t know if those businesses or any others would be interested now. All I know is that this should be the property owner’s concern, and not taxpayers who never signed on to take the risk.

Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson has learned how to save lots of money on recreation — she just shoots free throws.

Pretty Pink Slips

Harbeson: I'm not tickled pink

By DEBBIE HARBESON Local Columnist

>>SOUTHERN INDIANA — I received a pink slip in the mail a few weeks ago. I’m not the only one of course. As a matter of fact, thousands of Clark County residents received these pink slips. Are you one of them?

The pink slip I’m referring to is the newest required government form for property owners to complete and turn in to the authorities if they want to continue receiving the homestead deduction.

See, you are only supposed to get this deduction if you belong to the correct special-interest group — people who actually live on the property. If you also own property that is not your primary residence, well, no deduction for you. You must pay the government more.

This form asks for the last few digits of Social Security and driver license numbers to more specifically connect individuals to a given piece of property. A lot of work will go into organizing these pink pieces of paper, matching numbers to property, especially now that property tax caps have gone into effect. They can’t have every property owner taking the deduction on property they paid for and own because, well, the government has to get money somewhere.

They need this money to provide government services, like paying government employees to match up numbers provided on the pink slips so the proper special interest group is reassured into believing that someone else is really paying for the government services.

Placing us into groups is the easiest way to collect money with the fewest complaints because government officials can talk about tax frauds and cheats, which makes us focus on what our neighbor is paying rather than what the government is spending.

The homestead deduction creates three such groups: Those who own property and live there, those who own property but do not live on the property, and finally those who pay rent to live on someone else’s property.

After the groups are created, one of the groups is always set up as deserving to pay more into the system than the others. Or at least they make us think this is what’s happening and in this case, it’s our neighbors who own property in addition to their primary residence.

It’s very important to make us think that the people who are paying more are much richer and can afford to pay more. But is that really the case?

Take this example. Property Owner A is very well-off and lives in a humongous home on an acre of land and enjoys a nice deduction. Property owner B lives on a tiny lot in a modest home and works weekends to fix up another home to rent. B gets no deduction and pays the full tax on the other home. Isn’t B essentially subsidizing the deduction for A?

At this point the politicians like to say that it’s really not about either of those groups, it’s about protecting the renter. So they claim that their law forces the big rich land owner to pay the tax. They’re benevolently looking out for the little guy.

Never mind that the tax the property owner pays must factor into the total cost of owning the property, just like maintenance, insurance and other costs. They want us to think that the tax cost will never move through the economy in a way that would ever affect the renter. He’s protected by their political control and the renter will never see any market effects. Right?

If you believe that then I have some property, I’d like to sell you. No wait, maybe I’ll just rent it to you instead.

SIGLINE:
Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson likes to receive pink slips in the mail. But only if they’re silky and have adjustable straps.