Vote question advice: "Shall XX be retained in office?"

[Vasili]

1% of a million dollars is 10,000.

1% of 100,000 is 1,000

no matter what, it's still 1%.

they got the accountants to assess it for more, charge you more.

i'd rather flat fee or nothing. i'd rather pay income tax than property tax.

property tax is the one that really rubs me raw and leaves me in a white hot blind rage. if you have to pay tax on land which you 'own' or the government will swoop in with SWAT, national guard, sheriff, whatever, and sell it for you not paying them their extortion, then you don't OWN a damn thing. much less pretend to be a FREE man. free men do NOT seek permission to bear arms. so tired of the pretense that this is a 'free' country. COMPARED TO WHAT? commie china? sure. america of 1791? hell no, a thousand times no.

and i always vote no on retention. got to rotate stock or it spoils.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The property tax took me off gaurd....I know in my county, my property tax is almost nothing....I voted No because why mess up a good thing, an figured if they wanted to change something it couldn't be for the good???

Voting yes limits government.

Voting no says government can charge whatever it wishes and you can do nothing about it.

You are relying on the good faith of politicians. Good luck with that.

 

[ATOMonkey]

1% of a million dollars is 10,000.

1% of 100,000 is 1,000

no matter what, it's still 1%.

they got the accountants to assess it for more, charge you more.

i'd rather flat fee or nothing. i'd rather pay income tax than property tax.

property tax is the one that really rubs me raw and leaves me in a white hot blind rage. if you have to pay tax on land which you 'own' or the government will swoop in with SWAT, national guard, sheriff, whatever, and sell it for you not paying them their extortion, then you don't OWN a damn thing. much less pretend to be a FREE man. free men do NOT seek permission to bear arms. so tired of the pretense that this is a 'free' country. COMPARED TO WHAT? commie china? sure. america of 1791? hell no, a thousand times no.

and i always vote no on retention. got to rotate stock or it spoils.

Constitutionally, the assessment must be a "just valuation."

Government can not make up the short fall by simply assessing your property at a higher value. They can try, but they will fail in court.

Also, since the assessor is a local elected position, you can tar and feather a shady assessor. It's not like they're a protected class like Federal Politicians.

 

[DragonGunner]

Voting yes limits government.

Voting no says government can charge whatever it wishes and you can do nothing about it.

You are relying on the good faith of politicians. Good luck with that.

OOOPPPPs!!!

 

[SavageEagle]

I voted NO on those questions.
Just seemed like the right thing to do.

Yea, I voted no on all the judges too. I wasn't prepared for those at all. I just figured, well, they had their shot. Time for new blood. Could be a mistake, but

As for the Property Tax Cap, I voted no. It sounds nice and all, but I'll vote no on any change to the current system that ISN'T a complete repeal of property tax. Hate me all you want, but why say, in any form, property tax is ok?

 

[moischmoe]

As for the Property Tax Cap, I voted no. It sounds nice and all, but I'll vote no on any change to the current system that ISN'T a complete repeal of property tax. Hate me all you want, but why say, in any form, property tax is ok?

A "yes" vote seems to say, "I like property taxes, but they shouldn't get out of control."

A "no" vote seems to say, "I like property taxes, make them as high as you need to."

I don't think we should have any property taxes either. It's my land, I OWN it, just like my TV and dishwasher. But given the choice of a tax cap, or leaving the way it is, I chose to vote for the cap. I feel it's a small step the right direction.

 

[SavageEagle]

It's a principle thing I guess. Eliminate property taxes altogether or you get a no vote from me.

 

[jbombelli]

Yup. I had to vote 'no' on the judges. Bring on the new meat. I'll vote against them when the time comes, too. Term limits all-around!

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

Voted no on all these judges.. bring in the fresh meat.

 

[langb29]

I also voted no for all the judges for the same reason. But I'm furious about the missing "(I)" after incumbents names!!!! Every time I've voted in the past, there has been some indication of the incumbent, but nothing on my ballot this time. WTF!?!?! Anyone else see this????

I did my homework for the most part, but there were a couple of cases when I didn't know the incumbent name and wanted them out.

 

[yotewacker]

Out with the old, in with the new!

 

[rmabrey]

I skipped the questions because I knew nothing about the people so in all fairness i couldn't vote yes or no

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill you are right..as usual. Want to look up how many have NOT been retained?

Not particularly. I did my part to remove those I thought worthy of removal. That's all I can do

term limits across the board.

Sure. So long as they are imposed by the voters on Election day and not by the legislature when it's in session. I want to keep the ability to re-elect the politicians I like. Term limits are the same thing, IMHO, as passing a law forbidding me to eat trans-fats, to drink alcohol, or to use drugs. I do not do the last, try not to do either of the preceding two, but if I decide to do any of those, I don't want my legislature playing nanny and telling me I can't. Same deal with politicians: Normally, I don't vote to re-elect, but if I decide to do so, I don't want that right taken from me because some voters can't control themselves.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SirRealism]

Sure. So long as they are imposed by the voters on Election day and not by the legislature when it's in session. I want to keep the ability to re-elect the politicians I like. Term limits are the same thing, IMHO, as passing a law forbidding me to eat trans-fats, to drink alcohol, or to use drugs. I do not do the last, try not to do either of the preceding two, but if I decide to do any of those, I don't want my legislature playing nanny and telling me I can't. Same deal with politicians: Normally, I don't vote to re-elect, but if I decide to do so, I don't want that right taken from me because some voters can't control themselves.

Blessings,
Bill

Yep, I'm with you. I used to favor term limits, but now I realize that it won't solve anything. Changing the minds of the electorate is the only way to improve the quality of our politicians. If I want to keep a good guy/gal with experience, I don't want any law telling me I can't vote for that candidate.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Voting yes limits government.

Voting no says government can charge whatever it wishes and you can do nothing about it.

You are relying on the good faith of politicians. Good luck with that.

I held my nose and voted yes but I don't believe the above is true and I didn't like the way the caps were set up.

1. It won't limit government. Any limitation on government revenue will just be taken from another source.

2. Property is property. If property is to be taxed then everything that is property should be taxed and taxed at the same rate. The different rates and different definitions of types of property to be taxed is nothing but biased gerrymandering to benefit and punish based on personal benefit or preferance.

I'd WAY rather see limits on government SPENDING if any thing is to have absolute unalterable limits.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I skipped the questions because I knew nothing about the people so in all fairness i couldn't vote yes or no

Not voting is a yes vote.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I held my nose and voted yes but I don't believe the above is true and I didn't like the way the caps were set up.

1. It won't limit government. Any limitation on government revenue will just be taken from another source.

2. Property is property. If property is to be taxed then everything that is property should be taxed and taxed at the same rate. The different rates and different definitions of types of property to be taxed is nothing but biased gerrymandering to benefit and punish based on personal benefit or preferance.

I'd WAY rather see limits on government SPENDING if any thing is to have absolute unalterable limits.

How do you limit spending? Serious question. I can't come up with the mechanics to make that work.

I agree that property should be taxed the same. However, taxing business just shifts the cost to the consumer. So, by capping farms or rentals or business at 2 and 3 percent, you are capping the cost of food and rent and other products that you'll have to pay as a consumer, so it still is a benefit to the tax payer.

If government wants to fund expansion through income or sales tax, it is MUCH more visible. I can also control how much I spend and limit government power in that manner. In the same vein, I can also limit my taxable income if I feel that government is out of control. Previously, I could do NOTHING to limit the amount of money I was taxed on my property. The local government would determine a budget, they submit it to the state, the state would then set a tax rate to cover the budget. Where are the checks and balances in that system?

I still advocate the elimination of property and income tax. This is a step in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

[henktermaat]

All the Judges were retained (Yes won)

6.6% voted for RSB
9.45% voted for Chard Reid

Hamilton County 2010 General Election Results

 

[Jack Ryan]

How do you limit spending? Serious question. I can't come up with the mechanics to make that work.

I know it's not as complicated as these business schools teach all our "brilliant" college graduates but you stop spending the same way you stop it at home.

First you make it impossible for the govenment to borrow money. Republicans love to talke about their brilliant money management and fiscal responsibility but they go right on spend as much or more as any democrat before them. They just have an auction and sell off the "family farm, house, and equipment" and then strut around like they invented the word pillage and banished tax. If they spend, they are taxing no matter where it comes from or what they call it, you will pay for it.

When every dollar they spend each year comes directly from the pockets of the people benefiting from it you'll soon see people watching their own pocket a lot closer and smacking the hands getting in to it.

I agree that property should be taxed the same. However, taxing business just shifts the cost to the consumer. So, by capping farms or rentals or business at 2 and 3 percent, you are capping the cost of food and rent and other products that you'll have to pay as a consumer, so it still is a benefit to the tax payer.

That's ridiculous. First off the tax on property is a miniscule portion of the expense to buy a hundred acres, then the equipment to farm it, then feed yourself and family while you wait for it to grow, pick it, sell it, get your money and then start over again. The fuel to run all the equipment a farmer lists as farm equipment is probably more than the property tax.

Second the price of a product is controlled by absolutely NOTHING BUT WHAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO PAY FOR IT. I never look on the box of corn flakes to see how much property tax was paid by each cereal company. I buy what I like or I buy what is cheapest. So does every one else.

No grain buyer ever set's one price for these guys and oh, but here's a couple extra hundred for you since your property tax is higher.

Try renting a place out with the line it's higher because the tax is higher. LOL, they will move out and across the street or down the road for $50. No renter ever cared if a landlord makes money or pays taxes. They pay what they HAVE to pay.

If government wants to fund expansion through income or sales tax, it is MUCH more visible. I can also control how much I spend and limit government power in that manner. In the same vein, I can also limit my taxable income if I feel that government is out of control. Previously, I could do NOTHING to limit the amount of money I was taxed on my property. The local government would determine a budget, they submit it to the state, the state would then set a tax rate to cover the budget. Where are the checks and balances in that system?

There are none and there still are none.

The checks and balance option was yesterday. Now it's "YIPPEE SKIPPY!" in political la la land for two years. The definition of insanity and all? Doing the same over and over and expecting a different result each time. Republicans? Democrats? Seems I've heard of those vermin before? Has it been a full two years already since the plague of republicans had total control of government from the White House to the out house? I don't recall any big differences other than our military blasting rock piles on the other side of the world in to scattered rock piles. We'll be stacking rocks again for a while and then we'll spend our money knocking them down again... that insanity thing ya know.

I still advocate the elimination of property and income tax. This is a step in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

[ATOMonkey]

To address the first part. If the state can not borrow money, and there is not cap on property tax rates, what do you think will happen? Spend less or tax more? What has history shown will happen?

Price of product is determined by supply as well as demand. To think that the cost of business has no impact on the price of the final product is beyond the pale. Tax is a cost. As long as a business continues to be in business (making an acceptable profit) the consumer will continue to pay the tax.

I don't know what the Afghan War has to do with Indiana property tax.