Henry Raymond
Fairfax News => Political Issues/Comments => Topic started by: Carolyn Branagan on October 15, 2012, 12:56:52 PM
-
Thought needs to be given to planning for the state fiscal budget 2014. When the legislature returns to Montpelier in early January, work will already be underway to prepare a proposal for the new year's statewide monetary needs and wants.
Keep in mind that FY2012 closed out with a surplus of $11.33 million. The extra money was due largely to Corporate Income tax doing much better than anticipated. The entire amount of overage (the $11.33 mil) was used for repair of state buildings damaged by hurricane Irene.
For this fiscal year, FY2013, the General Fund is right where our estimates thought it would be. We're on target so far overall, but there have been some ups and downs. All is balancing out. Corporate tax revenues and Estate tax revenues are up by a combined $4.5 million. Personal Income tax withholding looks about 5% below our estimates. We may have simply set those estimates too high in the beginning, but I'll save that debate for another time. Sales tax, Rooms and Meals taxes and Property Transfer taxes are all just about where they should be.The Transportation Fund includes revenue from Gas tax, Purchase and Use tax and fees. Combined they are all running about 4% below target. And the Education fund is OK.
As I've written before, preparing a budget means looking at three budgets at a time: the one just past, the present year and the one you are planning for. In my opinion, neither the past year nor the current year show strong enough growth or stability to justify increasing expenditures above where we are now. The state economy continues to be fragile, as does the national economy. Keep an eye on what happens with the Euro. The economic roller coaster isn't over.
Rep. Carolyn Branagan
Franklin -1 Fairfax/Georgia
Vermont House of Representatives
-
If the renters rebate were removed, would that generate a significant amount of funds? What does it cost to administer that program for landlords, state employees and tenants?
-
Carolyn,Carolyn,Carolyn.......dont you understand we need to increase the budget not lower it ,if we the people were over taxed by 11.33 million then we surely can afford alittle more in a tax increase ,it`s for the children.we want what is best for them right? they are our future.I think most people will agree with me on this one.we need more government funded immagrants moving into our town so that we can share our prosperity with them.I love shumlin ,he is so great of a human ,he cares for all of us as we were his children.....happy november ,and God bless...{he said god}
-
Edited due to guest posting
-
yes thank you for reminding me about that one skippy .i`m sorry i forgot about them..hey do you know what the definition of mass confusion is? fathers day in burlimgton
-
Gentlemen, gentleman, surely you know that sarcasm is the least effective form of communication!!!
And please, don't tar everyone who receives some sort of government assistance with the same brush.
-
im just jealous
-
I'm serious about the renters rebate though. I know other states do something similar but I feel like a general state credit for certain incomes would be easier and less laborious for everyone involved. I've just never looked to see the dollar amount associated with the program.
-
Edited due to guest posting
-
your in the minority then.shouldnt you get some kinda help?
-
Edited due to guest posting
-
Skippy...........I just saw your question this morning, Election Day. I'm on my way out to the polls right now, but will try to get the answer to your question when I stop back here at home for a warm up. The renter rebate program is costly, but the thiking was in fairness, renters should get the same benefit as others. Since most Vermonters pay school tax using the income sensitivity program, with the renter rebate program they can end up paying the same as those who pay on income. Most landlords include property taxes in the rent amount. That's how it was explained to me anyway, I never really understood the rationale. As you probably remember I developed a couple of much fairer programs for school taxes, but the D.'s weren't interested. I'm trying not to hold a grudge, there's still hope.
I'll try to find the cost figure.
C.
PS. Ed has gotten a lot more liberal! Must be Deer Season isn't too far away.
I'm actually going to miss you guys.
-
The Education Fund share of the renter rebate program in fiscal year 2012 was $5.8 million. This is the amount of money sent from the Education fund to renters to make it so the amount of money they paid for school taxes is equal to the percentage Vermonters pay who are using the income sensitivity method for property taxes.
In FY2013 the estimate is $6.7 million
In FY2014 the estimate is $7.8 million
C.
-
The rationale doesn't make sense because rent is not tied to one cost. It is tied to all costs with profit adjusted in. Many people choose to rent to avoid the costs of homeownership which would remove any rationale for comparing it to rebates for homeownership. If you ever put for legislation related to this program, could you please forward it on to me. It seems the amount of the program, plus the costs for landlords to administer, plus the cost of participants to file, plus the costs of tax department administration would far outweigh the benefit and rationale vs a straight addition to some existing income sensitivity credit.
-
Nhibbard, all good comments.
Did you see how this outflow amount is expanding? Up $.9 mil from FY12 to FY13.
Then up another $1.1 million from FY13 to FY14. The number of renters getting the benefit is not available. (I can 'demand' it when we return to the statehouse in January. )
but I have not seen data that shows an increase in the number of people renting that would justify an increase of this magnitude. Clearly not sustainable.
C.
-
It could be sustainable to the detriment of the education fund that is giving this money back. A more streamlined approach that meets the goal of equalizing taxation could be easily accomplished through an income sensitive credit or deduction that takes renters, administration and landlords out of the program. Some people do not even file for these "needed" funds until months after they receive the paperwork. Is it that necessary to have if this occurs. And then filling out paperwork that is overly complicated because the income limits for the program are calculated in a way that is more time consuming than filing an entire 1040.
I'd just like to see programs removed that are needlessly expensive in light of simple alternatives.
-
well said,but i say renters still should not be able to vote on local issues
-
Edited due to guest posting
-
Do you think any legislation will go through on a change? Moving the funds to an nome based housing credit would be easier to administer and fund at a set level.
-
a lot of renters are long term residents in the towns in which they live. Their rent pays for the property in which they live. For MOST, an increase in taxes and other legislative expenses result in increases in the rent they pay.
Ed, I don't understand your rationale for saying they shouldn't be able to vote on local matters. MAYBE if you lived in a college town were there are a lot of temporary renters, I could understand y u would feel that way, but for more rural areas away from colleges, there are far more long term renters than short term ones who move town to town frequently
-
cedar.i see more of it than you do trust me when i say this
-
There is an assumption that tax increases get passed on. Not all do and that shows that rents are not tied to costs but to the profits a landlord wants to generate. Rent is rent, you should not get that back. It's not tied to taxes and what you are willing to pay is between you and the landlord.
I could see some opinions on voting because it could materially affect the landlord and then they would need to weigh their options in raising rents. But you'd also have to look at the other side of having a few landlords controlling the way a town built out and ran if long term renters could not vote.