News -> News TUE, MAY 12 6:00PM by Jeremy Alford

A Taxing Debate

Every year, a small group of lawmakers pushes legislation to alter Louisiana’s homestead exemption. And every year before the regular session begins, lobbyists and pundits correctly predict that the proposals will go nowhere fast. This year’s session hasn’t been much different, except that the homestead exemption and other property tax issues have just recently emerged from the fray with a real momentum that points to change in either coming weeks or future years.

One of the main reasons the 19-year-old homestead exemption is facing alterations has to do with an online petition. During the past five months, the number of individuals signing the Internet appeal to raise Louisiana’s homestead exemption has practically tripled to nearly 60,000 names. In mid-January, the tally was less than 22,000.  

Presently, Louisiana residents are not taxed on the first $75,000 of a home’s value. In Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes, that exemption amounts to at least $240 million each year in property taxes that don’t have to be paid. But is the $75,000 threshold still relevant? Joshua Kahler, a New Orleans Realtor, doesn’t think so.

He initiated the online petition — www.PetitionOnline.com/lahomeex/petition.html — to boost the figure because he says the benefits of the homestead exemption and the need to increase it for inflation have never been more important. “Homeowner taxes continue to increase as property values increase while the amount of the exemption remains fixed at 1982 property value levels,” Kahler says. “If adjusted for inflation alone the homestead exemption today would be over $160,000.”

Another possible catalyst for the renewed debate over the homestead exemption is your 2008 property tax bills. Since it was a reassessment year, many Louisiana homeowners likely  noticed that their property taxes went up, and the figures are finally high enough to hold the average person’s attention. Adding to the interest is the fact that Louisiana’s $75,000 homestead exemption is already one of the highest in the country.

The biggest factor, however, was Gov. Bobby Jindal’s recent announcement that he supports an increase in the homestead exemption — a different stance than voters heard on the campaign trail in 2007. Few were more surprised than Dan Juneau, president of the Louisiana Association of Business & Industry. He says increasing the homestead exemption would essentially force renters, businesses and other homeowners to pick up the tab for the tax savings given to some homeowners. In Louisiana, almost 50 percent of the residents pay no property tax at the parish level, Juneau says, which results in business and commercial interests paying approximately 80 percent of the property tax burden. If the legislation the governor says he supports becomes law, that percentage will increase exponentially, he adds. 

But Juneau is even more mystified by how stealthy Jindal’s support has been. “Gov. Jindal offered no reasons for supporting efforts to increase the homestead exemption,” he says. “I would hope that he does not suggest that an increase in the homestead exemption will result in a reduction of property taxes. It will not. Instead, it will transfer property taxes from some taxpayers to others who are already paying more than their fair share.”

Another sign that property taxes will receive solid once-overs in the session and future gatherings can likewise be seen in the number of bills addressing how local taxing bodies “roll forward” millages. When property values increase following the normal four-year reappraisals, Louisiana law requires local bodies to automatically roll back their millages to produce the exact same amount of money. But the law also allows these local entities to roll forward millages with a two-thirds vote.

Northshore Sen. Jack Donahue suggests the millage issue, particularly rolling forward, is at the heart of the homestead exemption debate, since it’s the real reason property taxes remain high. In other words, homeowners are suffering because local taxing bodies often use their discretionary power to roll forward millages after property is reappraised. That’s why he’s filed a constitutional amendment that would allow only elected bodies, like the school board, to roll forward or increase a millage — basically a property tax — after it has been approved by voters. Unelected bodies would be the ones prohibited. 

Other lawmakers have similar bills, and while their fates are unknown, Donahue says more people are becoming aware of how the system really works. “If enough money does come in, millages are rolled forward even past what the voters voted on,” he says. “If voters had voted on 10 mills and it takes 15 mills to make the same amount of money, then the millage is rolled forward to 15 mills. Most people don’t know that.”


Comments (5)add
...
written by Jason D. Faulk , May 13, 2009 - 08:34 am
I agree with the opposition to the property tax exemption. As a rent payer, my landlord maintaining a small 4-plex apartment building does not receive the benefit of the homestead exemption. This cost I estimate to be roughly $650 per year in taxes paid on the building in Lafayette Parish. Perhaps someone can verify that estimation. These costs invariably are passed on to me in my rent. It may not be a appear to be great amount, but it can be estimated with certainty. This lack of an exemption, affects renters of homes and small apartment situations more greatly than the renters of the larger corporate apartment facilities as the offset taxes are divided by dozens or hundreds of apartments and tenants in complexes valued at multimillion dollar assessments.

Many have argued that renters don't pay property tax. That should be a fallacious statement.

As Dan Juneau has indicated, perhaps only in defense of business interests, the increasing exemption will defer the burden of open avenues for taxation to taxees other than the homeowner, (who also receives mortage interest deductions on federal taxes as a reward for incurring indebture in order to pay rent-to-own one's home rather than renting into perpetuity.) These policy shifts, while well intentioned, are not without costs.

Louisiana has already received bad marks for its high sales and use taxes, by the state and by our local jurisdictions. We all know these affect lower incomes more greatly than higher incomes.

What other paths are there?

Eliminating the income and property taxes (or ensuring that they remain very low) and shifting to a wealth tax, and a financial products transaction tax would be preferable revenue offsets in my opinion. FTT would also discourage speculative trading practices, or at least collect some revenue to make up for the damage those practices cause.
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/6062A8E3B6C9C7C585257480005BFEE6?OpenDocument

Also, a carbon cap and dividend or a decreasing cap/trade are needed to reduce CO2 and transfer the costs of damaging environmental activities back into the hands of the public, who, will be affected by increased costs, and by the ecological damage wrought by our economy.

But then, I cannot yet foresee a scenario in which any of these subjects would come to see the light of day in Louisiana.
...
written by Phil , May 13, 2009 - 11:09 pm
If you don't nip it in the bud, taxes will always go up. The state gets taxes from various sources, sales tax, oil and gas royalties, not to mention gaming, or was it gambling. The homestead exemption protects homeowners, especially the elderly on fixed incomes, from increasing taxes. If you are a renter, buy a home.

Instead of a carbon cap/trade, plant a tree, which turns CO2 into Oxygen. You need about 42 trees to convert your individual carbon footprint back.

Raising taxes hurts our economy. Cutting costs help.
...
written by Poortom , May 14, 2009 - 12:18 pm
I love the comment that we already have the highest homestead exemption in the country. So what? It's good to be number one in something ;-] We should triple it and eliminate state income taxes. Then if might be an incentive to stay in the state instead of leaving. One thing we don't have, is a legislature that is fiscally responsible. We are going to get taxed six ways to hell from Washington and we are one of the poorest states in the union, why not give some of the citizens a break?
...
written by Jason D. Faulk , May 15, 2009 - 01:40 am
The carbon footprint for one year worth of carbon generation?
Times 308 million Americans. That's a lot of trees. I know the environment will EVENTUALLY catch up with our CO2 production and sequester it, but in the meanwhile, where would one propose planting those trees, and ensuring that they receive sufficient water supplies to survive a generally drier climate?

I agree with you on the point of protecting the low-income-elderly and others on low incomes relative to the "wealth" of the stored value in their home from ongoing increases which they may not have the ability to keep up. Another reader commented that sales taxes and property taxes are not based on the ability to pay whereas income is.
I would say that the discussion here in my mind, is compartmentalized into a discussion on the principle of fairness behind having an exemption and whether to raise it, versus whether a property tax is a right and fair taxing method to have in the first place.
Family scaled properties and the costs of the rented properties to the individual should receive an exemption I believe in order to reduce costs. However, we still being citizens, cannot be represented without taxation, so we definitely will get taxed elsewhere. However, I diverge and would say that large corporate national entities, non-human landholders of vast tracts of land rural or urban (and I'm not referring to someone's hunting camp here), holders of unused big-box outlets, should if we are to have property taxes, be taxed.
I also believe in the estate tax, as a justified tax to keep the generational playing field level, as Jefferson seemed to believe, to keep the society rebooting with each generation, preventing the establishment of a landed elite who would gradually find more political power acceding to themselves.

Sales taxes should be eliminated.

There is not justified basis for telling a renter to purchase a residence on debt, other than one made subjective by public policy and banking decisions which preference single family homes at the expense of most all other dwelling types and arrangements. Many persons do not want or desire the troubles of home maintenance, just as others happen to enjoy those troubles as challenges to be solved. If anything, paying a slight premium to rent, affords more economic activity by necessitating a management company and it's employees to do the work.

Of course, here in South Louisiana, we tend to think of ourselves as a giant small town, where the only such rental arrangement is an ugly apartment compound surrounded by parking lagoons ornamented with insignificant trees, or older run down "ghetto" neighborhoods, or over-large ranch houses from decades past with big yards that a single person does not usually find himself wanting. A thriving community will have a balance of all housing types to satisfy all needs, and it is the policy and lending decisions which distort this equation and encourage builders to service one market segment above others.

We don't see it here, but elsewhere in this country, vast expanses of brand new subdivisions lie dormant, without occupants, with cities struggling to keep the grass cut, and the windows boarded.

As for Oil and Gas royalties, these will continue as long as it takes less energy to get the raw-material out of the ground than it produces. When this equation gets tighter, the royalties will be dropped in desperate moves to keep production going and to keep workers employed. In the meanwhile, royalties on mineral resources are meant to reflect the common public nature of natural resources as being an asset held in common by the society. When these resources are depleted, exploited, what have you, they are then gone. These mineral resources do not regenerate. Allowing producers to have any resource for free does not lend itself to responsible management. Leasing the rights away or accepting the argument of exchange of resource extraction for temporary employment growth that may be created is not a position that can be sustained. Just as excess construction activity periodically seizes up due to some laws of supply of resources being limited, creating increased costs due to scarcity, consequently affecting supply of constructed buildings, transitioning from excess to shortage, and vice versa, so to does economic growth to supply the population growth with jobs and ongoing standards of living. The job disappears, for a while, or permanently.

Matt Simmons tried to tell us a bit about the declining flow rate problems of world and gulf oil, but it doesn't seem to have made an impact yet.
...
written by Nancy Marcotte , May 16, 2009 - 06:12 pm
I am a REALTOR and I am not in favor of the changing the homestead exemption. The taxes that are not collected by increasing the exemption are just going to be recouped one way or another. And as it is currently the parishes can just roll up the millage to make up for any shortfall. The homestead exemption is fine where it is, let's not place the more burden on our businesses and those that already pay the most taxes. They are the job creators, and without them we will all fail.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it