Comments on: Guest Column: Machesney voters should reject sales tax extension

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:54:52 +0000

Thanks Michael Kleen nice info u have provided.SO Just about 10 minutes to complete to get 6month about Tax Extension..

By: RedRover

RedRover — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:38:43 +0000

Mr Kleen’s proposal reminded me of a land tax proposal from the late 19th century: The Single Tax, as presented by Henry George:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Single_tax_on_land

By: MaKleen

MaKleen — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 06:07:27 +0000

Thank you to those of you who have supported my column so far. I’d like to address some of Jared’s criticisms, because they are reasonable and well thought out. I wish I had more space to develop my argument, but I had to do the best I could in a limited number of words. It was probably a mistake to include the idea that the land value tax will cut down on land speculation – it would technically, but only if all property taxes were eliminated and replaced by a single land value tax. That is out of the voter’s hands right now. The land value tax, however, does encourage economic development because it is paid equally by everyone, regardless of how the land is used. For more information on the LVT, I suggest this website (even though it is advocating the tax in the UK): http://www.landvaluetax.org/

My basic question to you is, why is it so important for non-residents to help pay for your roads? Sure they use them too, but it seems like a small price to pay for people coming into the village to spend their money at stores, buy gas, and patronize other businesses. Wouldn’t it be better to try and attract more visitors (and customers) by lowering your sales tax?

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:18:50 +0000

In my opinion, your letter is short on supporting arguments. Why is the land value tax better than the property tax? In what way does it discourage land speculation and encourage economic development? I do not see how it is any easier for to plan for in a budget. I see that it is different in a budget, in that a family/individual can not cut back on that cost if the need arises. That seems worse.

On the one hand, I considered that a land value tax is the appropriate source of revenue for building roads, as each parcel of land needs a road to get to it. I remember the counter-proposal of “if outsiders want to use our roads, make them pay their share through sales taxes”. But I don’t think I can buy that argument, as the land owners would be the ones that WANT the outsiders to come to their property. But then this still seems more of a Property Tax fit than a Land Tax fit (as the higher property values such as commercial properties would be the lands that want most to attract outsiders).

By: John

John — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:01:37 +0000

Talk about lack of imagination, Mr. Kleen should take a look in the mirror sometime. His proposal fails to take into account the road use by people who don’t live in Machesney Park, but merely pass through. While a sales tax may, or may not pull them into the revenue pool, a property tax will definitely not include them.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 06:59:49 +0000

Here is the article is best way to get the knowledge about Tax Extension..

By: Derek R

Derek R — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:05:26 +0000

A small tax on land value is, of course, the solution which costs the typical resident least. Mostly because it is difficult to avoid and so everyone has to pay their fair share. However it can be a little difficult to convince people since property taxes tend to be so unpopular. I hope that Michael Kleen manages to get the message over in time.