This is what the Order of the Palmetto has sunk to: The Club for Greed’s favorite governor, Marshall C. Sanford Jr., has awarded it to a guy whose signature achievement is having crusaded to save himself obscene amounts of money in property taxes on his $1.3 million Charleston home.
Here’s a story about it from the Charleston paper. An excerpt:
Emerson B. Read Sr. was given the state’s highest civilian honor
Monday for heading up a citizens group that convinced state legislators
to reduce property taxes.While accepting the Order of the
Palmetto, Read thanked others from around the state who helped propel a
tax-law reforming crusade. He then told an appreciative audience that
efforts to shift taxes away from homes are not finished."We’re going back for more," he declared.
Read,
83, said he has a presentation prepared for legislators in Columbia,
and if the latest efforts are successful, "there will be no property
taxes for those who are 65 and above, not even bonded indebtedness."
In a Dec. 3, 2006, article about Read’s "noble" efforts, The Post and Courier reported:
Read stands to see a significant reduction in taxes on his King Street home, which he bought for $45,000 four decades ago and which is now valued at $1.3 million. His tax bill tops $10,000.
Since school operating taxes generally made up about half of a tax bill, that meant his immediate savings would be in the neighborhood of $5,000 per year.
Next thing you know, the gov will be handing out this award to folks who save a bunch of money by switching to Geico. No, he won’t — those folks would not be saving themselves money at the expense of the community they live in, so the governor wouldn’t admire it so much.
Related Posts
A friend of mine who teaches in Wagener said Sanford spoke at her school recently. And he said – in front of the entire public school staff – that he does not like public schools. So there you have it, on the record.
I hope to see someone win an award for abolishing property taxes, a relic from the plantation economy.
It makes no economic sense, nor is it fair, to tax people’s private property that is not producing income. It is a mere convenience for the government.
70% of those who lose their homes in due to property taxes are elderly whose homes are paid for, with no mortgages on them.
Hip, Hip, Hooray!!!!
Taxing property is unjustifiable unless every property owner pays the same amount. The services rendered are exactly the same for each property owner, so why should someone who owns a larger home pay more for the same thing?
Raise the gasoline tax and eliminate the sales tax cap on car sales. This would allow for getting rid of the car property tax and all the tax revenue spent on collecting and enforcing this convoluted system.
Replace home property taxes with a combination of sales taxes and flat per dwelling fees for schools, fire, police, etc.
Eliminate all the sales tax loopholes (like for newspapers) except on food and medicine.
Abolish the ridiculous sales tax reduction of 0.5% for people over 85. That’s a perfect example of government gone too far.
There is no logical justification for our property tax system that doesn’t involve forcing people who have more to pay more for the same thing.
The greatest chance for economic revival in the state of South Carolina will come when the tax system is overhauled and simplified and the size of government is cut. Companies would be lining up to move here and tax revenues would GROW.
During the 15% cap on property reassessment debate, I went to the various groups web sites supporting the cap on reassessment to get the list of principals behind the cap. I then went to the various county web sites and searched for the appraised value of their properties. What I found was that the majority of those behind the 15% reassessment cap owned multi-million dollar homes in Charleston, and elsewhere along the coast. The lowest appraised house I found was appraised at $300,000 in Lexington County.
It is the continuing story of the rich wanting additional tax breaks.
Big surprise, that homeowners want to protect their property.
Those who want higher property taxes are:
* the government types whose jobs depend on the funds for their projects
* teachers and educrats who want more pay
* developers who want existing taxpayers to subidize their projects with new streets, sewers, streets and playgrounds
* real estate brokers who want old people to have to sell their houses.
* foreclosure vultures who want are plugged into the tax sales offices, who want to put families on the street so they can buy the house for little down and flip it with a bogus mortgage.
Look, no one ‘wants’ higher property taxes, but there are plenty of people who are fine paying them because they are a steady, recession-proof way of collecting taxes that pay for a very important thing, our public schools. It’s not perfect and funding isn’t fair, but I prefer it to more unfair things, like raising sales taxes or having a flat tax. Raising sales taxes and eliminating property taxes only shifts the burden from higher income to lower income people.
Amen Doug, As a smoker I am able an ready to accept as large a tax increase as the ones that are imposed on gas and alcohol.
As a good citizen I am willing to do my part but if the tax is too large or I am expected to shoulder the whole burden then I am afraid I will have to cut back on my consumption.
Property taxes are only a “good steady source of income for governement”
1. so long as the property owner has a good steady source of income.
2. so long as the value of properties do not decrease
70% of tax sales are against retired people and disabled people on fixed incomes that do not keep up with rising property taxes.
Businesses move away. Philip Morris is moving its plant from Concord, NC to Richmond, VA. This week, they just notified Concord that they have removed machinery that was taxed at over $2,000,000 a year.
Property values are plummeting as speculators and holders of overextended mortgages default and flood the market with property. The typical government response will be to raise tax rates to offset lower assessments.
Property taxes are only a “good steady source of income for governement”
How do you expect the government to operate? On wishes and dreams?
70% of tax sales are against retired people and disabled people on fixed incomes that do not keep up with rising property taxes.
Are you referring to property taxes or ‘tax sales’? Do you have a cite for that?
The 70% figure comes from testimony before the SC Legislature about granting property tax exemptions to the elderly. I was in attendance at the hearing and took notes.
This is a subject I have been studying since I worked in college for the Assessor and for the Treasurer in Richland County, and saw the inequities and suffering first-hand.
You can always tell a tax is too high when there have to be exceptions made to prevent people or businesses from moving away. That is why you are paying higher property taxes to subsidize the exemptions granted to recruit new industry.
And the exemption that enables some elderly to keep their homes is also being granted to retired executives from big cities, on their expensive beach houses in SC.
Wise up.
“The greatest chance for economic revival in the state of South Carolina will come when the tax system is overhauled and simplified and the size of government is cut. Companies would be lining up to move here and tax revenues would GROW.”
Doug,
I just found out the most astonishing thing – South Carolina’s corporate income tax rate is lower than that of both New York and California! I can only assume that all the large financial institutions and the movie industry will be relocating to South Carolina very soon.
> I just found out the most astonishing
>thing – South Carolina’s corporate income
>tax rate is lower than that of both New
>York and California! I can only assume
>that all the large financial institutions
>and the movie industry will be relocating
>to South Carolina very soon.
Did you read what I wrote? It had nothing to do with corporate income taxes. It had to do with creating the most attractive environment from a tax-spend perspective by simplifying the tax code and cutting government spending on unnecessary projects.
There are a multitide of other reasons why companies are staying away from South Carolina: access to an educated workforce being the #1 reason in my view.
You tell me – why did the banking industry choose Charlotte? Couldn’t it have just as easily been Columbia or Charleston or Greenville?
As for the movie industry, it has nothing to do with taxes… although there is plenty of production work being done in Canada for that reason alone.
Access to an educated workforce would be great, who wants to invest millions (billions) in education to make that a reality? Anyone here? Universal health care would make it much more attractive for businesses of all sizes to want to invest here. Not having to worry about healthcare for employees would be a huge cost-savings to most companies, right? Not to mention how much of a boon to entrepreneurship that would be, not having to worry about health insurance. Just saying.
“Did you read what I wrote? It had nothing to do with corporate income taxes. It had to do with creating the most attractive environment from a tax-spend perspective by simplifying the tax code and cutting government spending on unnecessary projects.
There are a multitide of other reasons why companies are staying away from South Carolina: access to an educated workforce being the #1 reason in my view.”
Well which is it that’s keeping industry away, the tax code, or an undereducated workforce. Besides, do you think our tax code is more byzantine than those of large, wealthy states such as NY and CA? And last but not least, we all know that “simplifying the tax code” is a transparent euphemism for slashing taxes. If you want to lower taxes, just say so.
I like what Jay said regarding property taxes, that “there are plenty of people who are fine paying them…”
Indeed there are, Jay. They’re called “grownups.”
> Indeed there are, Jay. They’re
>called “grownups.”
Who has said anything about NOT paying taxes? Is there anyone who has said they do not want to pay taxes at all?
My issue is with fairness and simplicity and government waste. That’s a “grownup” perspective that you evidently haven’t reached yet… that would require analysis, not passivity.
Care to post your tax information, Brad?
Then we’ll see why you might be happy with the taxes you pay. You work for a company that gets a multitude of tax breaks (no sales tax on newspapers, real estate tax breaks due to being located outside the city limits)… no wonder your happy with the tax situation as it is. It’s been tilted in your favor.
Between income, property, social security, medicare, gas taxes, and sales taxes, my wife and I paid more than $50,000 into the government last year. At what dollar amount should I begin to question what kind of government I am getting for that expenditure?
Instead of discussion, the Brad Warthen dismisses specific problems with the property tax as coming from those who aren’t “grownups”.
So are the economists hired by the State Legislature, who explain the same problems (and more) also just not being “grownups”? Tell Holly Ulbrich that the next time you ask her to write a column for The State.
How about the executives of BMW, Michelin, Roche, VW, Boeing, etc when they demand exemptions from paying property taxes?
How about The State newspaper, when it moves outside the city limits to avoid property taxes, and lobbies for exemptions from sales taxes? Just not “grownup”?
Sanford likes rich people that live in expensive houses.
He dislikes poor people and minorities that live in less expensive houses.
One groups got tax relief, one did not. It is simple.
Mark Sanford lives in a mansion on the ocean, and a plantaion house in the country. I wonder how much his tax bill went down.
I live in a $125,000 house…hmmm…
Everyone got the same property tax relief in 2007. If you own a more expensive house, you get more relief, but the same percentage.
The problem is that the taxes are unfair, out of date, bear no relation to ability to pay, and the state doesn’t need the money, anyway.
Hey, Brad, “there are plenty of people who are fine” paying for their particular set of health problems, too, people who don’t play holier than thou and beg repeatedly for a single-payer universal health care system, people who, unlike you, aren’t in that “upper quintile” of income.
They call those people “grownups,” too, Brad.
And Jay, a sales tax would be perfectly fair. Rich people spend more money than poor people, so they’d pay more tax. Exempt necessities, and a sales tax becomes a perfectly progressive tax on disposable income.
Notice I’m not complaining that I have to pay property tax on my farm and income tax on the money I make from the land. Heck, I could sell the land, and then I’d just have to pay capital gains, income tax on whatever interest the proceeds earned, gasoline tax on the fuel required to get me to the bank to deposit the money, and property tax on the car I put the gasoline in.
Have I mentioned that Mark Sanford is my favorite governor since Carroll Campbell?
Lee’s right: It makes no economic sense, nor is it fair, to tax people’s private property that is not producing income.
The property tax on my farm I really don’t mind, though most of it pays for schools that don’t benefit me directly, because my grandchildren don’t live in the same county I do. The farm makes money.
The property tax on my house, though, which is making anything but a profit, does bother me a bit.
Lee writes:
The first sentence should read, “Those who are convinced that property taxes are a fairly just way to go about it are:”
Then the next should read:
“Christians who understand Biblical principles of ethics, and who want to pattern their lives after those ethics, as exemplified in Leviticus 25, 2 Cor. 8:13-15 for starters.”
Herb,
According to Leviticus, we Christians should not work every seventh year. Who among us does that?
It also talks about forgiving debts in the seventh year. When does that start as I would like to inform my mortgage company?
Also, the 2 Corinthians passage does not make any mention of using the government as the means of collecting and redistribution of wealth. Did I miss something there?
It’s about Christian giving, not government bureacracy.
Where in the Biblical code of ethics, Herb, does it say that those who work hard and prosper should clench their teeth and spend themselves almost to the point of failure for the benefit of the worthless, shiftless and witless?
Is there a scripture that says the moderately well-to-do should be forced to put money in an envelope so the genuinely well-to-do can use some of it to pay their physicians?
Is there another scripture that says those who have a little something should be forced to give it to invasive foreigners?
Somewhere, yes, there is that line, “Render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” but it does not say, “Render under Caesar that which is yours, your children’s, your cousins’ and your grandma’s.
The authors of the Constitution, being products of the Enlightenment, considered Christ saying, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, to be the beginning of the doctrine of separation of Church and State.
They did not consider Christ to be sanctifying the secular state as always right in no matter how much money they extracted from their subjects. Nor did it grant them permission to use any means to obtain money or compliance with the laws.
Modern clerics have pretty much sold out to The State. Instead of exhorting their flock to practice charity, they show up in the legislature and before the propaganda media to endorse State welfare replacing charity.
“Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes,Jr.
Excess taxes are the price we pay for cowardice. – Lee Muller
Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr, was a moral relativist, who believed in aristocratic rule, and did not like the Consitution restraints of the ruling class.
His quote about taxes is the motto of the IRS, engraved on the entrance to their headquarters in Washington.
He is most famous for his narrow interpretations of Due Process, and broad interpretations of “free speech” and “commerce” to give FDR power over individuals. Liberals and Progressives loved Holmes for his 1927 opinion in Buck v. Bell, which upheld the right of the state to perform forced sterilizations on the poor, and “feebleminded”.
“Liberals and Progressives loved Holmes for his 1927 opinion in Buck v. Bell, which upheld the right of the state to perform forced sterilizations on the poor, and “feebleminded”.”
So if conservatives, like yourself, are on the opposite side of that, the the state should look after the poor and “feebleminded”? I thought they were all shiftless and lazy and not deserving of any help from the state. I’m so confused.
There is no free lunch. When The State gives protection with one hand, it takes liberty with the other.
It was the liberals and progressives who came up witht the social theories of eugenics, as means for white ruling elites to improve the race, and to reduce the higher birth rates among Chinese immigrants and blacks in America.
Hitler took this to heart.
Here, in America, FDR’s socialized medicine conducted syphilis experiments on blacks, and sterilized tens of thousands of people in hospitals and prisons. The Eugenics Movement turned into the Abortion Industry.
Forced sterilizations were ended in Sweden only recently, under its socialized medical system.
The new property tax law was driven more by greed than need. 70% of those that voted for the constitutional Cap admendment did not realize they were voting themselves a tax increase to subsibidize those living south of Broad, Kiawah and the Barrier islands. We now have a system that institutionalizes gross “inequity” in the payment of taxes- supported by a state constitution that denies “equal Treatment”- in direct violation of our federal constitution.
Per our State chief economist the 15% Cap will redistribute $372 million in property taxes over the next five years starting in 2010 from wealthy home owners, owners of second homes, rentals and other commercial properties- to poor and middle class home owners, small business and every owner of every motor vehicle, boat and all other personal properties as well as all other property classifications, such as manufacturing and utilities. Our new law provides a permanent cash cow machine for the wealthy- wherein wealthy owners are subsidized by everybody else.
It didn’t go far enough. We need to get rid of taxes and the machinery for collecting them, instead of just tinkering.
The property tax is so unfair and nonsensical that it needs to be the first to go. Then we could get rid of the tax records, assessments, the complex computer data interchange between all 46 county Treasurer offices, the SC Dept of Revenue, and the DMV.
Mr. Henderson distorts and misuses the term “subsidizes” to describe letting people keep their own money, people who were paying far more than their fair share of taxes. All taxpayers are subsidizing those who just mooch off the government.
Exactly, Lee. Any time someone talks about simplifying taxes, the accusations of being greedy are flung about.
Why is it so hard to understand that the process of assessing and collecting property taxes is convoluted and adds ZERO to the productivity of the state.
Take a look at Richland County alone.
How about the Board of Assesment Appeals which has a Mission Statement of:
The Assessment Appeals mission is to develop a fair and equitable valuation system for Richland County to
ensure that each taxpayer pays only his fair share of taxes. The Board seeks to ensure that all property
owners in Richland County are provided all rights and privileges accorded under Section 12-60-2510, Code of
Laws of South Carolina
The total 2008 budget for that office (in one county remember) is $12.7 million dollars. Think about that. The property taxes paid by approximately 12,000 median value homes in Richland County are used to PAY FOR THE SYSTEM TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH PROPERTY TAXES SHOULD BE PAID!
Is that too obvious to recognize as a completely inefficient system???? Wouldn’t it make more sense to use that same $12 million to do something worthwhile like fix roads and bridges, educate kids, provide healthcare to those who need it?
Really – what level of ignorance do you have to attain in order to think the property tax system makes sense?
And here’s the growth of the Richland County budget over the past five years:
2004 88,970,391
2005 99,198,837
2006 111,361,248
2007 118,908,857
2008 126,631,519
Nearly 50% growth in expenditures in 5 years. And are things better now than they were five years ago?
It is telling that about the only problem Brad has with Mr. Reads’ award is that he received it for successfully fighting back on the tax front.
Live it, learn it, love it:
Brad Warthen has never met a tax he doesn’t like. Neither has he ever met a tax cut he does like.
He and the rest of the people on the editorial board are so hopelessly in the tank for any and all taxes that they couldn’t even muster the guts to condemn the ridiculous and purposeless 2% restaurant tax. They gave it an endorsement even while admitting in their piece that the tax was A) Un-needed B) Could be badly mismanaged (which it has).
Expect no balance from The State on taxes. David
The "only" reason? You mean, there’s something else involved here? You’re saying Sanford had some reason for honoring him, some legitimate reason, that I’m somehow overlooking in my zeal to hit him on this one, minor point?
Folks, let me ‘splain something to you: People who disagree with you are NOT automatically your diametric opposites. Sensible people who have a little balance in their lives tend to recoil from the anti-tax extremists. Disagreeing with people who hate all taxes doesn’t make you someone who likes all taxes.
This is a nice way of saying that dave’s last three paragraphs amount to one big lie. Either he doesn’t read the paper, or he thinks nobody else does.
I know this is a difficult concept for the partisan, black-vs.-white, modern mind to wrap itself around, but it’s true. It’s what this blog is about, probably more than anything else — trying to explain to you and your friends on the "left" and "right" that the world is a whole lot more complicated than that.
Oh, and in case you’re confused enough to think this is a matter of dave’s word against mine, I’m going to fight dirty and cite actual evidence. Here is the first editorial I came across when I did an archive search for our positions on — this was dave’s particular choice — the restaurant tax. (Of course, any tax we oppose would have served to refute his point.):
There are good taxes and bad taxes. The restaurant tax is a bad tax. The fact that local governments are allowed no better options to the property tax is no excuse for levying revenues that have no compelling public purpose.
Good point, Brad. It’s nice to see you use some evidence for a change.
But see if you can wrap your Unparty head around this concept: Hurling condescending insults such as “I know this is a difficult concept for the partisan, black-vs.-white, modern mind to wrap itself around” doesn’t emphasize your point.
If you think all the partisans can’t think because one of them made a mistake, you’re making exactly the same mistake of which you accuse the partisans.
Brad, you and I aren’t diametric
opposites on every issue.
I read the Charleston papers’ article about Mr. Read. Seems to me that his tenacious efforts to reduce taxes on property owners have been fairly herculean, and not a little bit successful.
Governor Sanford has made much-needed tax relief (in many forms) a centerpiece in his terms as governor. So, it seems quite natural to me that he would recognize and honor a man who has spent considerably of his personal time, talent and treasure in furthering tax relief for South Carolinians.
It is also not surprising to me that you wouldn’t see it that way.
But you’ve characterized this whole thing like you’re sort of surprised and disappointed at how trivial the award has become. This is to be expected, given your track record on taxes.
My point is that an objective reading of the Charleston article within the greater context of Gov. Sanfords consistent stand on taxes makes this not surprising at all. Of course he’d recognize a private citizen who has been a champion in the fight with which the governor has been engaged since day one.
Bottom line? I don’t think you’ve been objective, and the reason is your relish for taxes.
Taste the rainbow, BE the rainbow. There are things about which you and I agree. Taxes ain’t one of ’em. David
“relish taxes”
That’s a good one. Man, I loves me some taxes! Seriously, this is the problem. Taxes, apparently property taxes in general, is a hot-button issue that, like all other hot-button issues, is defined by the extreme. The people who say property taxes are unfair (and I think people here are saying unfair when they mean unjust, if you don’t think your property should be taxed because it doesn’t have income, you’re not arguing it’s fairness, you’re arguing it’s existence) are only saying they are unfair to ME, regardless of how many old ladies they say they are fighting for. They are not concerned about what’s fair for all. And if you can’t see that property taxes are unfair/unjust, then you are in love with taxes and want nothing but taxes, sweet glorious taxes.
Huh? David
Brad acts the the state is short of money.
His paper talks about “budget crunches” – oh, woe is government!
The fact is, there is no budget.
The fact is, the economy has in the last 3 years brought in over $2 BILLION in SURPLUS revenues over the spending plans.
The legislature could have used it to pay of debt, but they blew it all on junk spending, and raised the spending plan so it wouldn’t be a “surplus”. Now, the economy is slowing down, and they cry about “shortfalls”.
The legislature could have cut tax rates.
They could have paid off expensive debt.
They could have built all the schools the state needed, for cash, without a bond referendum.
Thank Brad and his staff for providing the smokescreen for waste and fraud by Land, Leatherman, Cotty, and Harrell.
Doug, you dismiss my arguments from Holy Scripture, upon which all committed Christians base their attitudes and behavior, but I’m afraid it isn’t that simple. Unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be) I don’t have time to write a theology of the subject. Besides, others have already done a better job of it.
The bottom line is that you cannot use the church/state differentiation so cleanly and glibly as you would like, and use the Bible to defend individualism as far as personal ethics are concerned.
What both Testaments do is show us the character of God, and taken both together, there is a great harmony between the two. One of the outstanding characteristics of His character is his hatred for oppression of the poor and desire for some degree of equality among His creatures, as exemplified in specific situations that I quoted. I can parade hundreds of examples in Scripture where He derides and yes, threatens the wealthy who amass wealth by unfair means, and they never get by with it in the long run.
I suggest that you take a good look at Jim Wallis’ God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get it. Jim lays it out far better than I can hope to. And then there is Ron Sider’s Just Generosity which debunks the idea that the government has no place in helping people. Well, Sider doesn’t have to debunk that–the Old Testament does that all over the place. The prophet Amos, for example, criticizes the Chosen and the heathen, both the individuals, and their governments for their behavior.
Wilberforce was confronted by many of the same arguments that folks on the right today tend to come up with, but he persisted in his role, both as a Christian, and as a member of Parliament, to end the slave trade. A good thing the libertarians weren’t around to “shrink government down to the size of a bathtub,” or he would have never have accomplished anything. He, of course, ended up interfering with the personal rights of individuals to dominate other people. The amassing of personal wealth, if not carefully monitored, leads to exactly that.
Herb,
I have never said the government should NOT be involved in aiding the needy. I have said that the manner in which our government attempts to do that is misguided and has gone too far. Social Security is not a welfare program — I dare you to tell the people who get the checks that it is. It is a quasi-retirement program that is unsustainable in the long run.
Personally, I would like to see the government do MORE for the needy and less for the wealthy. Because that is how it is set up right now — those with political connections (including the politicians themselves) utilize their influence to line their own pockets. We have a tax code built by lobbyists to shield entities from paying (including The State newspaper). We have huge government programs like the TSA, Dept. Of Ed., the IRS, etc. that do nothing of value — imagine what benefits to society could be done by the government if the government truly was used to help those in need. That’s not what we have. Not even close.
Social Security is a welfare program, and bankrupt.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Social Security is not a savings plan, not a retirement system, not an insurance system, and not a pension or annuity plan. Those who receive benefits do so at the whim of Congress, and the benefits may be increased, reduced, or denied for any reason, or no reason.
The first landmark case was Helvering v. Davis, s suit challenging the Contitutionality of the Social Security system. One of its arguments was the the government was forbidden from running an insurance program. The courts agreed. In 1937, even the Supreme Court agreed with that point, but rule that the program was just welfare, with no entitlement, no promise, no obligation to pay any benefit.
(Taxes) “are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
In 1956, a Bulgarian immigrant, Ephram Nestor was deported for being a communist, and he sued for his FICA taxes, saying they were his.
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling, “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would
deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands.”
The Court went on to reaffirm Helvering, repeating that Social Security is a mere welfare program.
Thanks for that clarification, Doug. Although we still don’t nearly agree on everything, we’re a whole lot closer than I thought. Which is all I have time to write, and probably enough, anyway.