The less-heralded provisions of property tax reform
There are some big opinions on the overall impact of the property tax bill that lawmakers passed and Gov. Mike Braun celebrated. I don't think it's either as good or as bad as some believe — but today, I want to focus on some smaller provisions that deserve notice.
They aren't sexy, like a $300 homeowner credit or a business personal property tax cut. But they do make a difference.
The first is a bond debt cooling-off period.
Under current law, when a local unit of government is planning to bond for a new project, it'll often do it when another bond is set to expire. That means local officials can tell taxpayers they won't see an increase in their tax bill. That is technically true, but they also won't see a decrease.
Senate Enrolled Act 1 requires a one-year freeze after a bond expires so that taxpayers see the reduction.
Indiana Senate sends finalized local property, income tax plan to governor
Another change is moving all referenda votes to the general election. Schools use referenda largely for construction projects but can also hold them for school security and operational needs if they feel the state hasn't provided what they need.
Of course, they still have to convince taxpayers to fund those needs.
For years, these votes were allowed in primary elections, when fewer Hoosiers go to the polls. Lawmakers believe moving them to general elections gives more transparency to the costs that lie above the percent caps for bills.
According to data collected by the Indiana School Boards Association, the school referendum pass rate in Indiana is 16 percentage points higher at the primary election than at the general election. The organization believes this is because primary voters are better informed and highly motivated to vote for or against the referendum. But voters in the general election are often surprised by the referendum and reflexively vote no.
Several provisions in the new law require affirmative voting on taxes, which can only be a good thing.
One section says if a unit's assessed value remains the same, its levy cannot exceed the year before unless its fiscal body votes to do so by ordinance following a separate public hearing. Also, if assessed value does grow, it requires a decrease in the tax rate to bring in the same amount of money unless it's affirmatively raised.
This language is meant to draw attention to the automatic nature of property taxes, which are essentially a calculation involving tax rate and assessed value.
Similarly, local income taxes — which got a lot of attention in discussion over the property tax package — will revert to zero each year. This forces an annual vote by fiscal leaders of local government to continue collecting that money.
I'm not actually sure this is necessary, and I can't imagine state lawmakers would want to vote on the state income or sales tax every single year. But it is consistent with other moves to make the overall taxation system more open and understandable.
The last bits of language I want to highlight are deep in the weeds of property taxes.
The maximum levy growth quotient currently limits how much local property tax levies can rise in a year based on a six-year rolling average of non-farm personal income growth. Because of inflation, it rose to 5% in 2023 compared to 3.4% in 2019. Lawmakers last year put in an artificial cap of 4% and Senate Enrolled Act 1 extends that another year.
The bill also limits excess levy appeals by units. In that past, cities, counties and other units were allowed to ask for more revenue based on certain circumstances, such as assessed value growth and school transportation costs. Those won't be allowed any longer, though an appeal would still be an option in case of natural disaster or other emergency.
None of these items individually — or even collectively — will likely drop your tax obligation in any massive way. But they do create a more responsive and open system so that Hoosiers can more easily understand the decisions that are being made. It also puts local officials on the hot seat instead of state lawmakers.
'They're waving a flag, saying we're the ones cutting your taxes … when what they're doing is shifting everything on to the local government and saying, 'You be the bad guys,'' Sen. Ron Alting told Based in Lafayette.
He was one of 12 Republicans to vote against the bill. Some believe it didn't go far enough to cut property taxes.
In the end, those who simply disagree with the mechanism of property taxes will never be pleased with what occurred. But from a pragmatic standpoint, this package was more than I thought Gov. Mike Braun could get.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Over 23,000 Are Floored By This Text About A MAGA Voter Who Supported Cutting Medicaid... Until He Realized His Children Use It
As you likely know, Donald Trump signed his One Big, Beautiful Bill into law earlier this month, which includes major reductions in federal support for Medicaid. Ultimately, as reported by NPR, this will lead to about 12 million more people being without health insurance by 2034. It doesn't take much brain power to understand why that would be a very, very bad thing. Saul Loeb / Getty Images Related: Regardless, some people still struggle with the concept. One such person is the focus of this text exchange that recently went viral on Reddit: In a retelling of a recent conversation between their brother and themself, this texter wrote, "I mentioned in the family chat that 300,000 kids in Iowa are on Medicaid - they will all lose coverage." "My brother is like: well it least it's not touching Hawk-i, that's what my kids are on," they continued. For those outside of Iowa, the state's Medicaid and children's health insurance program is largely known by its nickname: Healthy and Well-Kids in Iowa or... hawk-i. So, upon learning his children's healthcare is in jeopardy, the brother responds with, "What? They better not." Related: This is all made worse by the fact that the brother, apparently, has been a big proponent of cutting Medicaid. "Dude has been banging the drum for this stupid spending bill for weeks and didn't even realize he was rooting for his own kids losing their insurance," the texter concludes. Mining through the nearly 1,500 comments, a common frustration came from those who have seen stories of people voting against their own interests too many times before. "It's the same thing with people who love the Affordable Care Act, [but] hate 'Obamacare,' and didn't spend the five seconds required to realize that they're the same thing," user Successful_Jelly_213 wrote. Others questioned the brother's morality and wondered aloud why he was OK with children losing their health insurance (as long as they weren't his kids). "So just to clarify, he's good with the other 300,000 kids losing their healthcare, just not his own kids," Sharpymarkr posed. Related: "He never had a single thought about other people. The whole thing was about himself," Prosthemadera agreed. "Whether someone else's family will suffer, how many people will die, he doesn't give a shit." "If your first response to cutting healthcare is 'I'm not affected,' then you're just not a good person, and that doesn't change just because you suddenly care to be against it once you find out you are actually affected. You're just being a selfish, self-centered asshole who will vote Republican again next time because this was never about making the world better." Additionally, "I'm 57 years old, no children, not religious. I have never taken a dime in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8, or any public programs. I've never even filed for unemployment. But I want my tax dollars to help that guy's kids get healthcare and schooling, and housing. Guess I'm a libtard," weenie2323 said. Elsewhere in the comments, people shared similar stories of dealing with their own MAGA family members: Related: "This is my mom," cheongyanggochu-vibe said. "My disabled brother is on Medicaid, which is supplemented by her state. She thinks that because he gets it from the state, he will be fine (even though the funds are majority federal)." "When he gets axed, she will blame her Democratic governor and lawmakers because she doesn't realize how profoundly she benefits from being in a blue state she hates the leaders of." "A colleague of mine lives in Utah, and he meets the threshold for Medicaid; everything is covered. I asked him, 'Say, aren't you worried about this bill working its way through Congress? You could lose your healthcare.' He said, 'What, no, that's for waste fraud and abuse, I'm on the state health care, not Medicaid.'" "I said, 'Uhh, that IS Medicaid, they just don't call it that because of the political stigma.' Absolute deadpan silence," BeautifulTall7833 said. Overall, little sympathy was expressed. "I hope cutting his own child's healthcare was worth it," WeirdProudAndHungry said. "Medicaid literally saved my life. Fuck these people," MidnightNo1766 added. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments. Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
In Roswell, it's not Epstein, it's the UFO files Trump promised
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Like, where is it?' asked Eduardo Alvarez, 36, who works at the House of Aliens gift shop in Roswell, about the promised UFO files. 'They've been promising that for many, many times, right? Trump said he would be the guy to do it.' Advertisement Roswell, a city of 48,000 in southeast New Mexico, has had an international mystique as a result of that incident 78 years ago this month. Initially, the military said it had recovered a 'flying disc,' but quickly retracted the claim. The US government later said the debris was from a downed test balloon intended to detect Soviet atomic activity, but then revised the story again, claiming it was just a weather balloon. Advertisement People entered the Roswell UFO Spacewalk attraction in Roswell, N.M. PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images The shifting explanations and secrecy ignited a lasting conspiracy theory: that the government has proof aliens have visited America but is hiding it. Most tourists interviewed this week while visiting the Roswell International UFO Museum and Research Center, the two-story-tall alien holding up a Dunkin' sign, or the McDonald's shaped like a flying saucer, said they were simply stopping by as part of a kitschy Americana road trip. Bob Veitch, 61, of Huntingburg, Ind., said visiting Roswell was on his personal 'bucket list,' as his wife shook her head. Put another way, though, a pilgrimage to Roswell is also helpful for understanding American politics in 2025. 'There's always been a direct, if dotted, line from conspiracies like Roswell to the modern-day beliefs of groups like QAnon,' said Garrett Graff, a journalist and author of 'UFO: The Inside Story of the US Government's Search for Alien Life Here – and Out There.' 'The challenge of much of the MAGA movement is that it has risen to prominence by embracing one conspiracy after another — and now that's coming home to roost for Trump with Jeffrey Epstein.' During his three campaigns for president, Trump has been asked repeatedly whether he would declassify information about what the government believes to be true about UFOs and extraterrestrial life. In general, Trump has long said, 'I have never been a believer' in extraterrestrial life and that the topic overall has 'never been my thing. I have to be honest.' But during the 2020 reelection campaign, Trump appeared on his son Donald Trump Jr.'s podcast, where he was asked whether he had any more intelligence about UFOs and aliens, now that he had been president. Advertisement 'I won't talk to you about what I know about it, but it's very interesting,' the elder Trump responded. 'But Roswell's a very interesting place with a lot of people that would like to know what's going on.' Trump went even further in the 2024 campaign, during a September appearance on Lex Fridman's podcast, when Fridman asked if he would push the Pentagon to release more UFO footage. 'Oh yeah, sure, I'll do that. I would do that. I'd love to do it,' said Trump. As part of his second-term promise of 'radical transparency,' Trump has aggressively signed executive orders to release records related to the JFK, MLK, and Robert F. Kennedy assassinations. He has also sought to make public more information about the investigation into his ties to Russia that dogged his first term. But so far, there hasn't been any direct action from Trump on UFOs or, as they're now officially known, Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs). The White House did not respond to a request for comment on why or whether anything might be released soon. There are, however, reasons to believe something could happen. Congress has taken bipartisan interest in the issue and even passed a law in 2022 establishing a formal process to examine declassifying more material. This came after the Biden administration released a report examining 144 UFO sightings from 2004 to 2021. Interestingly, Trump's current CIA Director John Ratcliffe said in the wake of that report in June 2021 that he worked to get more information out during Trump's first term because it is a matter of national security. 'There are technologies that we don't have and frankly that we are not capable of defending against, based on those things that we've seen, multiple sensors, in other words, where not just people visually see it, but where it's picked up on radar, where it's seen on satellites,' said Ratcliffe, speaking as Trump's former head of the Department of National Intelligence, on Advertisement Back in Roswell, Kitty Hjelmroth, 49, of Farmington Hills, Mich., who was visiting with her family, said she just couldn't believe Trump would keep any promise, especially one this big. 'I don't believe anything he says,' said Hjelmroth. Down the street, Devon London, 35, from Baton Rouge, La., offered the opposite view. 'If Trump says he will do something, he will,' he said, adding that he is personally dismayed by the Epstein story, which he sees as more important than anything related to UFOs. Alvarez, the gift shop worker, pointed to the store's best-selling T-shirt (featuring a green alien with the words 'illegal alien') and paused. Maybe, he said, he doesn't want Trump to shed more light on Roswell or UFOs after all. 'At this point, the fun is the mystery.' James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Will The EU Postpone Its Deforestation Law, Yet Again?
Aerial picture of a deforested area close to Sinop, Mato Grosso State, Brazil, taken on August 7, ... More 2020. (Photo by FLORIAN PLAUCHEUR/AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images Will the EU deforestation law be postponed again? Given how events have unfolded this month, this is a question worth asking. The law is set to take effect in December 2025 and is seen as the EU's global leadership in curbing deforestation. But this month, a major chocolate company asked the government to delay implementation further, citing practical challenges. In addition, many EU Member States supported a proposal to the European Commission requesting simplification —a move that could also have implications for the implementation timeline. On the other hand, many civil society groups maintain that further delay would send the wrong signal that the law is negotiable under pressure. So, which way will the law tilt? It is essential to stay alert to how this plot unfolds. In my post on Climate Policy Development to Follow in 2025 , I flagged this as a space to watch. With the growing debate, it's worth taking a closer look to assess new developments and uncover concerns. The EU Deforestation Regulation (famously called EUDR) is a first-of-its-kind regulation that checks the import of deforestation-linked products into EU markets. Seven product categories are under the radar: cattle, cocoa, palm oil, rubber, soya, coffee, and wood from deforested regions. The regulation was passed by the EU in 2023 and initially set for implementation in December 2024. It was postponed by a year last year until 2025, due to demands from producer countries and companies asking for more time to prepare for compliance. With only six months left before implementation, one wonders: Will it be further delayed? Forests play a critical role in absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. Research released yesterday by the World Resources Institute's Global Forest Watch showcased that our forest carbon sink reached its lowest point in the past two decades due to fires and persistent deforestation. The forest carbon sink could only absorb a quarter of its usual emissions in the past two years. This has disastrous impacts on us and our planet. That's why regulations like the EUDR that curb deforestation are more urgent than ever. Mondelez, Cadbury's parent company, called for the EU to delay EUDR implementation earlier this month. The company's key reason for this request was practical hurdles in implementing the regulation, especially at a time when the industry is facing high cocoa prices. This year, crop diseases have impacted cocoa prices, constrained supply and pushed up costs for companies. As a result, dealing with the increased compliance costs related to reporting on EUDR would be especially challenging. Mondelez is reportedly lobbying other US chocolate companies to support this request. However, there isn't a consensus. Mars and Hershey—two leading US chocolate manufacturers—did not join Nestlé and Ferrero in signing a letter supporting the delay. Companies like Nestlé have made clear they do not want further delays. Nestlé has already begun implementing systems to comply with the new regulation. An additional delay, they argue, would create uncertainty and negatively affect first-mover companies. So the big question is, are companies ready for EUDR, or are the delayed requests just excuses? Many firms are preparing for compliance. For example, according to a report by Food Navigator , 99% of Nestlé's key ingredients were considered deforestation-free in 2022. The company publicly stated that it was committed to deforestation-free supply chains in 2010, and by March 2020, 75% of its commodities were verified as deforestation-free However, Nestlé was questioned by the Rainforest Action Network on the lack of independent verification and for failing to protect farmers' human rights. Still, compared to others, Nestlé is performing better. An analysis by the same network assessing how well major brands address deforestation and human rights in their supply chains ranked Mondelez and Ferrero at the bottom among the ten companies evaluated. At the same time, Nestlé's performance was scored better. Many EU Countries Say the Deforestation Law Needs to Be Simpler Agriculture ministers from Austria and Luxembourg argued that the regulation, as it stands, is onerous for countries with no exposure to deforestation-linked commodities. They proposed simplifying the regulation and adding a new no-risk category to the benchmarking system. Eighteen EU Member States supported this idea, but a vote on 24 June did not accept the proposal. Still, this push reveals that many countries see the compliance requirements as burdensome and are not yet ready to take them on. Under the current EUDR country benchmarking, introduced in May this year, countries are grouped into three categories based on deforestation risk: low, standard, and high risk. The ministers suggested the no-risk category to ensure that countries not exposed to deforestation or have sufficient policies to address it do not have to fulfil multiple compliance requirements. However, civil society groups strongly oppose this idea. Including such a no-risk category could weaken the regulation; countries in this category could be exempt from geolocation requirements. Geolocation data is critical—it tracks whether products come from deforested areas. Removing this requirement could create loopholes. For example, there have been reports of Russian birchwood being relabelled as originating from China to bypass sanctions on Russian imports. Countries Most Exposed to Deforestation Not Classified as High Risk The new benchmarking system under EUDR classifies only four countries as high risk: Belarus, Myanmar, North Korea, and Russia. These countries are not typically associated with tropical deforestation. The high-risk countries were included because they are subject to sanctions. Surprisingly, Brazil—which has some of the highest deforestation rates globally—is classified as standard risk. One could argue that applying a standard label to a country with extensive deforestation sends the wrong message. From 2002 to 2024, Brazil lost about 33.5 million hectares of primary forest, 47% of its total tree cover loss. Under EUDR, high-risk and standard-risk countries must follow similar compliance requirements, such as risk assessments and mitigation, as specified under Articles 10 and 11 of the law. However, enforcement differs: for high-risk countries, at least 9% of operators and product volumes must be checked annually, while only 3% must be checked for standard-risk countries. The EUDR will be reviewed in 2028 as part of the broader evaluation process; there could be a potential to take a stock then of what is and is not working well under the current system. All Eyes on EU With only a few months left until deforestation law comes into force, establishing a system that could help protect our trees and biodiversity, all eyes are on the Commission. Will it be firm or give in to the mounting pressure?
