Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Tax break a good idea

September 15, 2013

Tax breaks are not always a good idea. Some amount to little more than payback for politically connected groups....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(12)

Ron1960

Sep-16-13 7:35 AM

I like this idea as long as it is for people involved in a one time deal. We have all seen and heard about people getting flooded out of losing their property due to national disasters time after time year after year. After one has lost their property one time for the same thing that happens on a regular basis should not be helped after the first time. At least in my opinion. There are many other people that could use help because of things beyond their control , these people should be given the help they need before we bail out the large companies like the large bank and general motors and Chrysler company.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Sep-16-13 10:00 AM

"Property taxes have, in a sense, always had a basic element of fairness to them: The more valuable someone's property is, the higher his tax bill." There is nothing fair about a discriminatory tax that singles out property owners as the sole group burdened with funding the local share of taxes. The proposed bill is a temporary fix. Why not base the ability to pay on income, a much more reliable indicator of "wealth".

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Stackrat

Sep-16-13 11:09 AM

That may work well with flooding concerns where zones are distinct, but what about the folks who get wiped out by a tornado a second or third time. Whos to say where that may occur?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pards13

Sep-16-13 11:26 AM

While this is all well and good it places strains on the schools towns and county. With widespread devastation like in Schoharie there are long term ramifications to the taxing entities that provide the public services like schools, fire, police and road. How is handled for someone who has a major fire or some other disaster? Shouldn't they be treated the same way?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Sep-16-13 7:30 PM

I'd like to know why it is a government's obligation to insure your personal property? If they are to do that then the last two posters have it right, pay everyone that has trouble, suffer a loss or a loved one. Fort Plain did not qualify for federal aid as they only pay out for larger losses... what is larger than everything you worked for for your entire life? This pick and chose is not fair.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Stackrat

Sep-16-13 8:26 PM

I would like to believe that in a society as rich as ours, that should anyone suffer as loss such as these folks have, that our bloated state government might come to our aid and cut us a break. But we wouldnt want our kids, to miss a High School game or two in Glens Falls that our tax dollars pay for.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheArchitect

Sep-16-13 9:13 PM

What Senator Tkaczyk fails to realize it that taxes are a zero sum game. If they are lowered for a specific group, as is being proposed in this case, then it must be clearly known that the remainder of the taxpayers in that jurisdiction will have their taxes increase. There is simply no other way of getting around this since the tax liability in this jurisdiction is not going to go down.

This ill-conceived proposal should be a non-starter since it amounts to "big government" forcing local taxpayers, who have their own financial challenges, to pay their neighbor's tax liability. A more equitiable solution would be to consider postponing the tax payments of the impacted residents for a very short time. To blindly waive their tax liability is prejudicial. The region has shown strong support for the flood victims through donations of money and services. Sen. Tkaczyk's solution is a very grievous action being proposed by someone with very limited fiscal competence. It must be st

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pards13

Sep-17-13 9:01 AM

I did not mean that government should rescue all. I simply wanted to point out that it has greater consequences and if you do rescue one why not the other? Where does it stop?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Sep-17-13 10:35 AM

Architect: The tax break for the flood victims would be made up out of the $16 million in aid King Cuomo tabbed for the area. That was an important part of the proposed legislation that was not reported by the press.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ron1960

Sep-17-13 3:10 PM

If the state really WANTED TO HELP ALL RESIDENTS THEY WOULD QUIT SENDING LOCAL MUNICIPLAITIES THE UNFUNDED MANDATES, THAT WAY THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES COULD AFFORD TO GIVE THOSE IN THESE UNFORTUNATE SITUATIONS.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Sep-18-13 10:21 AM

Hill, Re. your comment 'Why not base the ability to pay on income, a much more reliable indicator of "wealth". Because the freebies would end. Our School Taxes are due, time to pay the Teachers Unions with NO consideration to OUR incomes.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Sep-18-13 12:55 PM

Home owners/property tax payers need to organize and secure the services of lobbyists to protect their interests in Albany. Every other "interest" has one, and its usually about securing our money for their selfish interests. Most of the property taxes I pay are flushed down the toilet by Albany anyway, what's another $100 to look out for me?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 12 of 12 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web