- This topic has 740 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM #649926January 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM #648832TillersParticipant
It will enable the state to raise the property tax above and beyond 1%, where it’s capped now.
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
January 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM #648903TillersParticipantIt will enable the state to raise the property tax above and beyond 1%, where it’s capped now.
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
January 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM #649489TillersParticipantIt will enable the state to raise the property tax above and beyond 1%, where it’s capped now.
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
January 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM #649625TillersParticipantIt will enable the state to raise the property tax above and beyond 1%, where it’s capped now.
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
January 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM #649951TillersParticipantIt will enable the state to raise the property tax above and beyond 1%, where it’s capped now.
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
January 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM #648867SD RealtorParticipantI think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?
January 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM #648938SD RealtorParticipantI think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?
January 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM #649524SD RealtorParticipantI think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?
January 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM #649660SD RealtorParticipantI think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?
January 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM #649986SD RealtorParticipantI think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?
January 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM #648872poorgradstudentParticipantNothing.
Gay and Lesbian couples already buy property together all the time (so do unmarried heterosexual couples).
I suppose long term there could be some minor inheritance issues, as gay marriage smooths out transfer of property if one partner passes away.
January 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM #648943poorgradstudentParticipantNothing.
Gay and Lesbian couples already buy property together all the time (so do unmarried heterosexual couples).
I suppose long term there could be some minor inheritance issues, as gay marriage smooths out transfer of property if one partner passes away.
January 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM #649529poorgradstudentParticipantNothing.
Gay and Lesbian couples already buy property together all the time (so do unmarried heterosexual couples).
I suppose long term there could be some minor inheritance issues, as gay marriage smooths out transfer of property if one partner passes away.
January 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM #649665poorgradstudentParticipantNothing.
Gay and Lesbian couples already buy property together all the time (so do unmarried heterosexual couples).
I suppose long term there could be some minor inheritance issues, as gay marriage smooths out transfer of property if one partner passes away.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.