Will and Paulette debate

[glassdogs]

The more I have read about these two candidates, the more I long for a ballot option of "none of the above".

 

 

I just may write Glenn Richardson in as a protest vote.

[WHITEY]

One, she voted for one tax increase. The one that the voters eventually agreed on as well. In fact, I voted yes for the children. That's the second time I've admitted that on this board. If you think otherwise, you need to put up proof.

Madea As I previously stated SoundGuy posted the Record of Paulette'Record of the many times that she has voted for a Tax increase, For your convience I have researched the post and here is the Post

 

http://paulding.com/forum/index.php?/topic/248575-politics-and-fireworks-at-taylor-farm/page__p__3203647entry3203647 ? Post 31

 

 

 

Ok, don't know what years these people were on the BOE, but the History page of the 2011 BOE budget shows:

 

2002 - 2003 - M&O = $34,055,167 (17.290)

2003 - 2004 - M&O = $36,619,864 (16.409)

2004 - 2005 - M&O = $41,003,891 (16.409)

2005 - 2006 - M&O = $47,177,060 (16.409)

2006 - 2007 - M&O = $55,398,054 (16.409)

2007 - 2008 - M&O = $71,801,202 (18.909)

2008 - 2009 - M&O = $75,563,872 (18.909)

2009 - 2010 - M&O = $69,968,652 (18.909)

2010 - 2011 - M&O = $58,070,065 (18.909)

 

SO... looks like the taxes collected every year since 2002 went up(even with the rate rollback in 2003) until 2009-2010.

 

But were they truely tax increases?

 

Well, board minutes are only available on line to 2004 and the early minutes suck as far as details but I found:

 

8/10/2004 minutes - Hearing for proposed tax increase is in the minutes. (No minutes available)

7/19/2005 minutes - Hearing on millage rate is in the minutes, but no mention of 3 legal hearings. Unanimously Approved

7/25/2006 minutes - Budget is passed after 3 public meetings (required for tax increase) Unanimously Approved

(Note: Bond referendum also passed - will require bond rate increase)

7/24/2007 minutes - Budget is approved after 3 public meetings (required for tax increase) Unanimously Approved

8/12/2008 minutes - Millage rate approved after 3 public meetings (required for tax increase) Unanimously Approved

 

So, looks like most of the years were tax increases with unanimous votes.

 

Ya'll can argue over what the above proves.

 

DISCLAIMER: The information and opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily the opinions of the author and may be denied or disregarded at a later date. Reading of this paragraph constitutes as agreement on part of reader not to hold author responsible for any damaging effects resulting from reading and agreeing with anything said in this post; furthermore reader waives all future claims resulting from changes in law which may render this disclaimer null and void. This disclaimer is valid in all states with the exception of those states which have laws forbidding the existence of this disclaimer, and in states where such laws exist the reader agrees to read this disclaimer in a state where this disclaimer is binding.

 

Oh yea, Pubby says "Ditto"

 

I am sure that you will note that this only covers six years of her tenure on the School Board and the taxes almost doubled during those six years. Anyone can say that they never voted but for one tax increase, But the minutes of the Board of Education certaintly refute those allegations. Paullette is no conservative and her VOTING RECORD certaintly proves this.

[surepip]

Looks to be pretty solid data that shows the tax increases while Paulette was on the BOE.

 

As far as Paulette's Posse denying the tax increases, I have to assume they keep on it, and if you tell a lie often enough, maybe you eventually start to believe it yourself ?

[gpatt0n]

Madea As I previously stated SoundGuy posted the Record of Paulette'Record of the many times that she has voted for a Tax increase, For your convience I have researched the post and here is the Post

 

http://paulding.com/forum/index.php?/topic/248575-politics-and-fireworks-at-taylor-farm/page__p__3203647entry3203647 ? Post 31

 

 

I am sure that you will note that this only covers six years of her tenure on the School Board and the taxes almost doubled during those six years. Anyone can say that they never voted but for one tax increase, But the minutes of the Board of Education certaintly refute those allegations. Paullette is no conservative and her VOTING RECORD certaintly proves this.

 

The state required that the millage rate be rolled back when the digest increased and the amount of taxes collected increased at the current millage rate. If the local government failed to roll back the millage rate to compensate for the increased collections the local government (including the BOE) would be required to hold hearings on the tax increase. The innovation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is that it defined a tax increase to be the variation in the taxes collected (up = tax increase and down=no tax increase) vs. the variable millage rate.

 

This is why the county, when it adjusted the millage rate but still showed an overall decline in the taxes collected in 2010 can rightfully, under Georgia Law, call the 2010 tax millage rate as passed, a tax cut.

 

Those on the far right benefited from tax increases over the past decade because they were enjoying the increase in money collected with a static millage rate during times of inflation and growth and never considered those tax increases.

 

Notably, this definition of tax increases was an act pushed through and signed by then Gov. Roy Barnes called the Georgia Taxpayers Bill of Rights. It was Senate Bill 177, Act 431 was signed April 30, 1999.

 

The provisions are here: https://etax.dor.ga.gov/ptd/adm/taxguide/rights.aspx .

 

Under the one view, if you collected $40 million in 2009 and collected $35 million in 2010, you have a tax decrease where as under the other view, if you collected $30 million in 2006 and $40 million in 2007, you didn't have a tax increase.

 

pubby

 

PS: Here is the logic (or lack thereof) in play:

 

GOP: Tax revenues increase but tax rates stay constant means no tax increase.

 

DEMS: Tax revenues increase = tax increase

 

Which is really the most reality based view?

 

It only makes sense that more tax revenues logically means more taxes regardless of the rate of taxation.

 

The DEMS are intellectually honest enough to say it is a tax increase unless you roll back the millage rate - Hold Hearings (like the Taxpayers Bill of Rights requires.)

 

It would appear those in the local GOP are of a mind to say if you don't change the tax rate, it is not a tax increase even if the actual taxes measured in dollars collected doubles or triples.

 

This election is about deciding whether we continue pursuing voodoo economic conjuring or common sense.

[surepip]

I like to break it down to my checkbook/escrow account.

 

If I pay $1000 in 2008, and $1200 in 2009, I had a tax increase and I could care less if it was caused by an increased millage rate or an increase in property value/assessment. Either way, it was an increase.

 

If I then pay $900 in 2010, then I had a tax decrease, even though the millage rate was increased.

 

You can spin it, and put various forms of semantics all over the place, but if I pay more than last year it is an increase. If I pay less than last year then it is a decrease.

[Mason Rountree]

 

PS: Here is the logic (or lack thereof) in play:

 

GOP: Tax revenues increase but tax rates stay constant means no tax increase.

 

DEMS: Tax revenues increase = tax increase

 

 

This isn't about Reps vs. Dems at all. Some have repeatedly stated on here that the the School Board (and other governmental units) VOTED for a tax increase simply because the tax digest was higher one year versus the prior year, even if the millage rate stayed the same or even decreased. This is false. I would agree that voting to increase the millage rate is a vote for a tax increase, just as voting for a reduction in the millage rate is a vote for a tax cut (although not politically advisable to take credit for if a HO's tax bill went up despite the millage cut). One's political party is irrelevant to me on this issue. I have NEVER heard a Republican attack a Democrat-controlled governmental entity with such nonsense. As far as I can tell, it only became an issue in Paulding because Dems have no local power and needed to create an issue, any issue, in an effort to regain power. I find it not only unlikely but inconceivable that a Dem in Paulding (or elsewhere for that matter) would have reduced the millage rate enough to offset an increased tax digest. I realize folks are looking to create some issue, but this "issue" is ridiculous and, IMO, disingenous.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Pigpen

[gpatt0n]

This isn't about Reps vs. Dems at all. Some have repeatedly stated on here that the the School Board (and other governmental units) VOTED for a tax increase simply because the tax digest was higher one year versus the prior year, even if the millage rate stayed the same or even decreased. This is false. I would agree that voting to increase the millage rate is a vote for a tax increase, just as voting for a reduction in the millage rate is a vote for a tax cut (although not politically advisable to take credit for if a HO's tax bill went up despite the millage cut). One's political party is irrelevant to me on this issue. I have NEVER heard a Republican attack a Democrat-controlled governmental entity with such nonsense. As far as I can tell, it only became an issue in Paulding because Dems have no local power and needed to create an issue, any issue, in an effort to regain power. I find it not only unlikely but inconceivable that a Dem in Paulding (or elsewhere for that matter) would have reduced the millage rate enough to offset an increased tax digest. I realize folks are looking to create some issue, but this "issue" is ridiculous and, IMO, disingenous.

 

Pigpen:

 

You might be right if there wasn't a law - the Taxpayers Bill of Rights passed in 1999 - that defined it that way. That law, incidentally was passed by Democrats and signed by a Democratic Governor.

 

In essence it said, if the assessments increased (and therefore taxes) then the local government has to treat that increase as a tax increase because folks don't buy the logic if your taxes were 1000 last year and $1,200 this year (even though the millage rate did not change) you didn't have a tax increase.

 

The law suggested that millage rollbacks were proper to maintain the tax rate at the same level as the prior year.

 

You saying the opposite or calling it nonsense doesn't change the law.

 

pubby

[Mason Rountree]

Pigpen:

 

You might be right if there wasn't a law - the Taxpayers Bill of Rights passed in 1999 - that defined it that way. That law, incidentally was passed by Democrats and signed by a Democratic Governor.

 

In essence it said, if the assessments increased (and therefore taxes) then the local government has to treat that increase as a tax increase because folks don't buy the logic if your taxes were 1000 last year and $1,200 this year (even though the millage rate did not change) you didn't have a tax increase.

 

The law suggested that millage rollbacks were proper to maintain the tax rate at the same level as the prior year.

 

You saying the opposite or calling it nonsense doesn't change the law.

 

pubby

 

 

I understand the law provides that governmental entities must provide notice of a tax increase. That is different than saying that a particular elected official VOTED to increse taxes. The increased amount of taxes (assuming the millage rate remained the same) would be caused by higher property values, not by the proactive action of the governmental entity to increase the rate of taxes on the value.

[Georgia Dawg]

The DEMS are intellectually honest enough to say it is a tax increase unless you roll back the millage rate - Hold Hearings (like the Taxpayers Bill of Rights requires.)

You've got to be kidding... intellectually honest?

I've never heard a DEM carry on a recent debate about anything without blaming Bush!

 

I remember clearly when the DEMs were in control and would appropriate 5% for a department of government and then have that changed by the GOP to a 4% increase that the DEMs would scream about the GOP 'cutting' those budgets. That's being intellectually honest? Give me a break!

[WHITEY]

I understand the law provides that governmental entities must provide notice of a tax increase. That is different than saying that a particular elected official VOTED to increse taxes. The increased amount of taxes (assuming the millage rate remained the same) would be caused by higher property values, not by the proactive action of the governmental entity to increase the rate of taxes on the value.

 

Pigpen a look at the figures that the Sound Guy posted reveals the real facts of the budgets that Paulette voted for, I only wished that the record was available for her entire term in office. I hope that you agree with me that budgets are approved by the School Board.

2002 -2003 Budgeted $34,055.167 Millage rate= 17.209

2007-2008 Budgeted $71,801,202 Millage rate= 18.909

Any way that you want to look at the figures, And any semantics that you want to apply The School Board (Paulette) voted to more than double the budget Required to run the school district in the (Maintenance and Operation) area and actually collected $37,746,035 more from the taxpayers of Paulding County for the tax year 2007-2008. That was collected in 2002-2003 (These are facts that cannot be denied) You may want to try and confuse the taxpayers with your semantics but the fact remains that most tax payers in this county are aware that the taxes did in fact increase from 2002 through 2008 and was a direct result of the budgets that was approved by the school board during this period of time.

Some people (Madea) will argue that the tax increase that Paulette voted for was a result of the School Bond issue passed and approved by the voters in March 2007 and Madea is correct in part with this argument but………Who voted to have this special election in March 2007, After the voters of Paulding County had voted down this same school bond in September 2006? Yep, if you guessed Paulette then you are 100% correct.

Now let’s look at the end result of the Millage rate that was set by Paulette and the School Board in her last year on the school board

2006-2007 millage rate = 16.409

2007-2008 millage rate = 18.909

This was a full 2.5 millage rate increase in one year, Which happens to be the largest one year millage rate increase in the history of the school board and not all of this increase was to service the bond that the voters approved in March 2007, The fact is 1.5 mills was for the school bond another 1.0 mills was also approved at the same time for the Maintenance and operations portion of the budget that Paulette also voted for.

Pigpen have you forgotten why there was a need for this School Bond????? I will recap this issue, Paulette voted for A SPLOST tax to build certain schools which included South Paulding High school, The North Paulding complex (three schools) and some elementary schools, Instead of building schools the School board (Paulette) voted to use this SPLOST tax To build three gyms, Three auditoriums and the new BOE building on Atlanta Road, And some renovations of tennis courts, Tracks etc. instead of building classrooms for the kids!!!

Paulette can run on being a conservative all she wants to, but the votes do not represent a conservative person, Paulette can run as a conservative, but she cannot run from her record of voting for numerous tax increases!!!!!

[Mason Rountree]

Whitey:

 

Then criticize her and others for not voting to cut taxes. Maybe that's a legitimate issue, maybe not. But voting to accept a budget that is required to use assessments by an independent entity in calculating the tax digest is not a vote to increase taxes.

[WHITEY]

Whitey:

 

Then criticize her and others for not voting to cut taxes. Maybe that's a legitimate issue, maybe not. But voting to accept a budget that is required to use assessments by an independent entity in calculating the tax digest is not a vote to increase taxes.

Pigpen theses are facts, She voted for two SPLOST taxes, Three Bond Issues totaling over $200 million and two Millage rate increases in 2007, And every budget that included the need for additional tax dollars,You can call it whatever you want too but I call it a Tax increase

[surepip]

Whitey:

 

Then criticize her and others for not voting to cut taxes. Maybe that's a legitimate issue, maybe not. But voting to accept a budget that is required to use assessments by an independent entity in calculating the tax digest is not a vote to increase taxes.

 

But the Georgia Taxpayer's Bill of Rights is very specific about that exact issued. If the assessment county wide goes up, then the BOC and BOE have 3 options:

 

 

1] Do nothing about the millage rate, but they are still required by law to hold the public hearings for the upcoming Tax Increase

2] Raise the millage rate as well, and hold the required public hearings for the upcoming Tax Increase

3] Roll back the millage rate, pat each other on the back, and announce a Tax Decrease

 

 

Now, in the event the assessments went down county wide, as they did this year, the law still required the BOC to announce their millage increase as a Tax Increase and have the public meeting even though it will be a net Tax Decrease for virtually the entire county assessment. For me, even with the millage increase we should see a net savings of $300 or more over last year. But the BOC still was required by law to have the hearing and call it a Tax Increase even though the net taxes collected will be millions less than last year.

 

During Paulette's tenure on the BOE, they did #1, or #2 EVERY year she was there.

 

The LAW clearly labels both options as Tax Increases, not to mention the Bond approval which resulted in a Bond Millage Rate Increase.

 

The BOE by not voting for a millage roll back when they had net assessment increases were approving a Tax Increase and the LAW is clear on this, requiring the necessary public meetings the same as if they had raised the millage rates. These were indeed Tax Increases.

 

Under Shearin, the BOC opted for choice 3 virtually every year, announced it as a Tax Decrease, and when you got your tax bill you found out the itty-bitty rollback was totally negated by the assessment increase, and your Taxes Increased by $100 or $200 or more even with the announced Tax Decrease.

 

Put all the spin on this you want. Call it what you want. The LAW makes it a mandated announcement as a Tax Increase if the Assessments go up without a corresponding millage rollback. The BOE, best I can remember has never done a rollback.

 

And those that went along with these Tax Increases, were indeed endorsing them as a Tax Increase by not rolling back the millage rate to equal the assessment increases.

[lotstodo]

Y'all can play word games all you want. The fact is, if I would have paid $1000 in property tax this coming November under current (right now, not last year) valuation and millage rate, and the BOC acts so that I will pay more than $1000 this coming November, then that's a tax increase. To state it any other way is ludicrous, in fact it's pure BS.

 

Two weeks ago my bill was to be less than it is going to be under current law. Something caused it to go UP. That something is action by the BOC. It's really that simple.

[surepip]

Y'all can play word games all you want. The fact is, if I would have paid $1000 in property tax this coming November under current (right now, not last year) valuation and millage rate, and the BOC acts so that I will pay more than $1000 this coming November, then that's a tax increase. To state it any other way is ludicrous, in fact it's pure BS.

 

Two weeks ago my bill was to be less than it is going to be under current law. Something caused it to go UP. That something is action by the BOC. It's really that simple.

 

Have you gotten a tax bill ?

 

I did not think they went out until September.

 

I am expecting mine to go down, even with the millage increase, substantially. With the county M&O going up .95 mills, and my assessment decreasing by 25%, I am expecting a substantial reduction of around $300. The county M&O is the least of the actual taxes. Theirs going up to 7.5 or so from 6.55, is only 1/3 or so of the school at 18.09, which for me will be going down by 25%, and will far offset the county .95 mill increase.

[lotstodo]

Have you gotten a tax bill ?

 

I did not think they went out until September.

 

I am expecting mine to go down, even with the millage increase, substantially. With the county M&O going up .95 mills, and my assessment decreasing by 25%, I am expecting a substantial reduction of around $300. The county M&O is the least of the actual taxes. Theirs going up to 7.5 or so from 6.55, is only 1/3 or so of the school at 18.09, which for me will be going down by 25%, and will far offset the county .95 mill increase.

Follow along. It will be less than last year, but that is in no way, shape or form the discussion we should be having. The discussion we should be having is how did the BOC action affect our coming tax bill. It is going to go UP from what it would have been had the BOC not acted. Therefore, by simple deductive reasoning. their action caused my bill to be more than it would have otherwise. Therefore, stick with me here, they INCREASED my taxes. I will now pay more this fall than I would have had they not acted. It really isn't rocket surgery. Don't get caught up in semantics and political slight of hand.

[Mason Rountree]

Follow along. It will be less than last year, but that is in no way, shape or form the discussion we should be having. The discussion we should be having is how did the BOC action affect our coming tax bill. It is going to go UP from what it would have been had the BOC not acted. Therefore, by simple deductive reasoning. their action caused my bill to be more than it would have otherwise. Therefore, stick with me here, they INCREASED my taxes. I will now pay more this fall than I would have had they not acted. It really isn't rocket surgery. Don't get caught up in semantics and political slight of hand.

 

 

Feeling a bit edgy? Surepip is with you on this argument. His inquiry was not in any way an attack on your post. I do not agree with your supposed "deductive reasoning", BTW. Using your argument (and one I have proposed to Surepip as well), you could likewise argue that the local governmental entities raised your sales taxes as well if an item costs more today than it did yesterday. For instance, if a gallon of milk cost $3.00 yesterday, you would pay a sales tax of 21 cents in Paulding. If that same gallon of milk goes up in price to $4.00 tomorrow, you would pay a sales tax of 28 cents. Simply because the amount of your taxes increased does NOT mean that the local government (or state) authorities VOTED to increase your taxes overnight. And I've never heard of "rocket surgery" either.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Pigpen

[WHITEY]

Feeling a bit edgy? Surepip is with you on this argument. His inquiry was not in any way an attack on your post. I do not agree with your supposed "deductive reasoning", BTW. Using your argument (and one I have proposed to Surepip as well), you could likewise argue that the local governmental entities raised your sales taxes as well if an item costs more today than it did yesterday. For instance, if a gallon of milk cost $3.00 yesterday, you would pay a sales tax of 21 cents in Paulding. If that same gallon of milk goes up in price to $4.00 tomorrow, you would pay a sales tax of 28 cents. Simply because the amount of your taxes increased does NOT mean that the local government (or state) authorities VOTED to increase your taxes overnight. And I've never heard of "rocket surgery" either.

Pigpen below you will find the actual copies of the ads that the school board was required to run in the Dallas New Era in 2006 per Georgia Law As Pubby has pointed out in an earlier post

 

 

 

The first notice is clear "NOTICE OF PROPERTY TAX INCREASE"

 

The second notice is clear "PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING A PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX INCREASE"

 

The third notice is the "CURRENT 2006 TAX DIGEST AND 5-YEAR HISTORY OF LEVY"

 

The last two lines in the third notice show the amount of taxes being collected and the percentage of TAX INCREASE.

 

I did not write these ads the School Board approved these ads and voted to increase our taxes this amount for those years listed.

 

Everybody but you realize that Paulette did in fact vote to raise our taxes for those 5 years noted in the third notice so...........I rest my case. Paulette and the rest of the School Board had a choice to roll back the millage rate to be revenue netural or vote to raise our taxes, They chose to raise our taxes and that is why I am not supporting Paulette Braddock for the District 19 house seat

[lotstodo]

Feeling a bit edgy? Surepip is with you on this argument. His inquiry was not in any way an attack on your post. I do not agree with your supposed "deductive reasoning", BTW. Using your argument (and one I have proposed to Surepip as well), you could likewise argue that the local governmental entities raised your sales taxes as well if an item costs more today than it did yesterday. For instance, if a gallon of milk cost $3.00 yesterday, you would pay a sales tax of 21 cents in Paulding. If that same gallon of milk goes up in price to $4.00 tomorrow, you would pay a sales tax of 28 cents. Simply because the amount of your taxes increased does NOT mean that the local government (or state) authorities VOTED to increase your taxes overnight. And I've never heard of "rocket surgery" either.

Not the same at all, because a direct action by the governing body did not lead to the increase if the only thing that increased was the price. The government is the happy recipient of a windfall due to no action on their part whatsoever. Pigpen, in this case the BOC absolutely did vote to raise my taxes overnight and that is precisely my point. My only point.

 

Let me use real numbers.

 

$100,000 home

Assessed value $40,000

 

County M&O of 6.65 mil as of August 9,2010

 

.00665*40,000= $266

 

Had the Board done nothing, this would be the County M&O tax bill per $100,000 come this fall.

 

Now, the board ACTED on August 10, 2010 to RAISE the millage rate to 7.6 mils.

 

So, as of August 11, 2010 the tax on that same house would be:

.0076*40,000=$304

 

So, a direct action by the Board of Commissioners of Paulding County changed the M & O Tax per $100,000 of fair Market Value from $266 to $304. Now correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't $304 more than $266? They acted. The tax is now $38 MORE per $100k FMV than it was the day before. Now tell me how they did not act to raise taxes.

 

Any statement to the contrary is a parlor trick and political misdirection.

 

"Rocket Science"....."Brain Surgery".....It's a joke son, its a joke.

[WHITEY]

Whitey:

 

Then criticize her and others for not voting to cut taxes. Maybe that's a legitimate issue, maybe not. But voting to accept a budget that is required to use assessments by an independent entity in calculating the tax digest is not a vote to increase taxes.

Who approves the budget?

[WHITEY]

The state required that the millage rate be rolled back when the digest increased and the amount of taxes collected increased at the current millage rate. If the local government failed to roll back the millage rate to compensate for the increased collections the local government (including the BOE) would be required to hold hearings on the tax increase. The innovation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is that it defined a tax increase to be the variation in the taxes collected (up = tax increase and down=no tax increase) vs. the variable millage rate.

 

This is why the county, when it adjusted the millage rate but still showed an overall decline in the taxes collected in 2010 can rightfully, under Georgia Law, call the 2010 tax millage rate as passed, a tax cut.

 

Those on the far right benefited from tax increases over the past decade because they were enjoying the increase in money collected with a static millage rate during times of inflation and growth and never considered those tax increases.

 

Notably, this definition of tax increases was an act pushed through and signed by then Gov. Roy Barnes called the Georgia Taxpayers Bill of Rights. It was Senate Bill 177, Act 431 was signed April 30, 1999.

 

The provisions are here: https://etax.dor.ga.gov/ptd/adm/taxguide/rights.aspx .

 

Under the one view, if you collected $40 million in 2009 and collected $35 million in 2010, you have a tax decrease where as under the other view, if you collected $30 million in 2006 and $40 million in 2007, you didn't have a tax increase.

 

pubby

 

PS: Here is the logic (or lack thereof) in play:

 

GOP: Tax revenues increase but tax rates stay constant means no tax increase.

 

DEMS: Tax revenues increase = tax increase

 

Which is really the most reality based view?

 

It only makes sense that more tax revenues logically means more taxes regardless of the rate of taxation.

 

The DEMS are intellectually honest enough to say it is a tax increase unless you roll back the millage rate - Hold Hearings (like the Taxpayers Bill of Rights requires.)

 

It would appear those in the local GOP are of a mind to say if you don't change the tax rate, it is not a tax increase even if the actual taxes measured in dollars collected doubles or triples.

 

This election is about deciding whether we continue pursuing voodoo economic conjuring or common sense.

Pubby you are right on target with this post,Good analogy

 

Madea, NewsJunky where are you when the facts begin to come out on your candidate?????????

 

Crickets Crickets, Chirp chirp ?????????????????

[surepip]

Call it what you want.

 

If my taxes are more this year than last year, I had a tax increase.

 

During Paulette's tenure, I had a tax increase every year and the BOE minutes show unaninmous approval each year. Either she was not present or went along with the increase.

 

If my taxes decrease from last year, then I got a tax break or decrease. That is what I am expecting to see this year, but I guess I will have to wait 2 more weeks until the tax bills mail out.

 

If mine go up, you will hear from me.

 

But I am expecting them to go down, substantilally.

 

And you will hear from me in that event also.

[Hee Haw]

Call it what you want.

 

If my taxes are more this year than last year, I had a tax increase.

 

During Paulette's tenure, I had a tax increase every year and the BOE minutes show unaninmous approval each year. Either she was not present or went along with the increase.

 

If my taxes decrease from last year, then I got a tax break or decrease. That is what I am expecting to see this year, but I guess I will have to wait 2 more weeks until the tax bills mail out.

 

If mine go up, you will hear from me.

 

But I am expecting them to go down, substantilally.

 

And you will hear from me in that event also.

 

Darn right! During the years where student enrollment decreased they should have cut taxes!

[Mason Rountree]

Not the same at all, because a direct action by the governing body did not lead to the increase if the only thing that increased was the price. The government is the happy recipient of a windfall due to no action on their part whatsoever. Pigpen, in this case the BOC absolutely did vote to raise my taxes overnight and that is precisely my point. My only point.

 

 

"Rocket Science"....."Brain Surgery".....It's a joke son, its a joke.

 

First, I'm not your son, despite your attempt at paternalism.

 

Second, the School Board does not reassess the FMV of property; rather, the Board of Tax Assessors does that, so your argument that the School Board directly raised taxes is invalid. You can argue that the School Board should have voted to reduce the millage rate by a sufficient percentage to offset the increased revenue caused by the higher FMV of property. But you mislead folks when you claim that the School Board voted to increase taxes if no such vote occurred.

 

I do believe the analogy I provided to the sales tax is valid. Of course, it's not the same. However, it is estimated that around 25-30% of the cost of any good has imbedded taxes calculated into the cost. As a result, it is clear that governmental action or inaction affects the cost of goods and, therefore, the amount of sales taxes we pay on those goods.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Pigpen

[feelip]

Call it what you want.

 

If my taxes are more this year than last year, I had a tax increase.

 

During Paulette's tenure, I had a tax increase every year and the BOE minutes show unaninmous approval each year. Either she was not present or went along with the increase.

 

If my taxes decrease from last year, then I got a tax break or decrease. That is what I am expecting to see this year, but I guess I will have to wait 2 more weeks until the tax bills mail out.

 

If mine go up, you will hear from me.

 

But I am expecting them to go down, substantilally.

 

And you will hear from me in that event also.

 

I hear you loud and clear Bro! Feed 'em beans. Feed 'em beans!!!!!!

[Cabe]

Madea, NewsJunky where are you when the facts begin to come out on your candidate?????????

 

Crickets Crickets, Chirp chirp ?????????????????

 

This may come as a great surprise to you, but I have another life away from here and two wonderful, small children.

 

And, yes, I still disagree with your conclusions, regardless of how you paint them. You are deliberately spinning the details to suit your cause. Yes, taxes increased during that time, but property values soared. There were many who benefited during that time.

[surepip]

This may come as a great surprise to you, but I have another life away from here and two wonderful, small children.

 

And, yes, I still disagree with your conclusions, regardless of how you paint them. You are deliberately spinning the details to suit your cause. Yes, taxes increased during that time, but property values soared. There were many who benefited during that time.

 

YES, the Robber Baron Mega Developers made out like bandits, that they were.

 

In the interim, we the taxpayers got hit with and increase on what we had to pay year after year after year. And those were tax increases and Paulette voted to approve those tax increases. Otherwise the BOE would have rolled back the millage rates to neutralize the increase from assessment increases. By not doing so she voted for a tax increase.

 

Call it what you want but she approved the BOE tax increase every year she was on the BOE.

 

Conservative my ass. She raised our taxes every single year. If you feel that is the mark of a conservative, then keep on drinking your Kool Aid and be done with it.

[Animal]

Pigpen below you will find the actual copies of the ads that the school board was required to run in the Dallas New Era in 2006 per Georgia Law As Pubby has pointed out in an earlier post

 

 

 

The first notice is clear "NOTICE OF PROPERTY TAX INCREASE"

 

The second notice is clear "PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING A PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX INCREASE"

 

The third notice is the "CURRENT 2006 TAX DIGEST AND 5-YEAR HISTORY OF LEVY"

 

The last two lines in the third notice show the amount of taxes being collected and the percentage of TAX INCREASE.

 

I did not write these ads the School Board approved these ads and voted to increase our taxes this amount for those years listed.

 

Everybody but you realize that Paulette did in fact vote to raise our taxes for those 5 years noted in the third notice so...........I rest my case. Paulette and the rest of the School Board had a choice to roll back the millage rate to be revenue netural or vote to raise our taxes, They chose to raise our taxes and that is why I am not supporting Paulette Braddock for the District 19 house seat

 

See people hate it when you use that common sense thingy

[WHITEY]

First, I'm not your son, despite your attempt at paternalism.

 

Second, the School Board does not reassess the FMV of property; rather, the Board of Tax Assessors does that, so your argument that the School Board directly raised taxes is invalid. You can argue that the School Board should have voted to reduce the millage rate by a sufficient percentage to offset the increased revenue caused by the higher FMV of property. But you mislead folks when you claim that the School Board voted to increase taxes if no such vote occurred.

 

I do believe the analogy I provided to the sales tax is valid. Of course, it's not the same. However, it is estimated that around 25-30% of the cost of any good has imbedded taxes calculated into the cost. As a result, it is clear that governmental action or inaction affects the cost of goods and, therefore, the amount of sales taxes we pay on those goods.

Sales tax and ad valorem taxes are two different things; sales tax is based on a percent of the cost of goods, and can only be adjusted by changing the percent of the tax assessed.

 

Ad valorem taxes, as in the case we are discussing, is based on property values as set by the tax assessor multiplied by the millage rate as set by the taxing authority in this case the school board. Subject to approval of the Board of Commissioners.

 

The millage rate is set by the school board every year to bring in the required dollars to meet the budget that the school board adopted; both of these are voted on by the school board every year.

I guess that you agree that Paulette did vote to raise our taxes twice in 2008 since she voted for a 1.5 mill increase to cover the $125 million dollar bond issue that she helped cram down our throat and the 1.0 mill increase for the M&O increase she also voted for the same year

[Mason Rountree]

Sales tax and ad valorem taxes are two different things; sales tax is based on a percent of the cost of goods, and can only be adjusted by changing the percent of the tax assessed.

 

Ad valorem taxes, as in the case we are discussing, is based on property values as set by the tax assessor multiplied by the millage rate as set by the taxing authority in this case the school board. Subject to approval of the Board of Commissioners.

 

The millage rate is set by the school board every year to bring in the required dollars to meet the budget that the school board adopted; both of these are voted on by the school board every year.

I guess that you agree that Paulette did vote to raise our taxes twice in 2008 since she voted for a 1.5 mill increase to cover the $125 million dollar bond issue that she helped cram down our throat and the 1.0 mill increase for the M&O increase she also voted for the same year

 

 

Whitey:

 

The sales tax analogy is just that. The point, though, is that if the cost of a good sold increases, so does the amount of sales tax that is collected, just as if the value of one's home increases, the amount of ad valorem taxes increases (assuming the millage rate remains the same). Governmental intervention affects the cost of goods sold through regulatory action and taxation. While the private market largely dictates the price paid by consumers, those prices inevitably include certain imbedded taxes, which some estimate to be 25-30% of the price paid by consumers. In other words, just as a tax assessor's action may result in increased taxes if the value of one's property increases, so does the government's action in regulating/taxing manufacturers of goods increase the amount of sales taxes paid by a consumer when purchasing that good. As a result, under your hypothesis, you should likewise attribute any increase in the amount of sales taxes collected for a particular item as a vote for a tax increase by elected officials ofsome governmental entity; yet, I hear no one make such a claim because it is non-sensical and there is nothing to cut and paste from a newspaper.

 

I do have a couple of questions for you regarding Will Avery:

 

(1) Did he vote for or against the Paulding SPLOST tax proposals to benefit the school system? If he didn't vote, how would he have voted?

 

(2) Did he vote for or against the fire tax? What about the green space tax? If he didn't vote, how would he have voted?

 

(3) As a School Board member, would he have supported a roll back in the millage rate to completely neutralize the increased tax digest from 2004 to the present?

 

(4) If yes to #3, what projects/expenses would he have cut from the School Board to balance the budget?

 

(5) Did he support or oppose the budgets adopted by the School Board from 2004 to the present?

 

(6) If he opposed them, why?

 

If you do not know the answers to these questions, then why are you supporting him hook, line and sinker? I know you mean well, and, believe it or not, you and I probably agree on most things. I know that Surepip and I do, despite our difference of opinion on this issue. Frankly, I think you know the answer to the above questions and whether you share them on this board may be another thing. I suspect I know some of the answers, although I've never talked to Will. I do know, though, that he is a school teacher and a Democrat, and I rarely meet a Democrat who doesn't relish tax increases. If my suspicion is correct, I believe that your opposition to Paulette is not based on policy differences (as Will Avery likely would have supported what you argue are tax increases as a School Board member) but something else.

[WHITEY]

Whitey:

 

The sales tax analogy is just that. The point, though, is that if the cost of a good sold increases, so does the amount of sales tax that is collected, just as if the value of one's home increases, the amount of ad valorem taxes increases (assuming the millage rate remains the same). Governmental intervention affects the cost of goods sold through regulatory action and taxation. While the private market largely dictates the price paid by consumers, those prices inevitably include certain imbedded taxes, which some estimate to be 25-30% of the price paid by consumers. In other words, just as a tax assessor's action may result in increased taxes if the value of one's property increases, so does the government's action in regulating/taxing manufacturers of goods increase the amount of sales taxes paid by a consumer when purchasing that good. As a result, under your hypothesis, you should likewise attribute any increase in the amount of sales taxes collected for a particular item as a vote for a tax increase by elected officials ofsome governmental entity; yet, I hear no one make such a claim because it is non-sensical and there is nothing to cut and paste from a newspaper.

 

I do have a couple of questions for you regarding Will Avery:

 

(1) Did he vote for or against the Paulding SPLOST tax proposals to benefit the school system? If he didn't vote, how would he have voted?

 

(2) Did he vote for or against the fire tax? What about the green space tax? If he didn't vote, how would he have voted?

 

(3) As a School Board member, would he have supported a roll back in the millage rate to completely neutralize the increased tax digest from 2004 to the present?

 

(4) If yes to #3, what projects/expenses would he have cut from the School Board to balance the budget?

 

(5) Did he support or oppose the budgets adopted by the School Board from 2004 to the present?

 

(6) If he opposed them, why?

 

If you do not know the answers to these questions, then why are you supporting him hook, line and sinker? I know you mean well, and, believe it or not, you and I probably agree on most things. I know that Surepip and I do, despite our difference of opinion on this issue. Frankly, I think you know the answer to the above questions and whether you share them on this board may be another thing. I suspect I know some of the answers, although I've never talked to Will. I do know, though, that he is a school teacher and a Democrat, and I rarely meet a Democrat who doesn't relish tax increases. If my suspicion is correct, I believe that your opposition to Paulette is not based on policy differences (as Will Avery likely would have supported what you argue are tax increases as a School Board member) but something else.

Pigpen

In regards to the six questions that you proposed to me about Will Avery, I have no idea how he would answer those questions, Try and give Will a call and pose those same questions to him, I have found him to be very open and candid with any response to any questions asked of him.

I can answer some of those questions however as it relates to how Paulette did actually vote on some of those questions if you would like me to?

In regards to why I support Will Avery, It is a pretty simple answer, I know Paulette very well, And, her voting record during the eight years that Paulette served on the school board, I know how she voted on items that affected the school system, and the Tax and Spend mentality that she embraced while serving on the School Board, That is reason enough for me to support Will Avery.

For a more direct answer, I support Will Avery because I believe that he is the best candidate in the race, I have had several long discussions with Will and he was some fresh new ideas to help Paulding County get out of the mess that we are in.

Will is committed to working with the school board and the board of commissioners on ways to provide job opportunities for those living in Paulding County, As well as helping the school board obtain additional funding from the State of Georgia , Without the need to raise taxes, And he has some real innovative ideas on how to accomplish these goals.

Will comes across to me as an honest, hard working individual, Who has the citizens and the school kids best interest at heart, And will do his best to help everyone in Paulding County to have a better place to live, learn, work and play Will is also well respected by his peers.

Will has no criminal record, bankruptcies, is not being investigated by the ethics board, and has an outstanding character and is currently working to obtain his masters degree.

I agree that people have labeled the Democrats as tax and spend, But you must remember that from 2000 through 2008 all Paulding property owners have experienced the largest tax increases ever imposed on the citizens of Paulding County, And at the same time the State, County, And the legislature were totally controlled by the Republicans.

The last Tax cut the citizens received was under the guidance of Governor Roy Barnes and the Democratic controlled legislature when the HTR was passed that provided for property tax relief In excess of $200.00 annually, and has not been funded by the Republican controlled legislature for the past two years. In addition, taxes were increased this year by the legislature under the guise of increased fees

[lotstodo]

First, I'm not your son, despite your attempt at paternalism.

 

Second, the School Board does not reassess the FMV of property; rather, the Board of Tax Assessors does that, so your argument that the School Board directly raised taxes is invalid. You can argue that the School Board should have voted to reduce the millage rate by a sufficient percentage to offset the increased revenue caused by the higher FMV of property. But you mislead folks when you claim that the School Board voted to increase taxes if no such vote occurred.

 

I do believe the analogy I provided to the sales tax is valid. Of course, it's not the same. However, it is estimated that around 25-30% of the cost of any good has imbedded taxes calculated into the cost. As a result, it is clear that governmental action or inaction affects the cost of goods and, therefore, the amount of sales taxes we pay on those goods.

I said absolutely nothing about the school board.

 

I did not say that the BOC reassessed anything.

 

My example does not include any reassessment whatsoever, because it has absolutely nothing to do with a reassessment. This is why your sales tax example has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Do you see the word reassessment in my statement? No. I said that on August 9. 2010, the M&O per 100k of ACV (or $40k of assessed value, your choice) was $266. On August 11, 2010 the M&O per $100k ACV (or $40 k assessed value, your choice) was $304. Pigpin, what happened on August 10, 2010 that caused this change? (Hint....It was not a reassessment)

 

I've made 2 posts on the subject, and I am afraid that you misunderstood both of them. I am talking about apples, and you keep bring up oranges.

[Mason Rountree]

Pigpen

In regards to the six questions that you proposed to me about Will Avery, I have no idea how he would answer those questions, Try and give Will a call and pose those same questions to him, I have found him to be very open and candid with any response to any questions asked of him.

 

 

Whitey:

 

If you've criticized Paulette on those issues, don't you think it would be a good idea to find out whether Will would have supported the same initiatives as Paulette? I'm surprised by your response. I would, of course, be happy to speak with Will about my questions. He is an active poster on this Board and has surely been following this thread. It seems that Will has the opportunity to respond to these questions on this thread. If not, do you have his phone number?

[WHITEY]

Whitey:

 

If you've criticized Paulette on those issues, don't you think it would be a good idea to find out whether Will would have supported the same initiatives as Paulette? I'm surprised by your response. I would, of course, be happy to speak with Will about my questions. He is an active poster on this Board and has surely been following this thread. It seems that Will has the opportunity to respond to these questions on this thread. If not, do you have his phone number?

I believe the record will reflect that Paulette has stated that she only voted for one tax increase, My intentions of this entire debate is prove that she is not being honest with the voters, And, in fact has voted numerous times to raise taxes despite the smoke and mirror scheme that you have devised to cover up her Tax and Spend habits.

You can reach Will at 770-508-8823 or www.averyforgeorgia.com

[Georgia Dawg]

Doesn't matter that much to me. But I'm definitely not voting for someone who shares the same mindset as Obama and desires to associate himself in the same political party.

If Will wanted my vote he would have run as an independent.

[feelip]

Doesn't matter that much to me. But I'm definitely not voting for someone who shares the same mindset as Obama and desires to associate himself in the same political party.

If Will wanted my vote he would have run as an independent.

 

 

What do you think he is going to do, build a mosque in Hiram?

[lotstodo]

What do you think he is going to do, build a mosque in Hiram?

Now you've let it slip.

[feelip]

Now you've let it slip.

 

 

The only thing the Republicans can find wrong with Will Avery is that he is a Democrat. They would love to have him as their candidate instead of the one they have.

 

It is asinine to mention Obama in the same sentence with Will Avery. Absolutely asinine.

[surepip]

Doesn't matter that much to me. But I'm definitely not voting for someone who shares the same mindset as Obama and desires to associate himself in the same political party.

If Will wanted my vote he would have run as an independent.

 

Both the "Parties" have made it financially and grass root worker impossible to run as an Independent. The number of petition signatures required it absurd at best to be able to obtain.

 

The local GOP has made it virtually impossible for someone not "adopted" by the Powers That Be to run. They have their own agenda and slate of candidates they support, during the primaries no less.

 

I for one am very relieved that I will have a viable alternative come November and won't have to write in Micky Mouse again.

 

If you think Paulette will be a good representative for Paulding then by all means vote for her.

 

I see her as Paulding's own Cynthia McKinney, and she would be an another Republican embarassment for Paulding under the Gold Dome. We have had enough of that. We need a legislator who represents the voters/taxpayers of Paulding instead of the notorious special interests our past legislators have worked for.

 

Thank you for running Will, and I wish you the best. So nice to have a choice finally.

[WHITEY]

Doesn't matter that much to me. But I'm definitely not voting for someone who shares the same mindset as Obama and desires to associate himself in the same political party.

If Will wanted my vote he would have run as an independent.

Anyone that has lived in paulding County since 2000 can clearly see and understand the voting record of Paulette while she served on the Paulding County School Board,If that is the type of voting record you want representing you in District 19 by all means vote for her.