Posted on 01/21/2019 2:05:06 PM PST by buckalfa
Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo wants to give cities and towns the ability to tax "non-mission essential" properties owned by nonprofit colleges and hospitals, according to a WPRI-TV report.
The idea is part of the governor's proposed $9.9-billion budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
The budget also reportedly lowers funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, which compensates municipalities for property tax revenue lost due to non-taxable properties. The proposed budget would cut $5 million from PILOT funding.
State officials said allowing cities and towns to tax properties owned by nonprofit hospitals and colleges would help offset the lower PILOT funding, according to WPRI-TV. But they said that cities and towns would have to do more work to determine whether a property is "non-mission essential" and would have to sign off on a new tax.
If the government actually did something tangible for me for the property tax confiscated each year, at least there would be something to show for it. It just goes into government workers pension funds.
Why shouldn’t hospitals and universities pay taxes on properties that aren’t part of their function providing medical treatment for one, education for the other? They’re renting out properties at the going rate and making profits. Meanwhile, other property owners are taxed more to compensate.
Now that will “go a long way” toward cutting the cost of medical care won’t it! Gina needs a lesson in the idea of the concept that there is “no free money for government.”
Texas allows tax exemptions for churches, etc. However, there has been a ‘mission’ test, i.e., part of the purpose. Excess land, properties leased out for profit, etc are not eligible and are taxable at market value. About time property in RI not purely non-profit gets taxed instead of being sheltered.
The deep state. Either that or gaming the system.
Democrats never met a tax they didn’t like.
I used to think this was just a worn-out phrase.
I’ve yet to see it be contradicted by any substantial means, if by any means at all.
There needs to be an overhaul, nationwide on property taxes. They need to tax property for property-related services only( i.e. streets, sewers, cops and fire protection and possibly utilities) removing government costs and schools and these should be parcel taxes based on the actual costs of the services being delivered, and not the value of the property being taxed. Prop 13 here in CA was a meat axe initiative that isn't in any way fair, but it has prevented the State from driving people, particularly those who have retired, from their homes. I know from looking at my annual tax bills, schools are 80% of the total being demanded. The other thing that needs to be done is to do away with police and fire unions, they are stealing us blind.
Then they can tax that
In a round about way I’m reminded of the time that, because of back taxes not paid, the federal government ended up owning a whore house in Nevada (IIRC). Under federal control they couldn’t make money from sex.
I humorously suspect that Congressional fact finding visits and the cost of giving the girls federal employee benefits (what is the GS level of a prostitute?) is what pushed them into the red.
I understand the logic, but these liberals don’t understand the healthcare facility’s logic.
If you’re losing money on the ER or surgical center, building a wellness center can generate profits to help cover the medical losses. The liberal looks at it and says, “They’re unfairly profiting, this is unnecessary, tax it.”
Does the medical facility have a large hall? The rentals to weddings help pay the bills, while the facility serves as overflow in a disaster.
The office building they rent out to both medical specialists and general businesses serves a medical function, but if you tax it, you’ll end up increasing medical costs for everyone.
The issue is that hospitals are generally not taxed because they are non-profit entities, but over time many of these places have expanded to fill massive campuses with space leased out to for-profit medical professional offices, labs, and other related services.
There is a public cost associated with these places -- roads, fire and police protection, etc. These towns are simply looking to get these hospitals to pony up for the taxes on those affiliated occupants who are not part of the hospital's non-profit mission.
You are apparently implying that the governor is a 'D', whereas the excerpted 4 paragraphs failed to make this identification. It would be a funny if it did not follow the usual MSM protection of Democrats policy!
Of course. I knew before I looked her up but surprise!
A Democrat with more taxes! Who woulda thunk it possible?
Oh yeah, anyone who knows.
How about giving the cities and towns the power to tax properties owned by the state and counties that are not essential to their mission.
I live in one of the richest counties in my state and it is buying up taxable land all over the place.
The county seat is the poorest city in the county due to the county offices taking up land that otherwise would be taxable property.
The county’s park system us wonderful but it is expanding at an ever growing rate. It seems every year is buys another piece of property that once was taxed land. It has demonstrated a distinct taste for lake front property which is the highest valued property in the county.
Of course park property is not taxable by township, village or city.
I see government owned property becoming the tape worm that is going to kill local government.
Don’t know if you ere actually a property owner in 1978 when Prop 13 got voted in, but the 58 counties in California all had different methods of taxing homes.
Prop 13 not only put everyone on the same footing, it allowed elderly home owners making a pittance on social security to keep their homes. Otherwise, they were literally being taxed out of their homes.
Breaking up Prop 13 won’t help those currently considered retired or elderly who still live in Calif in their homes they have owned for a long time. 80% of your tax bill goes for schools?
How many of the elderly have kids still in the school systems. ?? Some states actually don’t charge the school portion of the property tax bills to home owners over 65.
“but the 58 counties in California all had different methods of taxing homes.”
—
I’ll be darned——in MA each city and town sets their own property taxes.
.
I’ve been a property owner since 1968. And I have always been a strong supporter of Proposition 13. I do not favor breaking up Prop 13. In point of fact we just sold a commercial property we have owned in California for 18 years, and one of the principal reasons for so doing, was the move by the RATs here to sever commercial property from the protection of Prop 13. We are in the process of looking for R/E investments in states other than CA (AZ, NV and UT) with an eye toward leaving ourselves if conditions warrant. Right now, despite the Marxist government here, R/E values continue to climb. We will exit if we see any substantial erosion. We would consider leaving now, but for the fact that our three children and their families are here, and we want to be a part of their lives. Also, despite the despotic government, CA is a beautiful place to live. It’s beauty and marvelous climate have contributed to it’s demise, as the $hit (can you say people like Pelosi, and Adam Schiff to name a couple of outstanding examples) moved here from less desirable places after completely crapping them up, to begin anew doing the same things that made them leave, oblivious to the real reasons why their formers homes had turned to $hit!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.