The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Thanks for linking to this. There are a couple of these that should spark some debate in here.

Have you looked at your ballot?  Busy bee ballot this go 'round.

I've got questions about the judges for you guys with any knowledge.

Thanks. It appears that there will be a lot of "no" votes on my ballot.

You cannot vote "No" for president.

You cannot vote "No" for president.

You cannot vote "No" for president.

To the Editor:

With State Question 766, Oklahoma voters will be asked to allow a tax break for some of the largest corporations in the state. This would be paid for by a combination of cuts to schools and counties and increases in individuals’ property tax bills.

Supporters of SQ 766 tell a very different story. They argue that voting down the question could lead to large tax increases on everyone, with assets ranging from teaching certificates to “goodwill” being newly taxed. This argument is incorrect for two reasons.

First, the legislature could have proposed an amendment that protects families and small businesses from intangible property tax without also exempting those corporations that have already been paying it. The tax had previously been levied only on those companies that are “centrally assessed,” which means their property tax bills are calculated by the state rather than by individual counties. Centrally assessed companies in Oklahoma include railroads and utilities such as AT&T.

After a 2009 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling denied an attempt by AT&T (then Southwestern Bell) to exempt specific intangibles from taxation, the company began lobbying to exempt all intangibles. To gain support for their cause, the company and groups like the State Chamber of Commerce raised the specter of intangible property taxes spreading to all taxpayers.

To ensure this would not happen, the Legislature could have put forward an amendment that exempted locally assessed entities from intangible property tax while continuing the status quo for centrally assessed entities. That’s similar to what is done in Oregon. Alternatively, they could have exempted intangible property but allowed a method of assessing value that includes all assets of a public corporation (for example, basing valuation on the market-determined stock price).

Instead, the legislature created a loophole that will cost an estimated $50 million initially and is almost certain to grow over time.

The second reason individuals and small businesses are not in danger of seeing a tax increase if this measure fails is that the legislature has already created a safeguard. After the initial Supreme Court decision, lawmakers created a “business activity tax” of $25 that could be paid in lieu of intangible property taxes. They also created a corresponding tax credit to pay back the $25, so no one’s tax bill has changed. If SQ 766 fails, this temporary fix will stay in effect. It is a messy solution, but it gives us time to take a more careful approach without needing to worry about a tax increase in the immediate future.

Ironically, passing SQ 766 could result in a tax increase on individuals across the state. The revenue loss from this amendment would be partially paid for by cuts to schools and counties, but mandatory expenses like school bonds and court-ordered payments cannot be cut. To meet these obligations, counties could increase the property tax rate for everyone.

On the other hand, if SQ 766 fails, lawmakers can go back to the drawing board for a better solution.

 
Sincerely,

Gene Perry, Tulsa

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — While the nation's highest court ponders the use of race in college admissions, Oklahoma voters will decide next month whether to prohibit any affirmative action programs in state government.

State Question 759 is a Republican-backed proposal approved by Oklahoma lawmakers last year that would ban any government programs that give preferred treatment based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin.

Supporters say affirmative action programs are no longer needed, while opponents maintain racism still exists and that eliminating such programs would move the state backward.

The ballot question in Oklahoma comes just as the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case involving a white student who contends she was discriminated against when the University of Texas did not offer her a spot in 2008 because of its affirmative action program.

Anyone want to toss in thoughts?  I'd love to hear some input.

You asked:

758: Complete insanity. We only need look to California to see what pain property tax caps will bring us. At least they have a decent excuse. We don't have quickly-growing valuations that make property taxes unaffordable for retirees. We already have a reasonable cap. Is there a wave of people having to sell their homes due to property tax? If so, I haven't seen it.

759: I think an outright ban on affirmative action is silly. While I'm not sure that it's appropriate at the present time, it's not outside the realm of possibility that it will be needed again in the future. Banning it is just a measure to get wingers to the polls.

762: I'll probably vote for this, but I don't think it addresses the underlying problem, which is that our sentencing tends to be excessive in the first place. (we could delve deeper and find more fundamental problems with our criminal justice system, but I don't really feel like it at the moment)

764: It would be good to upgrade/replace old and failing water systems, so I can't see this as a bad thing, presuming there are rules in place to prevent individual systems from overcommitting themselves.

765: I don't even understand the point of this one yet.

766: Pure, utter stupidity. This would be a giveaway to certain large companies that aren't even based here in Oklahoma and who treat Oklahoma like a red-headed stepchild except that the legislature already gave away the farm. Moreover, why should intangible property be treated differently for tax purposes than tangible property? Say I invent a machine to do something more efficiently. Why should I be taxed less if I patent it without building it than if I do give it physical form?

You are obviously not near retirement age.  If our valuations are not growing quickly enough to make property taxes unaffordable, there will be no difference.  If they do start growing at absurd rates, it will protect people like my mother from losing her home.  The question states that the 3% cap would apply to homestead exempted property and agricultural land.  It would not appear to apply to commercial property, including rental housing.

Whoa, blatant disagreement on this one.  The intent of the tax on intangible property may be to punish big companies but potential implications can reach many of us, unless you have access to some magic information that says otherwise.  

Patents:  If you don't build something, how much should you be taxed?  Inventions, formulas, designs, and trade secrets which are being used generate income will incur income tax.

..scaremongering snipped..

Custom software:  I think this may affect either you, your customers or both.  I think this should be the most heavily taxed intangible property of all.  ;D

Trademarks etc: If they are successful, they already generate income which is already taxed.  If they are not successful, what are they worth?  Who decides?

Another thought on 758. If it were about keeping retirees from being kicked out of their homes, it would only apply to retirees and the index would be the Social Security COLA, not an arbitrary 3%. That it isn't makes it plain to me that it's actually about reducing funding for schools and municipalities through the back door. And if it fails to restrain spending, it shifts the revenue to the sales tax, which shifts the burden disproportionately onto the poor and ends up not actually helping retirees that much overall and actively hurting retirees who don't own a home.

So yeah, I could support the purported intent, but I can't support this measure.

Again, the rate is presently $25 a year for all your intangible property and you get an offsetting tax credit. The practical effect is zero, while the effect of passing the amendment constrains future policy unnecessarily. We're pretty good at electing anti-taxers here in Oklahoma, so I'm not too worried that we'll go overboard on this. If we do, we can always pass an amendment at that time.

ENTER THE STATE QUESTION
The business activity fee was never meant to be a permanent solution. In 2012, State Sen. Mike Mazzei and Rep. David Dank, both Republicans, proposed SJR 52, the framework for SQ 766. If SQ 766 passes, the business activity fee will expire. But if it fails, the business activity fee will continue in leu of intangible property taxes, though county assessors will have the clear authority to impose them unless the legislature takes some other action.

I could go along with a general cap of 5% or an index of average income for everyone, whichever is less.

That would be reasonable enough that I wouldn't grumble too much. My only concern in that situation is if inflation runs well beyond that point for a period of years and catch ups are made impossible by the income index once inflation returns to normal.

I think that to some degree it hurts everyone when the housing market becomes less liquid due to people not wanting to move because of property tax caps. It's the same reason I wouldn't support rent control if I lived in NYC, actually. Just as a matter of fundamental fairness, I don't think it's reasonable that somebody who buys an equivalently valued house down the street should pay more property tax than I do just because they moved in later.

Perhaps instead of capping the assessed value itself, we could cap what retirees can be required to pay in any given year and the unpaid portion could be collected without penalty upon sale/transfer of the property, presuming there's any money left over after paying outstanding mortgage(s) and selling costs.

The magic information is current law. Fixing a non-problem on behalf of at&t because they manage to find some scare tactic doesn't seem appropriate to me.

No, the income is taxed.

So you have no problem with working people losing their home to inflation and the subsequent taxes if their income doesn't keep up?  I would have thought you would be in favor of indexing a person's tax to their income and ability to pay rather than the price of a bubble they may not make it through.

Someone who moves in down the street from you and pays an inflated price compared to what you paid can afford to pay a higher tax.  It's part of buying a more expensive house.

I could go along with capital gains (if there are any) tax on the sale/transfer price of a final home but retroactive taxes I cannot agree to. 

I think we can thank AT&T for turning a non-problem into a problem.

In a liquid market, they can sell the house and move into a cheaper one or rent.

That's not necessarily true. In an environment where inflation is higher than the cap, that house which is more expensive in nominal dollars may well be the same price in real dollars. I agree that owner-occupied housing isn't "supposed" to bring in income, but keeping the market liquid is of benefit to homeowners. Illiquid markets make it hard to accurately price assets and make it difficult to sell (or buy) when you need to. We live in an age where people move around a lot and change jobs many times in their lives. Having them tied down to a particular house because of the property tax benefits they won't get if they move is economically inefficient.

Not retroactive, deferred until the sale to avoid turning retirees out on the street because of unrealized gains. There are by definition no (federal) capital gains owed on an inherited house if the house doesn't appreciate in value between the time its owner dies and the time it is sold by the heir. The cost basis steps up to market value on the day the owner dies.

I'm not sure why a database containing maps should be less subject to tax than a filing cabinet full of maps. Or why an IVR system that I build for somebody that runs on a computer shouldn't be taxed while an IVR system that you buy as part of a PBX should be.

Calling licenses and franchises property isn't something I've heard before, but perhaps one of our resident attorneys can tell us whether they are indeed legally considered property.

Is there anything stopping the legislature from exempting anything they like from property tax? If not, why didn't they just pass that law instead of trying to put something in the Constitution?

TULSA - In its long history, the state capitol has seen plenty of political battles but few more intense than the fight over affirmative action, and whether it should play a role in who works at the capitol.

"We passed affirmative action a long time ago," said Republican state representative Mike Ritze.  "I think that was corrected in the 80's and 90's."

The Broken Arrow doctor is one of several lawmakers who put State Question 759 on the November ballot.
If voters say yes, it would ban the use of affirmative action in state employment, meaning race and sex could no longer play a role in who the state hires.

"We in government should not pick winners and losers and I think now we're going way overboard to the point where it's become reverse discrimination," said Ritze

However the statistics seem to show otherwise.

A study by the Henderson Center for Social Justice showed that people of color make up 30 percent of Oklahoma's population but make up only 23 percent of workers in the public sector.

"When you look at the state employment statistics, you're not seeing a whole lot of African Americans in these positions and if you do, they're not in positions of power," said Democratic state senator Judy McIntyre.

She is fighting against the proposal, which would also outlaw the use of affirmative action in county and city governments.
    
"It's intended to excite and anger a lot of the Republican base and poor whites," said McIntyre. "Who may believe that African Americans have been given jobs and taken jobs from them and that's not true."

The affirmative action ban could also impact who the state gives contracts to for things like road work.

"What we're seeing now is a king of reverse discrimination," said Ritze. "If we give out a government contract, we had to go out and make sure we had a certain amount of minorities or a certain class perform that."

"He's trying to move to a color blind society and I don't think we're there yet," said McIntyre.

The Oklahoma Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, says states that have passed similar bans have seen reduced opportunity for minorities and women.

Voters will have the final say on November 6.


Read more: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Oklahoma-State-Question-SQ-759-would-limit-affirmative-action-SQ759#ixzz2AFHpu74C

You are wanting to tax unrealized gains by your plan.

Unrealized gains are already taxed. That's how property tax works.

Just another injustice in our tax system.

O K L A H O M A S T A T E E L E C T I O N B O A R D

Oklahoma

STATE QUESTIONS FOR GENERAL ELECTION November 6, 2012

STATE QUESTION NO. 758 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 358

This measure amends the State Constitution. It amends Section 8B of Article 10.
The measure deals with real property taxes also called ad valorem taxes. These taxes are based on several factors. One factor is the fair cash value of the property.
The measure changes the limits on increases in fair cash value. Now, increases are limited to 5% of fair cash value in any taxable year.
The measure changes the cap on increases to 3% for some property. The 3% cap would apply to homestead exempted property. The cap would also apply to agricultural land.
The measure also removes obsolete language.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTIONS

General Election — November 6, 2012

STATE QUESTION NO. 759 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 359

This measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds Section 36 to Article II.

The measure deals with three areas of government action. These areas are employment, education and contracting.
In these areas, the measure does not allow affirmative action programs. Affirmative action programs give preferred treatment based on race, color or gender. They also give preferred treatment based on ethnicity or national origin. Discrimination on these bases is also not permitted.
The measure permits affirmative action in three instances. 1. When gender is a bonafide qualification, it is allowed. 2. Existing court orders and consent decrees that require preferred treatment will continue and can be followed. 3. Affirmative action is allowed when needed to keep or obtain federal funds.
The measure applies to the State and its agencies. It applies to counties, cities and towns. It applies to school districts. It applies to other State subdivisions.
The measure applies only to actions taken after its approval by the people.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

STATE QUESTION NO. 762 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 360

This measure amends Section 10 of Article 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution. It changes current law, decreasing the power and authority of the Governor by removing the Governor from the parole process for persons convicted of certain offenses defined as nonviolent offenses. It enlarges the power and authority of the Pardon and Parole Board by authorizing that Board, in place of the Governor, to grant parole to persons convicted of certain offenses defined as nonviolent offenses.
The Legislature defines what offenses are nonviolent offenses and the Legislature may change that definition.
The measure authorizes the Pardon and Parole Board to recommend to the Governor, but not to itself grant, parole for persons convicted of certain offenses, specifically those offenses identified by law as crimes for which persons are required to serve not less than eighty-five percent of their sentence prior to being considered for parole and those designated by the Legislature as exceptions to nonviolent offenses. For those offenses for which persons are required to serve a minimum mandatory period of confinement prior to being eligible to be considered for parole, the Pardon and Parole Board may not recommend parole until that period of confinement has been served.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTIONS

General Election — November 6, 2012

STATE QUESTION NO. 764 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 361

This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds a new Section 39A to Article 10. It would allow the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to issue bonds. Any bonds issued would be used to provide a reserve fund for the Board. The fund would be a reserve fund for certain water resource and sewage treatment funding programs. The fund could only be used to pay other bonds and obligations for the funding programs. The bonds could only be issued after other monies and sources are used for repayment. The bonds would be general obligation bonds. Not more than Three Hundred Million Dollars worth of bonds could be issued. The Legislature would provide the monies to pay for the bonds. The Legislature would provide for methods for issuing the bonds. The Legislature would provide for how the fund is administered.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

STATE QUESTION NO. 765 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 362

The measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It abolishes the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Commission of Human Services and the position of Director of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. These entities were created under different names by Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Article 25 of the Oklahoma Constitution and given duties and responsibilities related to the care of the aged and needy. The measure repeals these sections of the Constitution and consequently, removes the power of the Commission of Human Services to establish policy and adopt rules and regulations. Under the measure, the Legislature and the people by initiative petition retain the power to adopt legislation for these purposes.
The measure adds a provision to the Constitution authorizing the Legislature to create a department or departments to administer and carry out laws to provide for the care of the aged and the needy. The measure also authorizes the Legislature to enact laws requiring the newly-created department or departments to perform other duties.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

OKLAHOMA STATE QUESTIONS

General Election — November 6, 2012

STATE QUESTION NO. 766 LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 363

This measure amends Section 6A of Article 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution. At present that section exempts some intangible personal property from ad valorem property taxation. This measure would exempt all intangible personal property from ad valorem property taxation.
An ad valorem property tax is a tax imposed upon the value of property.
Intangible Personal Property is property whose value is not derived from its physical attributes, but rather from what it represents or evidences.
Intangible Personal Property which is still currently taxed but would not be taxed if the measure is adopted, includes items such as:
 patents, inventions, formulas, designs, and trade secrets;
 licenses, franchise, and contracts;
 land leases, mineral interests, and insurance policies;
 custom computer software; and
 trademarks, trade names and brand names.
If adopted, the measure would apply to property taxation starting with the tax year that begins on January 1, 2013.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED? FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO

TULSA - Rebecca Caldwell and her husband love playing with their pets at their Broken Arrow home.
     
They also love their tax bill.

"We live in Wagoner County so our taxes are lower," said Caldwell.

So for them, the thought of paying even less in property taxes, thanks to State Question 758, sounds too good to be true.

Tulsa County Assessor Ken Yazel says that's because it is.

"Most citizens including senior citizens interpret it to be a limit on their taxation and it is not," said Yazel.

SQ 758 would not put a cap on how much a homeowner's taxes are raised from year to year.   

What it would do is cap how much the assessed value of a home can increase from year to year. 

It would limit 'property tax assessment increases' to three percent, thereby capping fast-rising property values. Meaning if this passes, you will be paying less in taxes. 

State representative Mike Ritze is a strong supporter of 758.

"We thought it was a good thing to try to keep the property taxes down at a certain level," said Ritze, R-Broken Arrow.

But Yazel said it would actually do just the opposite. He says since counties across the state still need to generate the same amount of revenue, those whose home values are rising slowly will pay more in taxes.

"You shift the burden to those other people to pay and raise the same amount of money," said Yazel.

Yazel says if 758 passes, about 90 percent of Tulsa homeowners will pay higher taxes.

"Well I respect the assessor very much and I would have to assume his position is something that's well-studied but that's not what the intent of the legislation was," said Ritze.

Despite this, the Caldwells know they face a complicated election day decision.

"I think we are paying about what we should be paying," said Caldwell.

 


Read more: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Does-Oklahoma-State-Question-758-lower-your-tax-bill#ixzz2AK1wqO1L

KJRH story on State Question 758.

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Does-Oklahoma-State-Question-758-lower-your-tax-bill (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Does-Oklahoma-State-Question-758-lower-your-tax-bill)

So this sounds like the way our state legislature works:  "Well I respect the assessor very much and I would have to assume his position is something that's well-studied but that's not what the intent of the legislation was," said Ritze.   Then fix it dumbass.

On the other hand, it seems likely that the cap will cause tax rates in high growth counties to go up because the cap will restrict tax growth below fast growing needs.  However, I assume they do not want to rely on that scenario because it is exactly what the proponents are tying to prevent - fast rising home appraisals pushing up tax bills.

If we demand the same services and inflation runs above the assessment cap, property tax rates will have to increase, which will slowly push the costs of government onto renters, since their landlords don't get the benefit of said cap. Either that or sales tax rates will go up. We already have a limit of 5%, so it seems like we've already got the "nobody gets thrown out of their house on the back of fast-rising property tax assessments" covered.

Normally, housing prices rise about in line with inflation, so property tax naturally grows with it. That hasn't been the case in the past couple of years, but that's not the usual scenario and it appears to be getting back to normal as we speak.

If we demand the same services and inflation runs above the assessment cap, property tax rates will have to increase, which will slowly push the costs of government onto renters, since their landlords don't get the benefit of said cap. Either that or sales tax rates will go up. We already have a limit of 5%, so it seems like we've already got the "nobody gets thrown out of their house on the back of fast-rising property tax assessments" covered.

Normally, housing prices rise about in line with inflation, so property tax naturally grows with it. That hasn't been the case in the past couple of years, but that's not the usual scenario and it appears to be getting back to normal as we speak.

I'm really not buying that line about landlords getting hit harder.  Is anyone aware of valuations ever increasing more than 3 to 5% over a year in recent times?

The Observer urges Oklahoma voters to defeat five of the six proposed constitutional amendments on the general election ballot.

Only SQ 762 – which would remove the governor from the parole process involving non-violent offenders – is worthy of support. The others are either bad public policy or bald-faced power grabs by the state’s wealthy corporatists – or both:

SQ 758 is appealing, at first blush. It would lower from 5% to 3% the annual cap on property tax increases. Good news for those on fixed incomes or struggling to make ends meet, right?

Actually, it would put Oklahoma on the same slippery slope as California with its Prop 13 that has plunged the once-Golden State into fiscal chaos – a $16 billion budget deficit that is crippling vital state services.

It would be dangerous to further tie the hands of Oklahoma’s elected leaders. Thanks to SQ 640, it’s virtually impossible already to raise taxes, no matter how grave the emergency. SQ 758 would make matters much worse.

Among the casualties would be the state’s already underfunded public schools – it would cost $6.5 million the first year from a system already 49th in teacher salaries and 47th in student finding.

Recommendation: No.

SQ 759 is a solution in search of a problem. It would ban something that doesn’t exist – affirmative action quotas in state employment, education and contracting. So why is this even on the ballot?

It is evidently the closest thing to a hot-button, social issue the Republican legislative majority could conjure this year, playing to the preposterous notion that white males are victims of rampant reverse discrimination.

Here’s the reality: Approving SQ 759 would send a terrible message to the rest of the nation – and the world – that Oklahoma doesn’t give a damn about equal opportunity.

Moreover, SQ 759 if approved would ban the one thing that is required of state agencies – a mandate to periodically report to the public how well they’re doing in hiring a workforce that reflects Oklahoma’s increasingly diverse population.

Call it Return of the Good Old Boy System.

Recommendation: No.

SQ 762 would move the governor from the parole process when it comes to non-violent offenders.

Oklahoma is bankrupting itself thanks to a three-strikes mentality – more women incarcerated per capita than any other state, fourth per capita in men.

Taking the governor out of the parole process will speed the transition of non-violent offenders from expensive state incarceration – averaging $16,000-plus per inmate per year – to less expensive community-based supervision and treatment. The savings could be used to invest in underfunded vital state services such as education.

Recommendation: Yes.

SQ 764 is another proposal that looks good at first, but doesn’t stand up to closer scrutiny. It would create a $300 million bonding authority under the Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB] to help municipalities rebuild, update and expand water and wastewater infrastructure – an estimated $82 billion will be needed over the next 50 years.

The problem is, OWRB would control the money and the projects – which means the State Chamber and the Oklahoma City powers-that-be would be in charge.

Given how OWRB and OKC handled Sardis Lake, that’s more than disconcerting. It evokes fear of a slush fund for the privileged few, helping make the rich richer in Oklahoma City while leaving Oklahoma to wither.

Recommendation: No.

SQ 765 would throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the state Department of Human Services. It would eliminate the DHS commission and transfer its powers to the governor and the Legislature.

That’s hardly a comforting thought. The last thing DHS needs is to be politicized further. What it really needs is to be funded – fully. It never has been, leaving child welfare workers, for example, with crushing caseloads far beyond professional standards.

Recommendation: No.

SQ 766 is a corporatist's dream come true – a tax avoidance scheme that would make Mitt Romney proud.

The proposal would provide huge tax cuts to major business interests – think utilities, telecommunications companies, airlines and railroads – by exempting intangible property, including stocks, bonds and investments, from their net worth.

It would cost local governments an estimated $50 million annually – 60% of which goes to schools and roads, among other vital services.

Recommendation: No.

Have you looked at your ballot?  Busy bee ballot this go 'round.

I've got questions about the judges for you guys with any knowledge.

I already voted, so this info comes too late. 


Judges - goes to my basic philosophy of voting against incumbents every chance I get.  I 'no' them well...

Voters will consider two state questions on the November ballot that, if passed, will be very damaging to public education, according to tax experts and the Oklahoma Policy Institute (OPI).

Passage of State Questions 758 and 766 could mean nearly $40 million in cuts to education funding, and local property taxes could increase. The Oklahoma Education Association Board of Directors has taken a position of “vote no” on both measures.

According to OPI, passing SQ 766 will reduce common school funding by $32.5 million. The measure will eliminate the collection of intangible personal property taxes for locally assessed and centrally assessed entities. Currently, only centrally assessed property taxes is being collected.

Centrally assessed property is that which crosses county lines like AT&T, Cox Communications, OG&E, and other utility type companies. Passage of SQ 766 will give tax breaks to these big corporations. Meanwhile, homeowners and farmers will pay higher property taxes as millage rates rise to meet bond obligations as a result of the valuation lost from the exemption gained by those large corporations.

Tax experts believe that if 766 passes, local governments will be forced to raise property taxes and local fees to compensate for the loss of revenue.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that most intangible property is taxable, partly because intangible property makes up more than 40 percent of the value of big service and technology-oriented companies. As technology continues to advance, intangible property will comprise the majority of value, eventually making most of the assets for big technology and communication companies not taxable if SQ 766 passes. This will increase taxable items and property taxes for the average Oklahoman.

The Yes on 766 campaign is running ads that claim – incorrectly – “teaching certificates” and other such items will be taxed if the measure fails.

“Those claims are totally false,” said Linda Hampton, OEA president. “The legislature passed a trailer bill last May – SB 1436 – which will prevent the taxing of homeowners and farmers if SQ 766 fails.

“Passing this measure will benefit only large corporations. If SQ 766 is defeated everything will remain as it currently is.”

SQ 758 seeks to cap the growth of property values from 5 to 3 percent. The Oklahoma Tax Commission says passage of this measure will reduce the amount of growth revenue to schools by $6.5 million each year.

“Property values don’t automatically increase every year. I know my property taxes have not increased in recent years,” said Hampton. “Passing SQ 758 doesn’t mean we’ll all pay more taxes. It would deny schools growth money we need so badly.”

Even if SQ 758 were to pass, there is a scenario that would automatically increase property taxes. If a school district is at its bonded indebted maximum, and it relies on growth money to pay off bonds, property taxes would be increased to cover the payment without voter approval.

While there is a fervor at the state capitol to cut taxes, it is often ignored that Oklahoma ranks fourth lowest in the nation in the amount of property taxes paid per person.

Hampton pointed out that Oklahoma schools have already been cut by $300 million over the last three years. During that same time, the state has added 22,000 new students and lost 1,500 teaching positions. Add in new unfunded or underfunded mandates of Common Core State Standards and a new teacher/principal evaluation system, and schools are struggling to make ends meet.

“We are still 49th in teacher pay and 47th in per pupil expenditure in the country, both rankings dead last in our region,” Hampton said. “Our schools simply cannot manage another multi-million dollar loss in revenue. We must vote no on SQ 758 and SQ 766.”

I already voted, so this info comes too late. 


Judges - goes to my basic philosophy of voting against incumbents every chance I get.  I 'no' them well...

That's a brilliant idea.

Tell me, who chooses the replacements?

guido, correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding there is a judicial nominating committee that gives the governor a list to choose from.

Look at this link. My brain hurts tonight.

http://www.okbar.org/members/jnc/

Supporters of Oklahoma’s recently approved ban on affirmative action in state government say they are confident the voter-approved law would survive a legal challenge. But federal court precedent is conflicting. And if Oklahoma’s law change makes it to court, that could further raise the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually get involved in the issue. This week, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a similar voter-approved law in Michigan that bans the use of affirmative action in college admission.