Advertisement

Poll comments

July 23, 2006

Editor's note: Each week, The Herald-Mail invites readers to answer poll questions on its Web site, www.herald-mail.com. Readers also may submit comments about the poll question when voting. Each Sunday, a sampling of edited reader comments will appear in The Herald-Mail.




Last week's poll question was: What is your opinion of the $150 tax rebate recently sent by the Washington County Commissioners to county property owners - wasted money mailing it, still got a higher tax bill, trying to buy my vote, all of the above or loved it?

As of Saturday at 7:30 p.m., 61 voters (12.1 percent) said they still got a higher tax bill, 53 voters (10.5 percent) said the commissioners were trying to buy their vote, 49 voters (9.7 percent) said the commissioners wasted money mailing it and 217 voters (43.1 percent) replied all of the above. Also, 123 voters (24.5 percent) said they loved the rebate.

Advertisement



"This whole 'rebate' thing is a bunch of hooey! Whoever heard of 'giving' people part of the money they've paid back to them, only to take it right back again with an increase in what they have to pay in the upcoming year? This is as out there as GW's $300 'gift' of our federal taxes - jacked 'em right back up for anyone not on his Super Bowl party guest list!"




"One person gets a tax raise and another gets a tax break ... Example - someone has a $2,000 tax bill and another has a $1,000 tax bill, yet they each received the same rebate amount."




"I'm glad to get any rebate I can. Still, at the end of the year, we still have to pay taxes on that money. So I don't think we come up ahead ... Why not lower property taxes?"




"Mailing the 'rebate' was a farce. How much administrative time and money was consumed processing this 'rebate'? It could much more easily have been accomplished by a simple $150 reduction of the current year tax bill. Only rebates then would have been necessary for those who had sold property during the year. Another complication - for a taxpayer who itemizes deductions on income tax returns, it appears this will have to be treated as an income item on 2006 returns. Again, the reduction of tax bill would have eliminated this."




"Even though there are many varying opinions on how the money could be distributed, it is more money than I had before, so I say quit all the commotion and just say thanks. The commissioners didn't have to give you anything!"




"My property taxes are $600 higher (than) what my neighbors pay across the street. But yet, the assessment value(s) are the same. Now to me, something don't sound right."

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|