Alabama and its uniquely dysfunctional government

Politics
1

Just more proof of the unique dysfunction that is the State of Alabama.

Fees vs property taxes.

In the United States as a whole the average person pays $1,837 in property taxes versus $982 for government fees per year.

In New Hampshire the ratio is $3,000 in property taxes versus $379 in government fees.

In Massachusetts the ratio is $2,800 in property taxes versus $493 in government fees.

In most States, the ratio is skewed, more or less, in favor of property taxes.

In Alabama, the ratio is $567 in property taxes to $1,346 in government fees.

The Alabama Constitution was designed to centralize power in Montgomery, but was also written by very wealthy landowners. They designed the system to make it all but impossible to raise much revenue via property taxes. First of all, assessments are strictly limited to a small percentage of the appraised value. Secondly, governments cannot collect more than 5 mills, without special permission which can only be obtained via a statewide Constitutional Amendment.

So without any effective way to tax, counties must exploit fees to raise revenues.

Which, of course, is an extremely regressive way of raising revenue, falling most heavily on the poor.

Moreover, as the government is called upon to provide more services, as has happened in recent years, it simply is harder and harder to fund local government that way.

Three things need to happen.

They just need to ■■■■■■■ BURN the Alabama Constitution.

They need to write a new Constitution from scratch that decentralizes power and grants home rule to counties and localities.

They need to remove the restrictions on taxation and allow counties and localities to have the power to set their own property taxes, without restriction on assessment or millage, with the exception of a reasonable homestead exemption.

Alabama actually has the potential to do a lot better than its currently doing, but for that to happen, the shackles of its current Constitution have to go.

This line of the OP article perfectly illustrates the absurdity:

Two bills allow sheriffs in two counties, Winston and Autauga, to host fundraising events to generate revenues.

Sheriff to his deputies, “Ok boys, get your wives to bake some cookies and brownies, we need more guns and ammo.”

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

The Alabama Constitution is truly a ■■■■■■■ joke.

1 Like
2

What’s your interest in Alabama?

1 Like
3

Quite a bit actually.

We do business there.

I have family members there.

And it wouldn’t make a difference in the slightest if I did NOT have an interest in Alabama.

Ultimately, the policies of every State effect people in every other State as they either enhance or detract from interstate commerce.

So I will comment on any and every State as I see fit.

2 Likes
4

What do Alabamians want?

Or is your business interest more important than state residence?

1 Like
5

The most abused clause in the Constitution and the rationalization for some of the worst laws in the country’s history.

5 Likes
6

I think Alabama has the better balance.

More user fees and people actually own property instead of renting it in form of property tax.

7

Are the user fees based on actual use?

8

LOLz

This is why I love this guys posts.

WW

1 Like
9

Actually, many Alabamians would like to see change.

There are several organizations in the State that are dedicated to the subject.

10

That is just the thing. User fees are supposed to pay for the specific service. As the OP article details, they have been hiked and are being used for purposes of general revenue, essentially acting as a tax in the guise of a user fee.

11

From the Alabama Constitution:

AMENDMENT 822 RATIFIED
Mobile County: Animals - Control of Dangerous DOGs.
The Legislature, by local law applicable to those areas of Mobile County outside the corporate limits of any municipality, may establish a procedure by which a DOG can be declared dangerous and be humanely destroyed and impose criminal penalties on the owners of a DOG declared to be dangerous.

Yes, you read that right, a constitutional amendment to control dangerous dogs. And there are three other amendments of a similar nature.

When you need a constitutional amendment to deal with dangerous dogs, that is kind of prima facie proof that you constitution is ■■■■■■ to hell and back.

1 Like
12

Then I disagree with them as used.

13

This doesn’t fall under the Commerce Clause. However it does after interstate commerce all the same, even though the Federal Government is NOT involved.

Alabama could get a lot more industry if they would clear out needless obstructions to business.

14

You invoked it, not me.

15

What do you mean by many? and in who’s interest?

Sounds to me outside influence is attempting to change existing revenue to benefit themselves instead of actual interest of Alabama residence.

Now this is first I’ve heard of it…so I can see both sides but what I am seeing is outside influence at play here.

16

Too many people can’t stand staying in their own backyard. They believe they need meddle in their neighbor’s affairs.
Whenever I see someone post something they want to change in a state they don’t live it I know their meddling has to do with they were slapped down when they wanted something. Probably has to do with money.

1 Like
17

In this case I suspect certain company doesn’t own any land in Alabama but has business interest in that state. So it’s attempt to shift cost to landowners instead of having to pay states fee’s. :wink:

1 Like
18

Wouldn’t it be regressive on the Alabama residents to raise property taxes?

19

Yes…yes it would.

This is out right attempt from outsiders to shift a burden on landowners.

20

Property tax to me personally is the worst of them all. Buy something - pay in full then have to pay the government thousands of dollars a year in my case $17,500 a year most of which goes to the school board in which I have no children, lovely deal.

Good for Alabama, as soon as I can flee the prog zone because of work I’m out.