PDA

View Full Version : Vermont tax comments



ski_resort_observer
09-12-2006, 05:29 AM
Edit: I didn't split this out (maybe Lostone did) but I was about to. Thought it would be better placed in the MRV general forum. A great topic. As you were....

- TW




Speaking of Win, his op ed opinion piece in this weeks Valley Reporter is extraordinary. ( A fervent reminder to the valley towns and State of VT not to relentlessly hammer nonresidents and local businesses.) (Anyone listening/ Unfortunatly, I doubt it) Win's willingness to engage with the community, online, in print, and in person (see comments at MRVCofC now showing on cable access) deserves attention. Having real people, with a personal stake in the mountain and community, as owners, is just one of the many remarkable things about Sugarbush. (i.e. AIG/Stowe, Intrawest, G Gillet (sp), ASC etc.) Thank you Win, Adam, and Bob for delivering us from the clutches of ASC. What is going on at Sugarbush deserves more coverage by the national ski press.

I thought Win's piece was well written but the people that need to read it are the legistators in Montpelier. Not too many people in the valley like or support Act 60. Act 60 took 10 years of political haggling and finally a Vermont Supreme Court decision which forced the state to come up with something pretty quickly. In addition, it's a tale of two towns in that if your a Sending Town you hate it but if your in a Receiving Town you love it.

The tax that really bugs me and is an obstacle for every lodging property and restaurant in Vermont is the highest in the nation Lodging and Meals tax. Actually I don't know if it is the highest in the nation but I did some checking and I could not find any state where it was higher. In Jackson Hole they started a 2% Lodging tax but after a few years decided to repeal it.

When you are pricing a lodging package for someone and have to add 9% for the L&M tax plus a 5% service fee, that can be a chunk of change for alot of folks. IMHO we need to lower this tax to a reasonable level and maybe bake into the lodging rate the service fee(pretty easily done) so it doesn't hit so hard up front. Plus, lowering the L&M tax would help Vermont compete with othere states in the northeast for the destination skier.

Our saving grace is our product, the mountain, the terrain. Once the construction is completed I think we will get lots of positive press and if mother nature cooperates this winter we will be well on our way to bringing the Bush back to it's former glory.

smootharc
09-12-2006, 09:24 AM
Speaking of Win, his op ed opinion piece in this weeks Valley Reporter is extraordinary. ( A fervent reminder to the valley towns and State of VT not to relentlessly hammer nonresidents and local businesses.) (Anyone listening/ Unfortunatly, I doubt it) Win's willingness to engage with the community, online, in print, and in person (see comments at MRVCofC now showing on cable access) deserves attention. Having real people, with a personal stake in the mountain and community, as owners, is just one of the many remarkable things about Sugarbush. (i.e. AIG/Stowe, Intrawest, G Gillet (sp), ASC etc.) Thank you Win, Adam, and Bob for delivering us from the clutches of ASC. What is going on at Sugarbush deserves more coverage by the national ski press.

I thought Win's piece was well written but the people that need to read it are the legistators in Montpelier. Not too many people in the valley like or support Act 60. Act 60 took 10 years of political haggling and finally a Vermont Supreme Court decision which forced the state to come up with something pretty quickly. In addition, it's a tale of two towns in that if your a Sending Town you hate it but if your in a Receiving Town you love it.

The tax that really bugs me and is an obstacle for every lodging property and restaurant in Vermont is the highest in the nation Lodging and Meals tax. Actually I don't know if it is the highest in the nation but I did some checking and I could not find any state where it was higher. In Jackson Hole they started a 2% Lodging tax but after a few years decided to repeal it.

When you are pricing a lodging package for someone and have to add 9% for the L&M tax plus a 5% service fee, that can be a chunk of change for alot of folks. IMHO we need to lower this tax to a reasonable level and maybe bake into the lodging rate the service fee(pretty easily done) so it doesn't hit so hard up front. Plus, lowering the L&M tax would help Vermont compete with othere states in the northeast for the destination skier.

Our saving grace is our product, the mountain, the terrain. Once the construction is completed I think we will get lots of positive press and if mother nature cooperates this winter we will be well on our way to bringing the Bush back to it's former glory.

...from Ron Wishart and Win were indeed interesting. As someone with both a primary residence in NY (a hideous and surreal tax burden state unlike any other) and a secondary, vacation residence in Warren I can relate to the letter writers frustration and concerns.

When I received my VT real estate tax a month ago, as a non-resident, it was a shocker. And this is probably not what local businesses want to hear (but maybe Montpelier needs to hear loud and clear) but we have already made two substantial "non-purchases" of things we had our eye and usually wouldn't have hesitated to purchase. This change in spending was directly due to the tax burden laid at our doorstep by VT. So while we will continue to buy local when we are in the area, our purchasing decisions (and, thus, sadly local businesses and economy) have already been affected by Mr. Wishart's "extortionists" at the VT capitol. Should I tell a shop owner "I was about to buy this, but am holding off due to the tax issues a non-resident faces" everytime I make a non-purchase ? Should all non-residents do this ? Does that make me a jerk ("Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out, flatlander....") ? Or could it potentially spur the businesses being affected to contact their local government representitives...and begin the process of sending a message loud and clear to the leaders at the state level that ultimately leads to change ? I don't have those answers.

We'll continue to robustly support and spread the word of our love for all things "Mad River Valley" to friends and family without reservation. But they will get the unvarnished "bad" along with the good if they start asking about vacation property ownership. And we'll still buy locally as we've made it a point to do so, despite in many cases having the internet and other easily accessed purchase avenues readily available that would allow us to not spend nearly as much in the valley.

So it's sad but true that Mr. Wishart's sentiments are shared by many of the local non-residents I've spoken to since the tax bills arrived. I do know personally a few other non-residents who've changed potential purchases into "non-purchases" due to the aforementioned issues. Bummer for all.

Anyways, I do apologize if NY's "Mad tax disease" has somehow seeped across our shared border into VT and infected the beautiful Green Mountain State. And I hope I'm not coming across as bitter or grumbling. I just wanted to share the psychological process that, at least personally, has resulted from our tax bill. Heck, on paper at least, our property will be appreciating well beyond the taxes anyways, right ? So I'll just shut up.....

P.S. Anyone up for making the Mad River Valley an outpost of NH ? After all, VT has been spooning with NH since 1791..... :D

Lostone
09-12-2006, 10:33 AM
We had two topics in one thread. I have moved the tax comments to their own thread.

Hope I haven't offended anyone.

Bubba
09-12-2006, 11:25 AM
I believe it is common practice for states to tax non-residents at a higher rate. I know that Maine does it and I would bet that NH does too.
If it makes you feel any better it's no picnic for residents either.

noski
09-12-2006, 01:56 PM
FWIW, and without any of your permission, I emailed the link to this thread, along with my personal comments, to the Washington County Senators and Representatives, as well as a local man who is running for the Senate- it was his daughter who had the flying planter at the airport. If there is any response, I will post..... I offered them copies of the Wishart and Smith articles if they had not seen them. Let's see what if anything we hear....

mikec13
09-12-2006, 06:20 PM
would it be possible to post the letters?

jwt
09-12-2006, 06:47 PM
Taxes have driven us to raise rates in our ski house. We have 8-18 people on any given weekend. Since the rates have gone up due to the 25% increase in property taxes, the cru goes out to eat less, spend less in the valley in general, even bringing lunch to the mountain at times. I have been in or run ski houses since 1984 in Vermont. The rates always take away spending power from the masses, just like $3 a gallon gas acts as a tax and therefore reduces spending or even limits visits. Since we have owned a house here, with 25% increase in property taxes, we bring more from home ( Flatland) and tend to spend less up here. Our rentals are more often then not taken back when we mention the 9% State Sales Tax on top of the nightly rate.
Just like the Federal Government, as soon as you lower taxes, as history always shows, business increases and revenue to the Treasury increases. For all the lefts handwringing over tax breaks for the rich, and woe to social programs, the revenue to the Treasury in April 2006 was the second highest in US history, and second only to April 2000 after all those tech boom stocks were sold and taxes came in three months later! Same can happen in little ol' Vermont. It always works out that the more people can keep, the more they spend. That's what the Valleys small businesses need, spending! Take a simple , non-technical poll: Ask your self which states are always in financial straights? The highest taxing states are ALWAYS in trouble, because you don't spend other peoples money the way you spend your own. Think CA, NY, NJ, RI, MA (until Romney reversed a 2B deficit to a $1B surplus).

ski_resort_observer
09-12-2006, 11:05 PM
I think Maine is the highest taxed state?

A couple of points....your property taxes go up as a result of the marketable value of your Vermont home going up. Which is better? House worth less equals less taxes or house worth more equals more taxes. Towns in Vermont do a townwide appraisal every so often. If you live in Waitsfield it was just done and that is why our property taxes took a fairly big leap. It should remain fairly steady for the next few years.

Some towns in Maine and Vermont recently completed their appraisals after many years of not performing one. You wanna talk about your taxes going up..unreal. In Lewiston, Maine the property taxes jumped so high, many people protested and the City Council decided not to implement the tax increase.

Sometimes I think when it comes to taxes no matter what or how it's done it's not going to please everybody. I agree with Win and everyone else that charging out of staters a higher property tax rate is not fair. I have tried to look at this from a Vermont tax perspective and cannot come up any righteous reasons it is done. Logically I think part-time residents would use less services, have no kids in Vermont schools so therefore maybe they should pay less. Is the only reason Vermont charges a higher rate for non-residents cause it can?

Tin Woodsman
09-13-2006, 12:00 AM
Folks - this is a great topic. Let's just try to keep it so by avoiding OT stuff like treatises on tax policy theory. Please keep it focused on what's gong on in the MRV and similar communities and what we can do about it.

noski
09-13-2006, 07:37 AM
would it be possible to post the letters?

If you go to www.ValleyReporter.com and click on the "Letters" tab, Mr. Wishart's letter is 8/31 "Don't Tax the Flatlander" and Win's letter is September 7 "What Can Be Done?"

smootharc
09-13-2006, 07:53 AM
A couple of points....your property taxes go up as a result of the marketable value of your Vermont home going up. Which is better? House worth less equals less taxes or house worth more equals more taxes.

....is the $$ difference between what you are taxed as a resident vs. non-resident for the same property. Seems like the increased $$'s Montpelier gets from non-residents at least loosely translates to decreased $$ for VT businesses (when the non-residents adjust spending patterns downward). So one could argue that the Non-Resident tax "plan" on real estate is actually passed through as a tax on VT's residents/business owners. Hmmmm. Time to storm the Bastille ?

I think Win's comment about how markets become efficient could be translated as something that all Vermonter's should find scary....an eventual erosion of the quality of life (see MA & NY - two very "broken" states that have so much going for them) everyone wants to protect.

Anyways....I find this to be a very interesting thread.

Bubba
09-13-2006, 08:08 AM
What is the non-resident tax rate per 1000?

ski_resort_observer
09-13-2006, 08:21 AM
What is the non-resident tax rate per 1000?

The current base tax rate for non-resident property is $1.44 so when it is divided by CLA(Common Level of Appraisal) non-residents in Waitsfield are paying $1.1662. This is just the state education property tax part, there is also the local town part.

People might be surprised that the diference between the total tax rate between non-resident and resident is not all that much. In Waitsfield it's $1.57/$1.50 per 100, in Warren it's $1.63/$1.54. There are alot of towns in Vermont where the residents pay more than non-residents per 100. Once again it all comes down to the value of your home not the rate which is why I personally don't get all that worked up over property taxes. I want my home to increase in value. FWIW I pay $2.10 per 100 in value for my home in Maine.

Disclaimer...beleive me I am no tax expert, I am just reading the info on the back of my tax bill and other informational sources.

This website does a good job of explaining Vermont property taxes
http://www.vermontproperty.com/newsltr/vtrealestatetaxes.html

This a table for resident and non-resident total property taxes per $100 for every town in Vermont. Be lucky you don't live in towns like Middlebury.
http://www.vermontproperty.com/newsltr/2005effectivetaxrates.pdf

Lostone
09-13-2006, 08:58 PM
Thanx, SRO for that link. Interesting reading there.

Remembering that the reason for the property tax increases is that the Vermont Supreme Court said that previous system was unfair to a lot of children in the whole state, in that certain kids could get a first rate education with a very low tax rate, while others would have to have a much higher tax rate to get the same level, I think the way they chose to solve it works fairly well.

Nobody likes to be taxed, but, although the rate has increased, I don't really think the actual present rate is out of line. In other areas of the state, the rate has decreased.

What are the thoughts of alternatives? Do you think there is a better way to get the bills paid? Do you think Warren (or whereever) is spending too much money? On what?

I read people saying that they think people owning a second home should be taxed less, due to the fact that they use less resources. (School, and part time use of other aspects.) I don't know anywhere that is so, and I also believe a lot of it has to do with the fact that they can't vote, where the second home is.

Let's look at it another way. Agreed... nobody comes here for a low tax rate. Step outside and look around. Take a deep breath. That's why you are here. And the puny extra $.09... is nothing.

But if you know of an easier, or more fair way to pay the bills, or bills for things that we don't need, it would be interesting to see them.

But try to go light on the politics, as we are skirting a line, with this thread. Forums that get into political discussions can tend to get unruly. We'd like to keep this a light forum where everyone feels they're welcome. :wink:

smootharc
09-14-2006, 08:16 AM
And the puny extra $.09... is nothing.

...as I thought Act 68 taxed non-residents at $1.51 and residents at $1.02. For the school only (not municipal) part of a tax bill, it was my understanding the the resident vs. non-resident differential was substantial.

If it all nets out to just the $.09 "premium", then I've been working under an erroneous assumption (imagine that !).


With regard to political commentary and this site descending into anarchy....I hereby officially retract my "Storm the Bastille" comment. And all plans for a Non-Resident's Warren Tea Party where we throw scones and latte's wrapped in our tax bills into the Mad River have been scrapped..... :wink:

Lostone
09-14-2006, 08:30 AM
And all plans for a Non-Resident's Warren Tea Party where we throw scones and latte's wrapped in our tax bills into the Mad River have been scrapped..... :wink:

GREAT!!! :x Now I have to buy my own scones! :roll: :wink: