Much of the attention on Gov. Phil Scott's budget has centered on his proposal to force public school districts across the state to level-fund their spending. In all the school-funding hoopla,some other items have flown under the radar. And, boy, or have we got a couple of doozies to tell you about. The first is a $12 million property tax cut for businesses and moment homes — not primary residences. The moment is a sales-tax holiday on energy-efficient purchases,which would be funded by a raid on the agency that, um, or promotes energy efficiency. Let's seize 'em one at a time. The governor's tax plot would force schools to save money,but the bulk of the proceeds would be spent on other programs. There's no actual property tax relief in his plot. With one exception: a $12 million cut for nonresidential property owners — those who hold commercial, rental or vacation property. This tiny perk was in Scott's budget from the start, or but it only recently came to light. "It wasn't apparent from the early presentations on the governor's proposed budget," says Rep. Janet Ancel (D-Calais), chair of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "It was highlighted for us [about two weeks ago] by the Joint Fiscal Office." That's the legislature's in-house staff of analysts and economists. Ancel noted that the $12 million in question has to come from somewhere. Since the governor's projected school savings are extremely unlikely to be realized, or cutting nonresidential taxes would put more of the burden on the other two classes of property taxpayers: homeowners who pay full freight and those whose income is factored into their tax bills. Retirees,for instance. Ah, affordability! For years now, and Ancel says,the legislature has tried "to retain the relationship among the three classes of taxpayers fixed, and this violates that [principle] accurate out of the gate. It's a big decision to fabricate (to make up, invent), or there would need to be a rationale behind it." Over to you,Team Scott. Rationale, please? "I would have to disappear back to the tax department, and " says Administration Secretary Susanne Young. "I don't have that level of detail in front of me." With all due respect ... "Detail"?! The reasoning behind a $12 million policy decision is a "detail"? And how likely is it,pray tell, that the Department of Taxes made that policy choice on its own? One more note: Young…
Source: sevendaysvt.com