View Full Version : heritage fund
hope all of you plan on supporting the heritage fund by voting yes in the upcoming nov. elections. if this passes it
will increase the purchase of more public lands in the mountains preventing futher development and increasing the number of available trout streams . please spread the word....... this is critical !
wet felt forever,
osprey
I agree 110%. I will VOTE YES on Nov. 3rd.
For the Heritage Fund. I urge the rest of
my fellow fisherman to please go out and
vote the very future of our planets natural
existence hinges on some of these band aid
bills.
While I'm all for increasing the number of trout streams, and have invested 25 years in helping to improve the environment, I personally can't support additional taxes as the method.
Loren
Well if it's taxes your worried about they'll
still be increased only the money will go
to more roads, etc, etc. Also it's not just
about money. It's about making a statement
that we want natural undeveloped areas. And
since money talks it looks like we will have
to pay for 'em. So you might as well put your money into something that is invaluable.
Richard
10-15-98, 12:02 AM
Spoken like a true Republican (I'm just guessing here, but sounds like the party line to me).
This is a fee on the sale of a house, which will be used to help offset the impact that developement causes to begin with- the loss of undeveloped land, which we all require- not just for fishing, but all kinds of recreation,and for clean water and air that we all need.
Develpoers in this state have had their way for too long at everyone else's expense. It's time they paid the price along with the rest of us.
And yes, the builder will tack it on to the price of the house, but an additional $100-200 built into the price is not going to scare a buyer off from a $100,000- 200,000 house.
This is a sensible plan to provide additional public lands for all of us. In this age of greed we can no longer depend on generous souls to sell land to the goverment cheap(like Smithgall Woods- Dukes Creek).
Believe it or not, there are taxes that are good for us all.
P.S.-no replies about being a liberal- I've been a Republican for some time now- I just part company with them on a few issues, the environment being one.
Richard
10-15-98, 12:06 AM
I forgot to specify- my earlier reply was in reply to Loren's post.
Add my support for Constitutional Ammendment #1. Sportsmen and women have been pulling the load, practically alone, long enough. Sure it's a tax and I don't know of many folks who like tax increases. Our state looses an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 acres of wildlife habitat each year, largely as a result of urban sprawl and land conversion. Our population is growing by an estimated 150,000/yr; thats roughly the size of Macon. The transfer tax in Georgia is one of the lowest in the nation and if raised from 1.00 to 2.00 per $1000, would create a funding source for land acquisition paid for by most citizens.
Tight Lines
Jimmy Harris
10-15-98, 08:23 AM
I, too, dislike more taxes, but the Land, Water, Wildlife & Recreation Fund is one we need to vote for. There was a recent seminar at the Carter Center on controlled growth; one of the facts presented was that metro Atlanta has grown faster than possibly any place in recorded history! Folks, that steamroller is headed toward your trout stream, I don't care how remote it is. This tax will be paid when a piece of real estate changes owners. I'm afraid that I, as a hoemowner & small businessman, have got to be willing to help offset any impact my activities will have on the environment. Georgia's transfer tax is $1/thousand; been at that level for a long, long time. South Carolina's is $3.70, Florida's is $7! There is already an organized campaign against the Fund by the professional real estate associations. To the uninformed, it's pretty easy to vote against a new tax. We all need to get the word out to vote "for" the Fund. Educate your friends & family; that steamroller is coming!
I too support the Heritage Fund. I have been
told that the passing of this bill could result in as much as $30 million generated annually, all of which would be used for the acquisition of more public lands. Of the lands acquisitioned, roughly 90% would be put under the stewardship of the DNR and 10% would go to the park system. I find it unimaginable that anyone could object to a property transfer tax increase of $1 on every $1000 when the potential gains are as great as this.
Steve D
10-15-98, 11:50 AM
Tom's right on target with his reply - the problems that this bill can help with aren't limited to the big cities. Think your favorite secret stream is "remote" think again. The little towns are getting bigger and the undeveloped land in between, even in the mountains, is shrinking. Anyone been to Hiwassee lately (the town - not the river). 14 years ago when I went to school at Young Harris College, the nearest McD's was 30 miles away in Murphy, NC. Now several of the fast food chains are represented in Hiwassee and there is at least one of the major hotel chains represented too. I realize that whats going on in Hiwassee is a "town issue" but at the same time it means that there are more people there as well and there have to be facilities (houses, stores, restaurants, or whatever) to accomodate them. IMO - $1 on $1000 is very small price to pay to preserve wildlife habitat.
If this is a tax then i'm all for it, how often do you actually get to see a postive result from your tax money? I fully support the Heritage fund.
I am ALMOST always against new taxes. But in this case I am all for it. This is exactly the approach that we should take to conservation. If preserving habitat and streams is in the public interest (and I definately think it is) then the public must be willing to pay. This is why I support the Nature Conservency - they BUY endangered habitat. In my opinion, expecting private landowners to pay for a public interest concern is wrong and immoral. If a man owns timber that turns out to be spotted owl habitat, and it's in the public interest for spotted owl habitat to be preserved, then the public should buy his timber, & not expect him to pay for the public good. That is why this is good legislation. It needs to be done for the publics interest, and it provides the way to pay. This is a legimate government fuction.
Read my lips -- no new taxes.
The average American now pays more than 50% of his/her income in the form of federal, state and local taxes and fee. Governments already have sufficent funds to provide for something like the Heritage Fund. All they have to do is make minimal cuts in some of the monster government agencies, cuts that wouldn't be missed, and they could come up with the money.
The problem is every time the government wants to do something new, the first thing they look at is increasing taxes. They ought to be looking at ways to cut the funding for other programs and reducing government spending first.
It's very easy to support a new tax when it's going to be paid for by someone else and will support our own pet project. That's good solid communist thinking...take from those who have to give to those who have not.
It's obvious that anyone who can affordt a 100,000-$200,000 home can afford to pay another $100.00 for a great cause like the Heritage Fund. Makes no difference if that house purchaser started with nothing, worked hard and saved his/her money...let's take it from them because they can afford it. Makes no difference if that house purchaser will never set foot on the land that's acquired by the fund, they can afford to help us out.
If new money really must be generated, why not increase fishing and hunting license fees
sufficently to cover the $30 million? Why not charge a small fee for using trails and floating rivers on public lands?
Oh yeah, but I don't live, vote or pay taxes in Georgia so it's really none of my business. But then, a license fee increase would hit me, too.
Hmmm...on second thought, a tax increase is probably the best idea.
Richard
10-15-98, 05:24 PM
Mr. T1,
There are several flaws in your arguements about the Heritage Fund:
1- You might be able to come up with the money one year by cutting other goverment programs, but thats no gaurantee the money will be found the next year, and the next year...
This money will be dedicated to buying public lands only and will not be held hostage by stupid politicians who will threaten not to fund a program if they don't get their way.
2- Perhaps you missed something about the details of the Heritage Fund- this is for the purchase of public lands that everyone can use, not just fishermen. The buyer of a house whose price contributed to it is as welcome to use it as anyone.
You are correct in stating it's probably none of your business since you don't live in Georgia. Those of us who live here, especially in north Ga. see whats going on all around us with the explosive growth of Atlanta and it's suburbs. What little green space is left is fast disappearing. Yet the population just keeps on growing and all these new people will need places to recreate, in addition to making sure we all have clean air and water, which we have to have to live. Already most of the Forest Sevice lands in N. Ga. are showing severe signs of abuse due to heavy usage. You can't keep squeezing more people into the same space- before long you'll probably have to start limiting the number of visitors like they do in some places out West already. I think I would prefer to be able to go when I want- wouldn't you?
The reality of the situation is that the
worlds population will double to 12 billion
by the year 2050. Imagine twice as many people as there are know. Fun. Anyway these
kinds of political votes are the future. There will be many more only if we show support for them. The worst thing is to do
nothing. Then land becomes private, developed and a hot, dry, dead parking lot.
This is the future of "wilderness" or none.
If you support non-development then at least
in the end when everyone is fighting over water and food you can say "I told you so".
I just hope I can say it now and not later.
Ken Smith
10-15-98, 07:19 PM
This is in response to Eric’s' post. I am a proud member of the "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy", and generally against any new taxes. I will be voting for the Heritage Fund, my only disagreement is with the statement that ALL of the 30 million will go to the purchasing of lands. Please name one government run program where ALL the money goes where we are told. Will be lucky if 1/3 of the money is used properly.
Ken
Lover of Trash Fish
Now folks, this is what this www is all about. Love it. Constitutional Ammendment #1,if passed, may not result in a single extra trout stream! But heck, (that's what we said at Tech in the late forties) wouldn't it be great to just preserve some space to stretch out in. We have a lot of space here in Rabun County, but I like to think there would be other places to take the pressure off. Look for cockaded woodpeckers or some ancient tortoise, I don't care. Jimmy Harris put it like it is, Atlanta is pushing ever outward in all directions. If it takes tax money to assure the space, then so be it. The money spent on fully discloseing Slick Willy and Monica's relationship would have bought a lot of rural real estate.
And to those conservative Republicans, I tell you I campaigned and voted for Barry Goldwater a long time ago, supported Nixon, Regan and Bush. Why is it you can't be conservative fiscally and still care for the environment? I simply don"t understand it
Vote YES on Ammendment #1, November 3rd.
Tight Lines!
Jimmy Harris
10-16-98, 08:07 AM
One quick thought concerning the Heritage Fund as a "tax". Most of us, as sportsmen, have never begrudged paying for licenses. Consider the Heritage Fund along those same lines; it's an opportunity for the homeowner (or mega-corporation) to mitigate the loss of that property as natural habitat. An increase in license fees, as someone suggested earlier, simply means that "we" are the ones continuing to pay for "their" impact. Why should we always be expected to step up to the plate? The most fair "tax" I can think of is the one where I pay for what I do. If I drive on public roads, I pay a tax to help build & maintain it; if I drink from a public water system & flush my toilet into a publice waste water system, I pay a tax for that privilege. Let's give all these other folks a chance to enjoy footing the bills with us. Vote for the Heritage Fund. Thanks.
Richard -- You obviously have a reading disability. I never said I was opposed to the Heritage Fund. And, in the last line I agreed that the tax increase was the best thing.
Ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,heh,heh,heh,ho,ho,ho,ho,ha,
ha,ha,hee,hee,ho,ho...uh,ha,ha,ha,ha,ho,ho,
ho,ho.
Spinner
10-17-98, 08:21 PM
spinner, I was quite surprised to read that politics came into a discussion about saving the streams on this planet..How many times have you said....I wished they spent my taxes better then they do...Wisconsin has something similar to the Heritage fund...It works quite well...Let your taxes do something worth while..Spinner
Tom Landreth, you and Kyle and the other guys at Rabun TU are all great guys, but you brought out the reason why I dropped my TU membership. I know there are conservatives in TU, and I know that at the local level, the organization does a lot of good work. But on the national level, it is nothing more than a liberal PAC. By the way Tom, it IS possible to be conservative fiscally and care about the environment. I will be the first to say that Republicans too often tow the party line rather than voting their conscience. But that's also true for Democrats. Washington was right when he said that the 2-party system would destroy our government.
What concerns me about your post (and our nation) is that our foundation has eroded. There are things more important than trout, like truth and honesty and integrity. If our leaders had more of these ideals, they would be more likely to vote conscience over politics. And so would we. Consequently, we would not have to worry about the environment, because all of us (including our leaders) would take better care of it. And that is the whole reason why "the money spent on ... Slick Willy and Monica" should be blamed not on Starr or Republicans, but on the man whose lack of character has brought this whole mess about. Mr. Landreth, I try to espouse conviction and conscience over party politics; I urge you to do the same.
By the way, those of you who think the political nature of this post should not be included in this board, you're right - but I'm not the one who brought it up.
By the way, I am planning on voting for the Heritage Fund, and I am also planning on voting for Millner
Thanks to Richard, Steve D, and Jimmy Harris for some pragmatic and level headed
responses to this post.
The Heritage Fund has my vote.
Well Speck......you make me proud to be a Georgian.......but in spite of idiots like you our nation will go on just as it has for the past 200+ years. Of course there may be no trout in GA to speak of....just concrete, condos and a Publix on the Jones Bridge ramp!! Speck.......it may be time for you to go back and brush up on your history bud.
Speck,
In spite of the name calling by others, I liked your post.
Loren
Gary,
I wonder, what about my history did you find mistaken? And by the way, I hate concrete and asphalt more than anyone. And our nation will only continue another 200 years if the Almighty allows us to wallow in self-(and nature-) worship that long. (And thanks for the support Loren)
Richard
10-19-98, 10:04 PM
Mr T1,
I think perhaps you've had a memory lapse- go back and read your original post and tell me if it sounds like you support the Heritage Fund.
If, as you say, that you did think a tax increase wasn't a bad idea after all, maybe you should have said it so it didn't come across so sarcastically.
Richard -- I reread my post before I sent it and I've reread it again. The only thing I questioned is the funding of the Heritage Fund...not the fund itself. In fact, if you kept up with what was going on, you'd know that several months ago I proposed this very type of thing as a solution to some of the vanishing land problems months ago. And, if you'll try to understand what you read, I did not even object to using tax dollars to support the fund. What I do object to is NEW tax dollars.
It seems that every time you environmental wackos get into a debate about these issues, you enter it with a closed mind. No idea is a good idea unless its your idea and the only way is YOUR way.
The environmental movement, which I actively supported 20 years ago, has become one of the greatest threats to our constitutional freedoms since our government was formed 200 years ago.
You guys could care less about the rights of others. You'd rather use your hiking boots to trample over the rights of the common people than look for solutions which benefit everyone.
When the environmental movement started taking away the right of people to work by protecting some insignificant specie of owl or snail darter or salamander, I drew the line. Every day new species are being created and old species are dieing out, mostly from natural causes. We can't save them all and we shouldn't even try--especially at the expense of mankind.
And until some plague, war, or natural disaster comes along to reduce the human population, we're gonna have to expect a natural reduction in available land for our recreational pursuits because people have to have a place to live.
And while TU takes the liberal environmental position which tends to alienate and irritate most reasonable people, Ducks Unlimited takes the conservative environmental position which attracts even the most dyed-in-the-wool redneck and convinces him/her to contribute hard-earned dollars to help purchase millions of acres of wetlands with private funds. You don't hear DU whining about having the government do it, they put their money where their mouth is and do it themselves.
It's the arrongant, elitist attitude of people like you and Erik and the other environmental wackos that have popped up on this board that turn the average guy off -- and until you get our support and respect, you'll only be minimally successful.
In fact, everytime you put on your hobnailed hiking boots and attempt to trample on the rights of others, you'll find me standing in your way. You may run over me, but sooner or later someone will join me and eventually we'll put a stop to your facist approach to environmentalism and get back to a reasonable approach anyone can live with.
Mr. T,
It seems that you have dragged me into the melee once again, so I guess I'll have to respond.
Sure, we could stand by and wait for reappropriation of funds, balancing of budgets, etc. to supply the resources needed for the Heritage fund, but how long would we be waiting? Too long I'm afraid. This fund places the monetary burden where it belongs, on the developers (as Jimmy Harris stated). It can be seen as a sort of remediation fund. Money is contributed to purchase lands elsewhere in exchange for those that are developed. Of course this added cost will be passed on to the consumer (as it always is, no matter what the situation). You say this consumer might never "set foot" on the purchased lands, and that those who use them for recreation should bear the cost in license fee increases, etc. The purchase and preservation of lands transcends recreational usage alone. Land preserved in its natural state acts as a sanctuary for plants and wildlife. It also results in a more stable environment--cleaner air, higher water quality, lower temperatures, etc.--which benefits all people (even those from Florida). "A solution that benefits all people," is what you claim to support, right. If it is in the interest of the general public to preserve lands for these reasons, why should a public fund not be used to purchase them (as stated by Tim).
I have an obligation to attend to, but I will resume my response when I return.
To be continued...
Fishface
10-20-98, 05:13 PM
Thought I might add my 2c to the Heritage fund discussion. After reading the posts by T and Erik, it seems to me the issue here is to establish the best way to fund such a program. There doesn't seem to be any argument on whether or not it's a good idea. I think some good points are made. One is that the last thing anybody wants is new taxes, whether it be on development or through increased licenses and recreational fees, and regardless of what is taxed, it eventually filters down to the average Joe. The second is that if there isn't a new tax imposed, appropriating the funds to such a program is difficult and there is no guarantee that they will be there next year. The only option left is private money, and let's face it, swamps are a lot cheaper than prime mountain and coastal real estate.
I am typically very opposed to new taxes but I believe the best way to fund the Fund is through a tax on development. I hate paying taxes but like the wildlife license plates, I don't mind paying for it when it's for something worthwhile. While I would rather not pay it, can we really afford to piddle around and try to get funds appropriated from the state? If you spend much time outdoors in Georgia you know that the answer is no. The population growth in the state is alarming and the development in the last few years is threatening to devour every tree in the state. So while I agree new taxes are no good, sometimes you just have to bite the bullet.
Continuation.
You state that the "enviornmental wackos" enter into debates with a closed mind, only willing to listen to their own opinions. This statement couldn't be further from the truth in regards to modern conservation movements. Modern conservation movements incorporate all parties with a vested interest in the problem at hand. For example, if a threatened species of fish was found living below a hydropower dam, a committee consisting of state and federal officials and researchers, conservation groups, the dam owners, and even concerned citizens would be organized to make decisions and implement policy in the situation. The views and concerns of everyone would receive equal attention. Compromise between stakeholders is the reality of modern conservation, not the irrational crusade which you depict.
True, sometimes the continued existence of an animal, forest, or watershed are upheld over the "ownership" or jobs of people, but who is to say that this world was created solely for the benefit and gain of man. Does self-awareness imply superiority? I say that it implies responsibility, and that stewardship of nature and all its components is our duty. New jobs can easily be created, but contradictory to your statement, new species are not created every day. Speciation is a complex event that takes place over thousands of years. Extinction on the other hand can take place in a relative instant. In fact, the current rate of species extinctions exceeds that of any other period in the history of our planent. And why is that? Human mediated changes, namely loss and destruction of habitat.
And by the way...could you please define "insignificant species". I feel the use of that term conveys an "arrogant, elitist attitude."
I can't comment on Ducks Unlimited, as I am unfamiliar with that organization and its goals. As for the directives of TU, perhaps you should take a second look. TU is one of the leading conservation organizations in this country, and is engaged in many of the cooperative partnerships I described earlier. I am unacquainted with the "whining" for public land purchases that you say TU so commonly engages in. As for private landowners, TU seeks to educate them about the consequences of deleterious land-use practices and the benefits of consciencious practices, not to dictate rules and regulations. Yes, TU does sometimes crusade against unsound environmental practices, like the proposed open-pit mine on the Blackfoot River, but these are cases where blatant and irreversable damage will be done. What's wrong with opposing that?
Is the right to freely pollute our streams and rivers, cut the little old growth forest which remains, and destroy the habitat of countless species of plants and animals the constitutional right you say is in jeopardy. What's unreasonable here? I say that the right to take a stand, voice an opinion, and evoke change are the only rights in jeopardy. These are the rights that greedy, close-minded, and uneducated individuals like yourself seek to deny to those that care about the fate of this world and all of its inhabitants.
Read the headlines, the environmental views of the public at large are changing for the better--you even seem to be in the minority on this board. So crawl back under your rock or stand in our way. These hiking boots are made for walking!
Wow! It's hard work passing one's self off as a communist and a facist; and a wacko to boot. Hope the name calling subsides and just sane, thoughtful dialogue, regardless of the viewpoint, continues.
See you at the polls - Right?
I wish to issue an apology for the name calling which my last post ended with, but I do not apologize for the overall message. In the future, I'll keep everything above the belt.
Erik -- I suppose you and Richard are products of the "new" education -- you can't read. You blather on and on about how wonderful the Heritage Fund is when I have NOT opposed it at all.
Earlier, you blathered on and on about C&R but refused to respond to my suggestion that if a stream is so marginal as to require C&R, it should be closed totally.
I've sat in on some of those sessions where balanced input is requested and seen rooms of people packed with environmentalists. I've seen local county commission meetings packed with out-of-state environmentalists who attempt to block legitimate planning and zoning changes requested by local people.
I've watched PETA representatives picket elementary schools in an attempt to convince small children to tell their dads that fishing is wrong and that "fish have feelings, too."
I personally blocked an effort by a pro-environment group to misrepresent a survey to a meeting of county commissioners. The survey was sent to 5000 people and received 25 replies. This group would have, if I had not been present, presented a report to the county commission stating that "Of those who responded X% felt this way and Y% thought this way with no reference to the fact that only 25 people (mostly group members) of the 5,000 surveyed responded.
It's this kind of dishonesty in reporting information that typifies today's environmental movement.
I've watched while some environmental group thousands of miles away attempts to classify a certain kind of salamander an endangered specie and block development in a county where already two-thirds of the land in the county is protected because it is in national forest. This is a county which is in desparate need of an industrial tax base simply to provide basic services like roads, and police and fire protection.
I've watched as clean industry attempts to locate in a zoned industrial park and is turned away because of unreasonable permitting requirements and protests by a handfull of environmentalists at a permit hearing.
I've listened in appreciation to my Congressman as he tells me and others that
that Al Gore's signature on a ridiculous global warming treaty will not be ratified because it punishes the U.S. businessman and allows other nations to use the products practices that the U.S. is prohibited from using.
I cry when I hear about the little old woman who had hoped to sell her family ranch to help pay for her retirement and found that sale blocked and devalued by environmentalists because it harbored some small endangered specie or sat on a "wetland."
I've seen environmentalists block the development of private land because it sat upon a "wetland" that was only wet after an extremely heavy rain.
I've seen first hand the enormous waste in government because of inefficiency, featherbedding and patronage--waste that if controlled would far exceed the small amount required by the Heritage Fund.
And then I keep hearing that the government ought to do this and ought to do that. If the government does it, "we" all pay the price. But it's easier to let the government do it but each time they do, we give up a few of our rights. Soon there won't be any left.
Erik, Richard, et all -- suggest we move this discussion to the environmental thread and get off the general topics board.
Ken Smith
10-20-98, 07:18 PM
In response to Mr T and Specks post.
Keep up the fight. I agree 100% with you guys. I am so tired of being labeled anti-environmental just because I am a conservative. You don't have to be an environmentalist wacko to love the mountains and the sport of fishing and hunting.
Ken
Mr. T,
It seems to be your reading comprehension that has failed. I never insinuated that you were opposed to the Heritage Fund, but instead addressed the issue which you yourself raised--source for the funding of the amendment. Any other "blathering", was merely a direct response to false or uninformed statements made by you.
As others resent being labled anti-environmental because of conservative views (though I don't know who applied this label, not me), I and others don't understand the environmental "wacko" label which you (plural) have applied to us. Strong beliefs and informed views do not denote insanity or radicalism. Though I once accepted this label with pride, I now feel you should reserve it for the truly radical environmental groups, such as PETA and Greenpeace, which I am not affiliated with in any way.
As for your narrative of environmental "injustices", you seem to present either extreme cases or one-sided depictions, none of which deserve a response.
In any event, this thread truly has diverged from its original course. For further discussion, including yet another response to your C/R non-proposal, turn to the environmental issues forum (per your request).
Hats off to you Erik!!! With all the misinformation coming from Mr. Tand others it is very reassuring to get your input on this board!! Stewardship seems to be the missing link from all the posts submitted by T and other so-called conservatives. However, I do appreciate T's viewpoints on this board as well.......keeps us on our toes and makes us aware of just how far some individuals will go to make sure man has complete and total dominion over nature which means continued loss of habitat and wildlife
Yeah, Gary and just what misinformation is that?
I stated an opinion that the Heritage Fund ought to be funded from existing tax dollars rather than new tax dollars. Is that disinformation? Don't think so -- just an opinion.
I stated an opinion that I believe streams should be closed to fishing altogether rather than imposing C&R on them. Which does more to protect the fishery, C&R where some fish can be injured and die for the sport of the fisherman or no fishing at all? Disinformation? Don't think so. But no one can deny that closing a stream will protect the fishery. All C&R does is allow you guys who fish for sport an opportunity do that, it doesn't do anything to improve the fishery. Is fishing for sport and potentially harming the fish good for the fishery? Do all C&R fish survive after they've been released? Don't think so. If they die, what was the purpose?
Remember: "Fish have feelings too."
Bob Beck
10-22-98, 03:03 PM
More information about the Heritage Fund:
Only 8% of Georgia's land base is under some type of conservation protection and less than 1% is under state protection as parks or recreation areas.
Georgia is ranked 13th among the 16 Southeastern sates for land in public ownership.
Georgia's human population is growing by more than 150,000 each year, roughly the size of Macon.
Georgia loses 100,000 - 200,000 acres of wildlife habitat each year, largely as a result of urban sprawl and land conversion.
Georgia's real estate transfer tax is among the lowest in the country. Florida's real estate tax is $7 per $1,000 and South Carolina's is $3.70 per $1,000.
And, Georgia has a state income tax... Florida doesn't. Georgia's personal property tax is higher than Florida's and Georgia has an intangible tax that affects a much broader base of people than does Florida's and Florida's intangible tax is about to be abolished.
I almost hate to restart the fire on this thread but I have not heard anyone mention these important points:
1. It will be funded by an increase in the real estate transfer tax, ie. from $1.00 to $2.00 per $100,000 which is paid by the seller when a property is sold. So basically it adds $100 per $100,000. If you are not selling a house, it DOES NOT AFFECT YOU AT ALL FISCALLY.
2. It is a 4-YEAR TRIAL! If if four years we don't like the results we can not approve it for additional time.
As per the video - we only have three choices here!
1. Vote for the fund.
2. Find other ways to protect our resources.
3. Lose our resources.
I really think it is that simple.
Aaron
You go Aaron! We all have to take responsibility for what is happening to our land and resources, this fund is the best way CURRENTLY to do that. Time is NOT on our side in this issue. We all need to do what we can.
FlygURL
10-28-98, 07:31 PM
Ok, so if you are STILL undecided, tune into the Clark Howard show, Thursday, October 29 from 5pm-6pm. He will be taking calls and discussing the Heritage Bill.
Hey, if Clark is for it...
Chances are that I will be in the buy/sell housing market within the next 6 mos to a year, I have no problem spending an extra few to ensure that some of our resources are not turned into wastelands as metro Atlanta has.
KB
Fishface
10-29-98, 03:20 PM
In light of all the discussion, I would like to know if anyone can tell me where I might find an actual written copy of the proposed heritage fund(bill). The discussion here is on the tax on real estate sales. At lunch today someone suggested, or rather accused, the bill contained other hidden agendas. If there is a copy out there somewhere it might do us all some good to read the real thing.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.