Letter to the Editor: Proposition 1 sounds good but would be harmful

Dear Editor,

Proposition 1 sounds great on paper. Who doesn’t want to pay less tax?

We have already seen the 25% residential tax cut passed by the legislature. People who own their own houses have saved money on their taxes, as have the people who own rental property, but I am sure they reduced the rent to their tenants.

We have also seen cuts to schools, libraries, search and rescue, senior centers, medical care, cemeteries, etc.

Now the goal of Proposition 1 is to cut taxes on homeowners to 50%. Great for the homeowners. (Full disclosure; I benefit as I own my home.)

But even the legislators pushing for those tax cuts admit other taxes are needed to make up for these cuts. They have quietly mentioned sales tax on groceries, prescription drugs, agricultural supplies and increasing the sales tax.

I was puzzled by this. Why substitute more sales tax for less property tax. Who benefits? What is the difference?

The benefit is to homeowners, and I’d bet a couple nickels that a large portion of the legislature will take advantage and some of those homes are probably nice homes with high taxes (looking at you Jackson, Cody, Sheridan, etc.).

The real difference is that the majority of property tax is under the local control of your county and city officials. Most sales tax is controlled by the legislature in Cheyenne.

So, they figure, “Why should we let those local yokels decide how they want to spend their tax money when we can do that for them, right here in Cheyenne?” And Proposition 1 is their path forward.

The rationale I have been given by a couple of these legislators is that we must cut property tax because there are some widows, living on Social Security, who cannot afford the increasing taxes and will be forced to sell their houses. I agree, this is a problem, and it should be addressed.

Their solution is a major cut in property tax for every homeowner. But not for anyone who does not own their home; anyone who rents, who lives with family, is in senior living, who gets housing as part of their pay. But those people will be asked to pay the increased sales tax.

Their solution does not pass the BS test. If those widows are the real problem, then pass a law that any person who has lived in their primary residence for over three years and reaches 65 will have their property tax frozen for as long as they live in that residence. I expect a law like that would solve the problem with much less disruption to local services and probably not require taxing groceries, drugs and agriculture supplies.

So, I’m right back to my original conclusion. Proposition 1 is just an excuse for our state legislature to try to get more control over tax revenue and shortchange our local governments. And possibly save themselves a few dollars on the way.

Steve Helburn

Greybull