Washington Votes

2007 Senate Bill 6178 (Providing a 50% property tax deferral for households with income of $57,000 or less)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Claudia Kauffman, (D-Kent) on November 29, 2007, to establish a property tax deferment program. Households making less than fifty-seven thousand dollars per year can defer up to fifty percent of annual property tax assessment without exceeding forty percent of the claimants home equity. This program is to be administered through the County Auditor’s office and applies to taxes due and payable after April 30, 2008 .
    • Referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee on November 29, 2007.
      • Substitute offered to the Senate on November 29, 2007, to remove the requirement that the holders of a mortgage or purchase contract which requires a reserve for payment of property tax must cosgin on the declaration of deferral. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on November 29, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Cheryl Pflug, (R-Maple Valley) on November 29, 2007, to provide that homeowners must receive notice that the interest rate charged may be higher than the market rate and that the deferral will result in the state obtaining a financial interest in the property.
      • Amendment offered in the Senate on November 29, 2007. The amendment failed in the Senate by voice vote on November 29, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Linda Evans Parlette, (R-Wenatchee) on November 29, 2007, to require the Department of Revenue to conduct an analysis of deferral programs in other states of the country. A report of the findings is due to the legislature by January 20, 2008.
      • Amendment offered in the Senate on November 29, 2007. The amendment failed in the Senate by voice vote on November 29, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Don Benton, (R-Vancouver) on November 29, 2007, to provide that in determining a household's disposable income, permits a deduction for expenditures on durable medical equipment, mobility enhancing equipment, and long-term care insurance.
  • Passed in the Senate (27 to 21) on November 29, 2007, Providing a 50% property tax deferral for households with income of $57,000 or less. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Referred to the House Rules Committee on November 29, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Bailey, (R-Oak Harbor) on November 29, 2007, Eliminates the emergency clause. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on November 29, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Ed Orcutt, (R-Kalama) on November 29, 2007, Eliminates the requirement to repay deferred taxes and assessments. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on November 29, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Dan Roach, (R-Bonney Lake) on November 29, 2007. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on November 29, 2007.
  • Received in the House on November 29, 2007.
  • Passed in the House (55 to 39) on November 29, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire on November 29, 2007, to provide a 50% property tax deferral for households with income of $57,000 or less.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Claudia Kauffman, (D-Kent) on November 29, 2007. Passed in the Senate (27 to 21) on November 29, 2007. New Comment

1) Can it be paid off at any time? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 27, 2008]
If a deferral, until my SS kicks in 4 years from now, and I CAN PAY IT BACK with the tax and interest...Ok in my book. Single anyway, die at the credit limit and STUFF'em...I got it figured...(by the way, PROTEST any new Prop tax bills..based now on inflated "bubble" housing prices, which are dropping like an anchor off yer boat..)...fight back..HARD!
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Reply to Mick [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
Mick: With a Democrat majority in the legislature you can bet the only people in this state they care about are:

1. Sodomites
2. Radical Feminists
3. Radical Environmentalists
4. Union members

The rest of us are invisible and will always be invisible.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Good for the State, bad for the people [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
Once again, a Democrat introduces a bill designed to put more money in State coffers while pretending it is designed to help people with property taxes.

This bill puts a lien on the property and when the property is sold or the property owner(s) die, the state is first in line to be refunded the amount of tax deferred - with interest. The interest rate today is 7%-bad enough but that will certainly increase each year.

The bottom line is the property owner may benefit some while alive but the State benefits even more when the property is sold.

This bill is just another avenue to confiscate people's wealth which is the bottom line for Democrats.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Not a Benefit at All [by Anonymous Citizen on December 31, 2007]
The only beneficiary of this legislation is government. The property taxes are DEFERRED, and if the household can't afford the taxes now, how in the world will they be able to pay them in the future? The state has become a financial lending institution, and just like the bank, you will pay them back with interest if you do this--Or lose your property. Paying taxes by credit encourages lack of fiscal responsibility and promotes higher taxes since people "aren't paying them."
Reply New Comment

Line

5) special tax rights [by Anonymous Citizen on December 3, 2007]
Recently our legislature passed a bill Providing a 50% property tax deferral for households with income of $57,000 or less . It appears to me this is just one more band aid to a flawed overall tax structure in this state . The same democratically controlled legislature passed legislation for domestic partnerships in the name of equity .

Now with this band aid to help out over taxed middle class home owners , many of those who have just gained the right to be domestic partners , will have to choose between a civil contract which would put them over the amount allowed for tax relief , or to be treated equally under the law in other civil matters . Government policies directed at gaining votes to certain groups almost never solve the over all problem , in this case a regressive tax that hurts those of us who see their homes as a place to come home to , be with our families after a days work .

When will Olympia become concerned with all of us , instead of just some of us .

Mick Sheldon



Reply New Comment

Line

6) Could be good [by Anonymous Citizen on December 12, 2007]
I'm tired of small special interest groups complaining laws don't fit their needs. When this could benifit a much larger group. This is a financial benifit, I'm sure, and not intended to be a social benifit.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: