After one final, intense wave of summer slacking, it occurred to me that Election Day is less than 2 months away. I figured it was time to see what happened with the property tax issue while I was goofing off this summer.

I attended State Rep. David Orentlicher's recent property tax forum at North United Methodist Church. I quickly concluded that Rep. Orentlicher spent a lot less time sitting by the pool sipping fruity beverages this summer than I did.

At the well-attended meeting, Orentlicher laid out the first draft of the proposal he intends to take with him when the General Assembly reconvenes. He compared three different scenarios-the elimination of property taxes, a statewide flat rate system, and a tax redistribution.

You can find all the details on Orentlicher's Website at www.in.gov/r86. In short, his idea, based on actual collections and projections by the non-partisan state Legislative Services Agency, reduced the reliance on property taxes while increasing income and sales taxes, and reduced spending. Orentlicher's goal was to come up with a system that could be implemented as soon as possible.

His plan also took into account economic realities like the law of diminishing returns; i.e., if you raise sales tax X percent, the taxes collected won't increase proportionally because people will buy fewer goods.

Orentlicher's stated goal was to float his ideas and collect people's thoughts on them, so that he could take into consideration the wants and needs of his constituents.

Everyone was interested. Most seemed to genuinely appreciate Orentlicher's efforts. However, a surprising number of the residents seemed unwilling to accept anything short of a complete elimination of property taxes.

The LSA has run the numbers and found that to replace property tax with a 50-50 split of income and sales taxes, sales tax would have to increase to 9.5 percent (higher here in Marion County where we're partially funding Lucas Oil Stadium with our sales taxes), and income tax would jump to 6 percent (again, not including County Optional Income Tax).

Not for the first time, I marveled at the ability of an elected official to be diplomatic.

One gentleman thought it was unfair that under Orentlicher's proposal, someone making $150,000 would pay more total tax, including property, sales and income taxes, than someone making $68,000.

Seriously?

Another posited that once someone pays off his or her mortgage, the government shouldn't be able to take the house away because of unpaid property taxes. I'm all for something that eases the tax burden on the elderly, but does that mean a person shouldn't continue to pay for the fire, police, trash, etc. services for that house? Does a person's obligation to help fund public education disappear with the mortgage?

Some people leaned toward an amendment to the State Constitution, with sentiments like, "Even if this passes, what is there to ensure the property tax situation won't eventually get back to where it is now?"

What I heard was, "I don't want to have to pay attention every single year to what my elected officials are doing."

Kudos to everyone there who stood up and gave their honest opinion. But are we really all that selfish?

Now that I'm out of my summer mental slumber, I'm looking forward to the Great Property Tax Debate, scheduled for Oct. 24, 2007, at North United Methodist Church at 38th Street and Meridian. There, experts on all sides of the issue will weigh in with their thoughts, pro and con, on property taxes. I'm hoping to hear the diversity of opinions that I know our neighborhood holds.