Iowa's property tax debate should put everything on the table.
So far, the signs aren't good
With Iowa’s 2025 state legislative session just days away, talk of cutting property taxes is all the rage.
Republicans who run state government say it’s time to rein in property taxes, and this year it looks like they’re serious.
Most Iowans would welcome a property tax cut. Who doesn’t want their taxes cut, right?
We don’t know what these changes might look like, but GOP leaders are emphasizing that “everything is on the table.”
I hope they mean that.
Iowa’s property tax system is hopelessly complex. And in this article, I’ll cite just two things that ought to come under the microscope if lawmakers are serious about taking a comprehensive look at property taxes in this state.
First, they should take a close look at the apparent disparity between rich and poor households.
As I wrote last April:
Multiple studies have shown that the owners of expensive houses in the US pay lower effective property taxes than the people who live in more modest places. One large study, by a University of Chicago researcher, said the lowest priced homes had an effective tax rate more than double that of the highest priced houses. A later study by an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia put the difference at about 50%. Still, the basic premise is the same: The wealthy get a break at the expense of the rest of us.
In Iowa, State Auditor Rob Sand released a report last year that said people who are living in higher income areas across the state had a lower property tax burden than the people living in places where the incomes were lower.
According to the Iowa Capital Dispatch, Sand’s report said that “every $1,000 increase in an area’s median household income is associated with a 10.6 cent decline in overall property tax rate.”
That doesn’t seem fair. But so far, I haven’t seen much, if any, attention being given to this issue by GOP leaders.
I think Iowans want lower taxes, but they also want a property tax system that is fair.
Iowans also want good local services, and property taxes pay for many of those services, like police officers, firefighters and librarians.
This leads to the second point: Critics say local governments are spending too much money to provide these services. But one thing to keep in mind is many of these services are mandated by the state legislature. Just as lawmakers can constrain the ability of local governments to raise money, they also can force them to perform costly functions.
Last year, the Iowa State Association of Counties estimated that, depending on how a mandate is defined, 33% to 67% of county budgets are taken up by state requirements.
Take marriage licenses. These licenses are provided at county courthouses, and Johnson County estimated that in 2020 a $35 license cost it $13 to process. However, the county says it only got to keep $4 of the total fee, while the rest was sent to the state.
Another example: Scott County houses the local office of the state Department of Health and Human Services. Last year, the county estimated the cost at nearly $700,000.
These are but two examples of state mandates. In 2005, the Iowa State Association of Counties estimated there were nearly 1,300 mandates on counties in the Iowa Code.
Some of these mandates make perfect sense to me. For example, there should be a uniformity of law enforcement across the state. Still, I don’t know that all of these mandates make sense.
I also don’t know if the state is doing its fair share to shoulder the burden of the requirements they impose on local governments. But if everything is on the table, it seems to me that lawmakers ought to take a close look at this question just as they should examine the fairness of the state’s property tax system as it applies to rich and poor areas.
After all, if everything on the table, that should mean everything.
Top Iowa Republicans snub the blue
Monday was the 4th anniversary of the Jan. 6th, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. But you could hardly tell it by Iowa’s congressional delegation.
All day I checked their major sources for providing information to the public; their Twitter (X) feeds and congressional websites for any mention of the anniversary—anything that would honor the men and women who acted to protect their lives on the day of the assault.
I found nothing.
Monday, of course, was the day that Donald Trump’s election as president was certified, and our all-GOP delegation dutifully celebrated that event on social media and on their websites.
I understand why Republicans would want to celebrate their win. Yet, they should also have publicly recognized the events of four years ago, especially the sacrifices of the 140 police officers who were injured, as well as those who died in the aftermath of the assault.
Four years ago, Chuck Grassley certainly realized the gravity and horror of the attack.
Just two weeks afterward, in the pages of the Quad-City Times, he wrote these words:
“On Jan. 6, 2021, our nation’s most sacred civic space came under siege, overtaken by a security breach at the U.S. Capitol. … For the next few hours, I watched in disbelief as images of a disgraceful, violent insurrection overwhelmed law enforcement, disrupted the people’s business and led to five lives lost.”
Yet, on Jan. 6, 2025, I saw no public mention of that day by Iowa Republicans in Congress.
It’s possible they mentioned it at some point during the day, but I have seen no evidence of it.
I understand that Republicans don’t see the Jan. 6th attack the same way many other Americans do. But the sacrifices of the US Capitol Police and other law enforcement who stood in the way of the Trump mob on that day is worth publicly and prominently remembering.
Some occasions are more important than politics, even if recognizing it does political damage to your party and its leader.
Consider the Taliban attack that killed 13 U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan as we withdrew from that war-torn country in 2021. There is no doubt this massacre was a political disaster for President Joe Biden, just as it was a terrible tragedy for this country. Many analysts recognize it as the beginning of the Biden presidency’s fall in the eyes of the public.
Yet, Biden doesn’t duck this anniversary. He doesn’t fail to recognize the 13 servicemembers who gave their lives in the service of this country on each anniversary. Even as he knows any reminder is sure to damage him politically and tarnish his legacy.
In 2022, Biden publicly praised the “bravery and selflessness” of these servicemembers.
He also issued statements recognizing them in 2023, and in 2024, too.
This is as it should be.
There is no doubt the Jan. 6th attack has become a point of political division in this country. And frankly, it will be a continuing struggle for historians and the news media to fight back against MAGA attempts to whitewash, or simply lie about, what happened that day.
Still, it shouldn’t be controversial for the men and women of Congress to recognize the service of the police officers who protected them on that day. At the very least, they should prominently and publicly say, “thank you.”
Along the Mississippi is a proud member of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. Please check out the work of my colleagues and consider subscribing. Also, the collaborative partners with the Iowa Capital Dispatch, which provides hard-hitting news along with selected commentary by members of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. Please consider making a donation to support its work, too.
Trump was the cause of the disaster in Afghanistan. The treaty he signed with the Taliban required the U.S. to withdraw so many troops that the remaining troops could no longer defend themselves. As a result they were required to withdraw.
Hi Ed,
With regard to property taxes, I'm perplexed as to how local taxes are different for rich vs. poor households. The rate is the same for all properties; the actual tax calculation is a function of rate (same for all) times the value (per individual property). That said, the "burden" of the taxes paid may represent a higher proportion of any one individual's household budget. This is true of all expenses.
If the studies looked at taxes and fees imposed then one would have to uphold the notion that costs for say, garbage removal, should be disproportionately assessed to those economically more fortunate. The cost to remove garbage from the rich is the same as the cost to remove garbage from the poor. Some may assert that removing garbage from poor neighborhoods is actually more costly but that's a conversation for another day; let's not talk trash here.
I believe the word of caution is being careful what one asks for. Having lived in a number of communities and experienced the level of service provided, I'll say that Iowa has a track record of providing top-notch service for the money paid. When I moved to Colorado I was shocked at the annual tax on my home. It was 1/2 of what I paid in Bettendorf. As time went on I understood why.
Put it all on the table but carve judiciously.