Pursuant to Chelmsford Laws Section 2-11 (C) the undersigned persons request the Spring, 2010 Town Meeting warrant include the following item:
Property tax paid in a calendar year shall be no larger than the amount paid in the year of the resident’s Social Security Administration retirement. No refunds will be given to those who retired in prior years.Short and simple and the author has some points in support of his Warrant Article:
- Property tax is a tax on inflation.
- The cost of running the Town does not directly relate to inflation.
- Retirees have paid property taxes through their lives. Tax has been paid directly by owners and indirectly as a rent component for rented property.
- The largest part of the Town budget is people-related: salaries and benefits for both current employees and also for retired Town employees(!).
- Retirees must pay for their benefits using already taxed money.
- Social Security Administration has frozen the retirement benefit for two years.
- Town budgets continue to increase.
- Retirees need to know how much they have to live on and it cannot be dependent on the whims of the SSA or Town budget.
One man's view and since it is Town Meeting Government he gets to put forward this Warrant, if he can get the signatures.
Regards — Cliff
9 comments:
This is a very interesting idea. Given the frequent practice of abatements to achieve similar ends, (accommodating fixed-income retirees who can't afford to pay otherwise) it makes sense from both a fairness and an equivalency standpoint. The obvious potential amendment to achieve greater support and increase the likelihood of passage might become an accumulating tax lien based on the difference, to be settled as part of an estate. This also avoids the potential to abuse the savings by transferring property to aging family members to avoid paying.
I like the idea.
The guy is onto something!! Not so sure how far it will fly though. We seem to be trapped in a national political philosophy of the haves having to "give a little bit" to the have nots.
Up here in the "wilds of New Hamster" the issue of out of control school funding costs has been a contentious issue for empty nesters. The argument made is that we've paid for our kids to use the system, and we now derive no benefit from school operation. Of course, the counter argument is that "sure you do, a good school makes a good community, and a good community makes for higher resale values of your home." The logic is a bit fractured. If I am retired and on a fixed income, I probably don't want my house to go up in value as that only invites higher taxes. It's somewhat akin to slowly driving yourself into unaffordability....a fate that has befallen many seniors up here in "Live Free and Die" (my version).
The other argument refuting the mean-spirited "my kids got theirs so yours can go pound sand" argument is that good schools benefit everyone directly by creating better citizens. (i.e. not tending toward -ences like indolence and violence, which absolutely affect the quality of life of empty-nesters who frequently become the first and favorite target for criminals looking for those who might be most vulnerable).
The "walled city" approach to public finance (i.e. then just hire more cops to through those ungrateful kids in jail) doesn't really achieve the same ends.
I like the "fairness" approach to figuring out how best to pay for things, respecting everyone's ability to pay or not pay as the case may be.
I hardly see this all as burdening "the haves" with "give a little bit", implying that "giving a little bit" must be intrinsically unfair. I see it as those who enjoyed the best standard of living in history on the backs of their parents' sacrifice to build this country up since WWII, and work to send us all to college and such, finally putting their fair share into future generations, like we have yet to really do to the same degree as those before us. (Observing the prevalence of two cars in the driveway, and high def TVs and such instead).
Let's look at the effect of such a policy change. As the savings acrue to the retirees the increasing burden (yes it still will increase, at least to the limits of Prop 2 1/2) shifts to those still working, and they are the ones who are effectively funding the social security and medicare payments for the retirees. And when overrides and debt exclusions are put to a vote, the strong block of fiscal conservatism no longer has the incentive to resist.
It is better to change the policies that continue the escalation of costs.
Well Kad, before you fling the "we" word around too freely, as I used to admonish my college students in both the marketing and the management curricula, "Analyze your audience."
I didn't get 2 master's degrees and part of a doctorate on anybody's back, nor did my wife for her master's. We paid every cent of our educational costs, and put two kids through college as well.
Second, I get very irritated when people come knocking on my "door" telling me I have to kick in for those that don't have as much as I for things like food, education, clothing....and then I see those people buying 50" flat screens, snowmobiles parked in their rental home, new cars, partying with their friends....while I conserve. And it makes me furious when I learn of things like the crack dealer kid who was shot, leaving an extended family of 16 people penniless because he was claiming them for their welfare payments....payments that total each month more than I make in half a year. Yeah....that is fair and equitable. Or the welfare and undocumented slugs that put their kids in school for free.
And for Joe, don't try to lay on a guilt trip for me sucking off the labors of those still working because I am retired an on SS/Medicare. I worked my butt off, at times doing three jobs because when I began my AF career, we didn't get paid enough to fund a family (because we got so much of our benefits "in kind"....one of the great lies). I did that from the day I graduated from HS until my retirement from the AF with 33 years.....and 12 years of work for a company while teaching undergraduate college courses so I could help MY sons with college and pay for MY graduate education. The whole time I worked all those jobs, I PAID INTO SS and Federal Taxes...that MY elders used in THEIR retirement...and I didn't whine about it because it was MY obligation to do so..not only as a citizen...but as a junior respecting my seniors.
NOW we are telling seniors that they must move on because they can't afford the rising and endless school taxes and homeowner's taxes. That is just disgusting and reprehensible to find an 86 year old woman working full time so she can keep her home of over 50 years, pay for her medical costs, and eat....all so some younger person doesn't feel slighted......and can go out and buy all the toys they want.
I am getting so tired of people telling me that what is mine is theirs....especially when their consumption of what is mine is controlled by them....not me. BS!!!!!! ENOUGH!!!
Apologies for the "we" bit. I happened to have worked my way through school, too. But, back to my point:
Better younger citizens make better lives for older citizens, and schools are a big part of the answer to that.
As for paying, I think we all agree the proposal is intriguing and deserves fair hearing. I happen to agree that an endless retirement annuity for having "worked hard all my life" sounds good, but cannot be supported if the societal resources do not exist to pay for it. Fair is fair, but what is possible is going to define what we enjoy into retirement, not what is fair.
The point Joe raises about the sheer number of retirees and the limited ability of the smaller number of younger workers to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent is important. I look at the numbers, and I am convinced that I will not enjoy Social Security into my retirement years, because the federal budget will have collapsed by then. Tough times ahead.
Yes Kad, there are tough times ahead,but I am also very tired of having people back out on promises because "times change" and yet, this country blows billions each year on absolute crap. I could care less about research on the sex life of the African tse tse fly...or why some weird tree frog isn't around any more......or sending billions to countries who don't really like us to begin with.
Charity begins in the "home" and state and federal expenditures should focus on the HUMAN need of their constituents in the HOME...and not all this tangential BS that we fund today.
If we took the money that was BLOWN on the campaign theater in the preceding years, we could fund SS and Medicare and Medicaid and Welfare for months if not years.
If we took the money that was blown on the so-called TARP, too big to fail fiasco that was used to fund even GREATER corporate largesse including bonuses for the very people who caused the failure, we could fund SS and all those other programs for a long time.
It is a matter of priorities and allocations...and as long as citizens assuage themselves with pointless platitudes and reassances that it is honorable to continue to fund a small band of corrupt government groups and those that they support, we will continue to have our pockets picked with impunity and without responsibility.
I spent my lifetiime to keep America free, not to create and maintain a world wide welfare state and corrupt priviledged class in government and industry.
It is time to move from "Yes we can" to "Just say NO!!!"
My suggestion is that we aim at the Federal Government's license to borrow and spend. Prop 2 1/2 does a great job here in Massachusetts of controlling local spending, and ensures worthwhile things get funded through open votes of the people, not the government. If half the energy complaining about this one boondoggle were invested at choking of the problem at it's source, THEN we'd be getting somewhere.
Somebody in some tea party or some other organization somewhere ought to propose a constitutional amendment cutting off the Federal Government's authority to borrow any more money, and cap it's ability to raise taxes relative to the GDP. Their mantra should be "it's not the healthcare, stupid".
Because it's not.
We could waste energy this year trying to repeal this one, only to get screwed by the next one. The only worthwhile effort is to choke off the thieves' access to tax revenue and borrowing.
Excellent point.
Post a Comment