CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Update on Proposition
2½ Senior Override Exclusion
Yes, we understand that cities and towns are
struggling to pay the bills - and many seniors are struggling to
keep up with property taxes. But this is little more than an attempt
to stack the deck and the Senate should reject it.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Don’t ease path to big tax hikes
State Rep. Ruth Balser, D-Newton, sponsor of a
bill that would let local communities exempt senior citizens from
the impact of Proposition 2½ overrides, says it is "a way to help
elderly homeowners."
Don't believe it. The bill, which may go before the House today, is
just using senior citizens as cover. It is not about helping elderly
homeowners. It is about making it easier for cities and towns to
raise property taxes . . .
The Eagle-Tribune
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Bill is about raising taxes, not helping seniors
By Taylor Armerding
Barbara Anderson's CLT Commentary
State Rep. Brad Jones, the
minority party leader, sent me the new text of H.2840, and the
roll call
vote that passed it in the House late Wednesday night. Note that all
the Republicans voted with us, along with some of the "old-timer"
Democrats who remember the Prop 2½ battles of the ‘80s – and a few
others. The
bill is in third reading and will be coming back to the House for
enactment after school vacation week; then it will go to the Senate.
[The
Balser Amendment.]
In the past a similar bill was killed in the Senate;
another got through but was vetoed by the Republican governor. We
probably don’t have that back-up now – though if necessary I will call
the governor’s office. Our first attempt here will be to contact the
House members who voted Yes to get them to change their vote (slim to 0
chance), then to try to stop it in the Senate (slightly better chance).
The bill has been filed by Rep. Balser to aid
Newton’s Mayor Cohen in getting a a debt exclusion override for his $200
million Taj Mahal high school. But it not a home rule bill; all
communities will be able to accept it, and give an abatement to
qualified senior citizens of the override amount. The goal is to get
seniors to stay home instead of going to the polls to vote No. This is
not a theory; proponents have publicly admitted it.
If a community accepts this, the seniors will get an
abatement for the amount of the override, at least until the town
decided to reverse that abatement; then they will get a very big
unexpected tax increase. In the meantime, every other property taxpayer
will have to pay for the override, plus the seniors’ share.
Seniors are eligible, at least temporarily, for the
abatement if their income is not in excess of $60,000 and the real
estate tax exceeds 10% of that income. A town treasurer tells us that
this would be" a logistical nightmare to implement, with a lot of
unneeded work to justify it. You would have to keep two sets of books -
one for what the senior would pay and one for what the new owner would
pay if the senior sold the house - since that would have to get
readjusted after a sale, for example."
No one has thought this through. They just want the
overrides to pass, especially for Newton’s mayor Cohen, a former House
member.
We are asking you to call/email your state rep and
senator sometime before Monday, February 25, thanking a House member who
voted no, asking for a No vote from the others and your Senator. We are
attaching the bill, the roll call, and our memo to the House before the
vote.
 |
|
Barbara Anderson |
The Boston Herald
Tuesday,
February 19, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
Don’t ease path to
big tax hikes
House lawmakers have found a nifty way to make
it easier for Massachusetts cities and towns to raise property taxes.
Dangling an exemption before elderly homeowners might encourage them to
vote in favor of a Proposition 2½ override - or not bother voting at
all.
Yes, we understand that cities and towns are struggling to
pay the bills - and many seniors are struggling to keep up with property
taxes. But this is little more than an attempt to stack the deck and the
Senate should reject it.
The House bill would give communities
the option of making low- and moderate-income seniors exempt from any
property tax increase associated with a Prop 2 override.
So if a
community - oh, let’s just pick Newton out of the hat - decides to build
a $186 million high school, then asks property owners to vote in favor
of a separate tax hike to balance the municipal side of the budget,
elderly residents who are income-eligible would be exempt from the
ensuing tax increase. Did we mention this bill is sponsored by Rep. Ruth
Balser (D-Newton)?
On the one hand, we appreciate the idea of
protecting seniors who may be property-rich but cash-poor, living on
fixed incomes in homes built or purchased a generation ago.
But
we’d be shocked if that were the only result of this legislation. In
many communities it is those residents alone who keep an eye on the
town’s bottom line and are holding back a flood of tax hikes for Taj
Mahal schools and fat union contracts.
And what about the other
residents - the young families, the municipal employees - who are having
just as much trouble meeting their quarterly tax payments? Not only do
they get no relief - but their burden would actually grow because of the
elderly exemption.
This bill will look marvelous on those
campaign mailers that land in the mailboxes of elderly voters in the
coming months. And it will give municipal officials a smoother path to
an infusion of cash. But as Rep. Mary Rogeness (R-Longmeadow) put it, it
is “representation without taxation.” It is bad policy and it ought to
be stopped.
The Eagle-Tribune
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Bill is about raising taxes, not
helping seniors
By Taylor Armerding
State Rep. Ruth
Balser, D-Newton, sponsor of a bill that would let local communities
exempt senior citizens from the impact of Proposition 2½ overrides,
says it is "a way to help elderly homeowners."
Don't believe
it. The bill, which may go before the House today, is just using
senior citizens as cover. It is not about helping elderly
homeowners. It is about making it easier for cities and towns to
raise property taxes — coincidentally the very thing that Gov. Deval
Patrick claimed would decrease if he was elected.
Of course
some elderly homeowners need property tax relief. But the reality
that Balser and others want to hide is that relief is already
available — there are multiple ways for seniors to cut their
property tax bills or to get help paying them.
Seniors with
low incomes can qualify for abatements. Seniors who have suffered
the "misfortune" of a vast increase in their property value can take
out home equity loans or reverse mortgages to help them pay their
property taxes without being forced out of their homes. While that
would decrease the value of an asset to their heirs, it is not the
responsibility of taxpayers to subsidize the inheritances of others.
Another reality that the so-called "advocates" of senior
citizens try to hide is that while there are obviously poor seniors,
they are, as an age group, better off financially than younger
people. They have more discretionary income. Why is it that elders
are the ones who buy the bulk of state Lottery tickets, and are the
majority of those on the buses to Foxwoods and other casinos?
If anybody needs a tax break, it is younger homeowners — those
working two jobs, with three or four kids and college costs looming,
who are taking effective pay cuts every year because their health
insurance and energy costs are spiking and who are struggling to put
aside a few bucks for their own retirement.
In short,
everybody — not just seniors — needs tax relief. Property owners of
all ages are being crushed by tax increases that are increasingly
used to fund lavish pay, benefit and pension packages for unionized
public employees. And state legislators have shown no willingness to
resist the insatiable demands of the unions.
But political
leaders know that elderly citizens tend to vote in larger
percentages than younger voters — in large measure because they have
more time. They are not working or shuttling the kids from one
practice to another. The focus of this bill is to "buy off" those
seniors — bribe them with an incentive to stay home when a
Proposition 2½ override is on the ballot.
Don't be fooled.
This is not about helping seniors. It is about hurting everybody but
government employees.
Call your representative and senator
and tell them this is a vote you will remember.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|