An elderly lady that I knew had a reverse mortgage. It really confused her. One day it stopped paying her, property taxes had gone up significantly and she couldn’t afford to pay them. Her tiny, old house was slated to be sold at a tax sale. No children, deceased husband, rather senile. I don’t have a clue what she would have done. I guess it was fortunate for her that she died before it happened. She told me all this soon before she died, she was very proud and didn’t want anyone’s help, but I was trying to figure out how to help her.
Just move, lady, from the tiny, beat up old house that you lived in for decades, the place that you can actually remember where everything is. We gotta keep jacking up your taxes so you can pay for a gazillion school administrators, bigger and fancier facilities, more computers, pre-K for everyone else’s kids…even though you had none and were educated in a one room schoolhouse. We’re building mega bike paths that you’ll never use, many billions in transportation costs to places you’ll never go, and trying to install safe injection sites that will attract more drug dealers and gangs. We have our priorities, we are going to spend, spend, spend, and if you can’t afford the massive tax increases, you’re out on the street.
Is this really what we want for our senior citizens?
My reaction to your response to me was that by implication it seems to me you were saying I have no need for the elderly, think the sooner they die the better society will be, etc. I have said no such things.
Why should I propose a solution? For me to do that I would have to first believe there is a problem that requires one. I don’t. At least not in the context of this being an issue that I think lands high enough on a long list of existing problems to be addressed government.
Now if local/state governments want to enact some type of relief for retired people (or anyone else for that matter) in terms of tax obligations, have at it. But given a chance to vote on such a measure, I would vote no. If that makes me cold hearted, so be it.
Chinese investors have been buying US real estate for decades. So that is nothing new and certainly nothing that requires a trip to your locale to understand. And I am sure this will be viewed as cold hearted (so be it) but the vast majority of the people in the US do not live in areas which are viewed as attractive investment opportunities for foreign investors so I wouldn’t expect much sympathy here. You have to take the good with the bad. Wanting tax abatements strikes me as wanting to take the good and socialize the bad. Again if people are willing to agree to that so be it. But I wouldn’t expect them to be so willing. Maybe that makes them all cold hearted.
Where I live, when you hit a certain age you no longer have to pay school taxes. Our homeowner taxes went down by 70%. I felt guilty for about a millisecond, but since I paid the county school taxes for many decades, both as a single and married person and we did not use the public school system for our kids (but we paid for it), the opportunity to discontinue paying the school tax is available to us and we chose to do it. We paid our fair share. Sure, the school system could probably use the additional funds. But. like @sherpa said, its perfectly legal, and … there is nothing sinister about following the law.
Sorry, I did mean more than $10k. Yes, I know there are other states with property taxes at this level. So me and my single neighbors who cannot live with this uncertainty better just get out of our less than 1000 square foot houses as we don’t deserve to stay in them as they appreciate. What share is equitable? 25% of retirement income to property taxes is too little? I am talking homeowners who have just held on to being middle class.
To return to the college analogy, you can be sitting on a pile of money tied up in retirement accounts, non cash assets and real estate, have a moderate income, and get financial aid. As long as it is a nonprofile school and unless something has changed markedly in the past few years.
Jym, it was your situation I was thinking of. I do think it is unfortunate for local schools. But I bet you have more elderly people able to stay in their houses in your area.
You know, Seattle used to be cheap. Back in the days of, “Will the last person leaving Seattle — Turn out the lights”, my parents bought their house in a now hot neighborhood for $15K. People often can’t control whether their little plot of land becomes highly priced, and just because it does, doesn’t mean the state/city/county has the right to jack up the taxes to a ridiculously high price. One thing has nothing to do with the other, if everyone’s property increases highly in value, it’s still the same pot of people they are collecting from. The problem is not increasing values, it’s increasing uncontrolled spending. And being forced to move to a cheaper area of the country when you’re old and senile, because legislators can’t control themselves from spending other people’s money is not right.
@“great lakes mom” - I dont think I ever mentioned this tax benefit here before. I could be wrong, but I didn’t think I had. Oh well.
Interestingly, many “elderly people” don’t stay in their houses. Many move to smaller homes, or ones with master on the main. Many downsize. Many move to condos. Can’t speak to all parts of the county, but were I am, the public schools are strong (though yes, we didnt use them). Would love to live closer to our kids, but its hard to have to pay those ridiculous property taxes on the other coast.
The benefit of the d/c of the school taxes is that the seniors have a choice- to stay in their home or to move ITs comforting, not feeling forced into a decision for financial reasons.
“The problem is not increasing values, it’s increasing uncontrolled spending. And being forced to move to a cheaper area of the country when you’re old and senile, because legislators can’t control themselves from spending other people’s money is not right.”
Exactly. The mill rate I mentioned early. Seems like the solution is to fight that and elect people that will keep spending somewhat steady, as opposed to expecting others to pay your share of the burden.
@dragonmom Please go back and read what I said. Seems to me if you are going to use quotes, they should actually be quotes. I never said “nothing new for decades.”
As for my county, this tax break at a certain age may be one reason why its a popular county to live in. Though in truth I had no clue about this benefit when I first bought in it as a single person. And I don’t know if realtors mention it to young couples, as probably few think that far ahead.
Sounds easy enough. The problem is, those who are receiving the bulk of the benefits and those who are paying for most of the benefits are not the same people. It may be a different story with a grotesque increase in taxes coming up. People might start to reconsider.
At some point, all of us had kids in local school and others, at that time, were shouldering some of that burden. It takes a village and all. You don’t get to take when it is convenient and not pay when it no longer suits your needs.
It’s not that I’m unsympathetic to rising property taxes and the impact it has. I just don’t see where it is fair - or even healthy for a community - to make some people pay more because they are younger, currently working, or have 2 incomes.
Married couples with dual incomes already pay more in income taxes - the marriage penalty. Property taxes are paid on property not income.
Will be interesting to see if the tax law changes with respect to state and local tax deductions will impact views of state and local taxes. To date the only thing I have seen are states looking at ways to change taxes so the deductibility remains.
Actually…no, we didn’t all have kids in local schools. My kids were in private schools, so I paid for that, plus the local taxes. And not all of my neighbors had kids, or kids in public schools. I’m not big on anyone paying high property taxes. It can be harder for a young family to pay taxes than it can for an elderly couple with a paid off mortgage to pay taxes. But this is a retirement thread, hence the references to retirees.
The problem is that many in charge are not practicing fiscal responsibility. Many of them are appointed or hired, not elected, and even the elected officials can’t always be connected to who is spending what. It’s just so easy to spend other people’s money, and difficult to figure out who is doing it. People often vote for things, not realizing the implications…and if the majority gets it passed, it affects everyone, even those who didn’t vote for it.
I’m happy to pay my property taxes here in my suburban Seattle city because it gets us well-regarded schools, which enhance the community, etc.
We don’t have an income tax, so our pensions and 401K withdrawals won’t be taxed.
There are so many things that go into the cost of living in any area and it is difficult for the elderly to pick up and move. Part of our retirement planning has to be determining where we’ll end up and how home equity will self-fund any late-in-life assisted living or nursing care.
We are fortunate that we’ve been able to fund retirement savings as well as accumulating defined-benefit pensions. Another study showing 55% of adults have no retirement savings out this week.
The tough thing tax-wise in WA is how the property taxes will change as a result of McCleary n the next couple of years
Not everyone sends their kids to the public schools. Yet they pay the public school tax. Year after year. They take care of their village. And they pay for their own child/childrens’ education elsewhere.
“Is this really what we want for our senior citizens?”
No, it isn’t. So what should we do? Exempt people from property taxes once they reach a certain age? And then, should it be universal or do we “means test” it? And then what do we do when the affluent elderly devise gifting/trust strategies to appear poor enough to get the tax exemption?
“Actually…no, we didn’t all have kids in local schools.”
Your choice though, of course. It was an option you had. For part of my kids’ education I made that same option. But that is moot to the discussion of letting seniors get a break, IMO. You buy into a community under the understanding you contribute to the local tax burden.
“But this is a retirement thread, hence the references to retirees.”
Sure. But when multiple people are throwing out a “solution” as being a cap or break to retirees, others of us are stating our issues with the unfairness of that to those who aren’t retirees. Yup, it sucks but the answer is to find a way to rein it in not just kick it over to someone else struggling as well. Yes, I’m sure it is easier said than done.