What do we think of this? Apparently some senior citizens who have trouble paying rising property taxes are asked to work for it.
I have no opinion on the fiscal aspects. But to me it sounds really mean-spirited. For chrissakes, are we going to abandon the idea of retirement altogether?
One common solution is that an older, retired person living in a large house in a high tax area like Westchester County will sell the house, reap all those years of appreciation, and move to a less expensive area or a smaller residence.
The other advantage is that this will make the house available to a younger family where one or both parents is still working and works in Manhattan or White Plains.
Of course the disadvantage is that the old person has to move from his or her home. That’s a downer, but it’s not a terrible tragedy.
They can also get a reverse mortgage.
They are making the choice to continue living in a Million $ home, why should we subsidize that choice?
The other problem is that in the case of the OP (hey, dude, please cut and paste some relevant parargraphs when giving a cite, willya?) they are living in a county with just about the highest Property Taxes in the nation. That’s what the voters seem to want, why should we care?
$12000 a YEAR in property tax?
Either the property taxes are insanely high or the lady is living in a really, really expensive house. And if she chooses to live in a big, expensive house, that’s her choice.
This sounds bad, I realize, but there’s a bit of a disconnect somewhere in a story about a retiree living in an exceptionally pricey house but having an income of just $620 a month. A person should, for the most part, be responsible for their own retirement. Social Security’s not SUPPOSED to pay for a big house. If you invested all your money into your house, well, that’s where your money is.
The problem, if you want to call it that, is that the property tax burden is allocated based on relative property values, which may not be the fairest way.
That’s very common out here in CA, even with Prop 13. Senior Citizens, though, would not be paying that unless they recently bought their house.
The problem is that many people bought their houses decades ago, when they were worth only a fraction of what they are now. Saying it’s their decision to stay is, while true, rather beside the point. Do we really want to, as a matter of social policy, kick the elderly out of their homes because real estate prices have gone thru the roof? Rather, we should look at a way of taxing people that is less arbitrary. Just because your house is worth more doesn’t mean you’re sucking more services from the government.
Who in that story has a million dollar home?
I would have no problem at all with a system that allowed the elderly to receive substantial reductions on their property taxes so long as they met a number of conditions, like limited income, the value of the home being within some reasonable range, perhaps health could be a factor, too. In fact, sounds like a great idea to me.
But I think the county telling seniors to get a job is really rude. For some reason, and I’ll admit this makes no sense, my first thought is, well, if they can’t afford the house, let’s run them out so they’ll have to sell it… but tell them to get a job? How dare you! Let’s be polite to the old people here!
I can’t figure out the logic of that, but it is what my gut is telling me.
The town (not the county) is going to help them get jobs, not telling them to go out and get a job. The state determines the tax level, by and large, so the town is just trying to help out in the only way they can.
Maybe. There are a lot of young couples in the NYC area who can’t afford a house. From an economic perspective, it seems a little wasteful to have a 75 year old retired person living in a 4 bedroom house in Westchester within reasonable commuting distance of Manhattan.
I realize that sounds cruel and heartless, but still it’s worth keeping in mind that there is a huge housing shortage in the NYC area.
That’s probably more of a zoning issue, I would suspect. I’d make sure I looked at what other solutions were available before I relied on one that kicked old people out of their homes.
What do you mean by zoning?
We already are kicking old people out of their homes. The question is whether the approach to taxation should be changed to make it easier for old people to stay.
Property taxes are usually “revenue neutral”, meaning that the tax rate is set by dividing the projected budget by the total assessed value. So absolute property values should have little to do with it. I had a quick look at the Greenburg Town website and it seems that this is indeed the system they use.
I use CA comparisons. The house, with a $12,000 Prop Tax bill, would have to be worth *at least *1Mil out here. Oddly, the article does not mention how much it is worth, likely because dudes whould say things more or less like I and RickJay said.
However, all someone needs to do is tell us Winchester County Prop tax rates (2%?) and we can back figure. Still, it’s a damn nice house if the bill is $12K.
I was bored and looked up (what I think is) the house on Zillow. The Zillow estimate is $570k.
Laws that control (restrict) the building of new units.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Yes and no. Some of the tax laws were put in place without thought to what might happen when property values increase quickly. Or maybe the pols did think about it, and didn’t care. We had a tax revolt out here in CA in the '70s because of that.
I’m skeptical. The suburbs near New York City are extremely built up. Exactly what changes to the zoning laws are you proposing?
I don’t see your point.
I think that throatwarbler is correct that rising property values don’t necessarily affect tax assesments in the NYC area. At the last assesment, the assessed value of my house practically doubled, but my taxes went down.
I know that property taxes are done differently in California. I gather that incumbents are well-protected in California. As I understand things, your property taxes are based on the price you pay when you buy and there’s no reassessment. So if you bought your house in 1955, you pay a lot less in taxes than the guy across the street who bought a similar house in 2000.
Is it true that the SF Bay Area and the L.A. area are among the worst places for a young couple to be house-hunting? If so, I wonder if this is unrelated to the protection afforded incumbents.
Meaning something like a 2% rate? Sure, sounds possible.
Are you using “incumbent” as a euphemism for “homeowner”, or do you mean incumbent politicians? If you mean the former, then I agree with you somewhat – protection from property taxes gives people an incentive to not move, because they pay a property tax penalty if they do. I would guess this restricts the supply of available homes, driving up prices.
If you mean incumbent as in politicians, I have no idea what you’re on about.
Nope. Here in the Bay Area, in my neighborhood at least, there are a lot of older people who stay in big houses because moving to a smaller one would increase their property taxes a lot. Some of their houses are beginning to show signs of age, either because of financial problems or just not keeping up. Maintenance on a fairly big house can be expensive - if she can’t afford the property tax, can she afford a new roof or a new furnace?
My father-in-law, who is over 90 but in very good shape both financially and physically (and mentally) just sold the big house he had lived in for over 50 years - and is damn glad he did.
I’m for tax relief as the first line of support, but I agree with you that having big houses occupied by a single person with decreased mobility may not make a lot of sense.