Retirees and seniors working to pay taxes

Great Debates
61

Good question. Much “seniors’ accomodation” in BC is public, or at least partially publicly funded. Some private nursing homes get so much per bed from the government, private operations are seen as money saving.

Many seniors’ lives intersect the public realm when they require some level of assisted living. (There are those who can afford completely private care, of course.) Since there is government funding, bureaucrats get involved, social workers, etc. And that is the point at which the “policy” becomes more important than the person, often enough.

If an elder (lordy how I hate that word but it beats “senior” or “old person”, I guess) requires housing, she is put on a list and when her name comes up she is required to take that accomodation or lose her place, even if that accomodation is hundreds of miles from her family and friends, including her spouse if she has one. There are also countless instances of couples being separated in the care facilities.

It may be argued that these people should have provided better for their old age. It may also be argued that it’s not “our” problem, that we have no obligation to care for elders.

But in Canada, at least, we have, as a society, undertaken the responsibility of aiding the elderly, our social contract includes such care. Governments are awfully good at taking on these contracts but famously poor at fulfilling them in the spirit intended. Bureaucracy grows while compassion fades.

I feel a chill when discussing it, to be honest. My own mother is well-off and so far needs no care, at 83 she is a marvel of health and strength. I am technically not quite a senior citizen, at 63 I get the senior’s rate at the movies but don’t get the Old Age Pension which all Canadians get at age 65. My own old age is RIGHT there, though, that cold shadow at my shoulder. At what point will I lose my autonomy and enter that public stream?

As for “ageism”: a lot of people don’t experience racism themselves, or sexism, or homophobia, or any of those other nasty “isms” and that’s a good thing for them. But unless you die young, you’re going to get old. It’s one “ism” that waits for everyone and it’s no fun at all.

62

Your location changes the nature of the discussion but it illustrates my point. As governments increase the level of social intervention there is a corresponding increase in taxes. It’s a viscous cycle. Municipalities that offer private social security investments in place of tax funded programs provide greater financial freedom for retirees.

It would be an interesting research project for you to go back over the tax rates your mother was obligated to versus what you’ve had to pay and see how much it contributed to her wealth.

63

I think it’s great that public resources in your area are devoted to housing and caring for old people. Under the circumstances, though, it seems a bit of an overstatement to claim that "few things are seen as worthless and undeserving of consideration in our present culture as an old person, particularly an old woman. "

I think age discrimination affects just about everyone. Try being a 21 year old man who is trying to get a hold released that the bank put on a deposit he made.

64

It wouldn’t really prove much in my case, since my husband and I are farmers and subject to a different property tax structure. But it’s an interesting idea.

I think the biggest tax difference is in Income Tax - if my husband and I were working for wages somewhere we’d pay a lot more in income tax than my dad did in the 50’s and 60’s. Although my Dad was a union man and had an excellent pension scheme that now benefits my Mum, about half my Mum’s income comes from the sale of their land – and since it was their* principal residence* there was no capital gains tax on the proceeds. When my mother dies, when everyone in her generation dies, the resulting transfer of wealth will be the largest in history. I daresay it will be same in the USA. They were a generation of savers, and who is, nowadays?

“Tax freedom” day is around the beginning of July in Canada, I think. Whereas before WW II it was in January. Not sure, and will try to find it when I have time.

65

Well, I used to be a 21 year old woman and remember quite clearly what that was like – I was 21 in an era where the word “sexism” hadn’t been coined.

“Age discrimination” against young men may well exist, but no one assumes you’re senile, helpless, and frail.

However, this is wandering away from the topic and I don’t want to be seen as an Osgiliator when I’m so new to the forum.

66

Sure. They assume you are irresponsible, untrustworthy, and crime-prone. :slight_smile:

67

Oh, please. How lame. You can’t or won’t answer the question so you obsfucate.

You said it was more economically efficient for a family to occupy a 4 bedroom house rather than one retiree. I said that 3 of the 4 bedrooms would most likely be filled with children who cost the state a lot more than they or their parents put in. This is, after all, why taxes have gone up so dramatically in Westchester. Please explain how this is incorrect. If you can’t or won’t, just say so

Nope, not a strawman for either. It is what you said.

"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."
“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.”

"By “incumbents,” I mean homeowners who have been homeowners for a while. For example, the hypothetical guy who bought his house in 1955 and who pays very low property taxes.

“In general, policies that protect incumbents have the potential to make life worse for newcomers.”

"It’s not a question of entitlement. The main point is that from an economic perspective, it’s more efficient if a 4 bedroom house in Westchester is occupied by a young family than a 75 year old retiree.

“The secondary point is that if you change public policy to protect incumbents, you run a risk of making life worse for newcomers.”

“Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Even if you leave the current policy alone, life is pretty difficult for newcomers.”

I wasn’t arguing about the current tax setup. Where did I say was? I was talking solely about Westchester which is a huge blip in the radar compared to the rest of the country. And even in Westchester, I’m not complaining about the tax set-up.

That said, there are workable solutions to the article in OP. The current tax structure would essentially remain the same and retirees would not see their property taxes go up when the parents next door decide the school needs a new swimming pool. I would prefer this.

If that can’t implemented then she obviously has to move. But for you or anyone else to whine about this woman’s lifestyle choice when she most likely will have to move because of other people’s lifestyle choices makes you a hypocrite.

I’ve said all of this before. Why do you keep ignoring what I’ve said?

I have zero interest in your house. I assumed you lived in Westchester or NYC but now I’ve changed my mind. I’m guessing Long Island, or maybe Staten Island now the people out there are usually crude enough and have the piss-poor manners to brag about their net worth at the first opportunity.

And you’re the one whining about strawman arguments? What a hypocrite.

68

Leave the personal attacks for the BBQ Pit.

This might be borderline, but it is not necessary.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

69

That wouldn’t be the same structure. That would be one in which retirees get to opt out of paying for what they don’t use , regardless of how wealthy they are. So everybody gets to do that, right? I can opt of of paying the portion of my taxes that go to pay for those over 65 getting half-fare on public transportation regardless of income? And the part that pays for a retiree’s nursing home care while the healthy spouse doesn’t have to sell the house or give up assets? And of course those of us (non-retirees) without children in public schools wouldn’t have to pay the taxes that go toward schools.

The woman chose to live in a place which raises revenue through property tax and which spends a lot of money on its schools. She no doubt thought it was fine for retirees to contribute when she was one of the parents who thought the school needed something. She could have lived in an area so full of retirees that school funding issues never pass ( or one like this ) Now, even though she has an asset worth over $500,000, I’m supposed to feel sorry for her because she can’t afford to pay the property taxes and might have to sell her home - when nobody would have any sympathy if it were a 40 year old trying to keep a paid-off half-million dollar house on an income of $620/month. ( How she can pay for food, electricity, heat,transportation and everything else on $620/month is beyond me, so I don’t think the taxes are nearly her only problem)

70

Having lived in a town with relatively high taxes, I suspect the true reason property taxes are high in Westchester is that enough people living there are willing to vote themselves higher taxes for better schools or whatever. Education there is not fundamentally different from other counties. Now, places with good schools often have higher property values, so the woman in question is likely benefiting from the higher taxes - though she won’t be able to cash in until she sells the house (or gets a reverse mortgage.)

BTW, since brazil84 is telling the New Yorkers “whining” about not being able to afford a house to move, I don’t see what your point is.

Finally, as a Bay Area resident, a $500K house in Westchester is considered expensive? It is to laugh.

Or cry.

71

It’s not that you are incorrect, it’s that you are missing the point. The cost to society of educating 2 or 3 children is basically irrelevant to the economic efficiency of the situation because those costs will have to be paid regardless of where those children live.

In my last post, I asked you a simple yes or no question, which you completely ignored: Do you agree that generally speaking, it’s more efficient to allocate a scarce resource to an actor who will make full use of that resource as opposed to an actor who will make limited use of that same resource?

As I said before, it appears to me that you do not understand the concept of economic efficiency and therefore do not understand the point that I made.

Why should we spend time arguing over the efficiency of a situation when you don’t even understand what “efficiency” actually means?

72

No it’s not.

Lolol. You gotta be kidding me. You raised the issue of my personal situation by insisting that my arguments are informed mainly because of envy of Ms. Davison’s house. When I start to present evidence that you are wrong, then all of a sudden I am bragging? GMAB.

73

Does anyone else see the irony in having a person who can’t pay their taxes get a state job, whose pay is presumably, funded by taxes?

74

In essence, isn’t it like the cliche of the 1930s diner patron who can’t pay his check, so they make him wash dishes for a few hours?

75

nevermind.