Tax cuts for some, miniature American flags for others…
Several low income households stand to benefit from a targeted tax break…
Some of Howard County's oldest homeowners could see the metropolitan area's most generous property tax cut - a reduction of 25 percent for those 70 or older with incomes of under $75,000 a year - if a proposal by two County Council members proves as irresistible this election year as they predict.So, as property assessments have risen dramatically over the last few years, senior homeowners on fixed incomes have had trouble keeping up with their increasing tax bills. And since they don’t have children in the school system – our county’s largest financial obligation – mitigating incentives to move through a tax break helps slow the growth of our student population. That, and is it really fair to ask people on fixed incomes to subsidize the education of other people’s children?
The bill, allowed under legislation unanimously approved by the General Assembly this year, goes farther than measures enacted this spring by Baltimore and Carroll counties, which slightly expanded credits offered under the state's homeowner's tax credit program for low-income families.
If approved by the five-member Howard County Council, the proposal unveiled yesterday would freeze the lowered property tax bills for older homeowners until the home is sold.
On the whole, it seems like a good idea. The county’s current “circuit breaker” tax deferral program for low-income seniors places a lien on the property, which many people likely want to avoid, and it requires repayment of the deferred taxes when the property is sold, meaning families may lose a home that’s been passed down for generations. When this measure passed last year, however, actual tax breaks, rather than defferals, for seniors were not legal under state law.
My only real concern, which is in reality a much broader concern about taxes in general, is our penchant for carving up the tax code for certain groups. To be sure, the power of the tax code and the benefit of tax breaks can be used for good, but eventually we’ll cross a point where the whole thing is too complicated, too fragmented. We lose a bit of fairness with every each additional targeted tax break.
But what about the timing of this proposal? After all, Democrats on the council have taken a lot of heat -- particularly from Councilman and bill sponsor Charlie Feaga -- for having the nerve to do their jobs during an election year. Yet, here they (mostly) resist the urge to follow suit and instead express support for this Republican-led proposal.
"I think it's ironic that every piece of legislation we've introduced this year Feaga has called a political stunt; however, I don't care where or when a concept comes from. If it helps people and it's affordable, I'll support it," said Democrat Guy Guzzone.I’m glad to see the Democrats supporting this; but, how could they not, especially if it's price tag -- $2 million -- is reasonable?
Ulman said that "it sounds interesting. Clearly, I believe we ought to be helping seniors on a fixed income when we can."
4 comments:
Tom, I agree with you 100%. I have written the same thing on comp-lite on my blog, and the same about the zoning legislation, and testified to county council on the same, and when confronted by Feaga on another issue I confronted him on comp-lite. I will go a step further. He is doing Wayne Livesay a disservice by coaching Livesay to support comp-lite and oppose COPE.
Was the tax cut politically motivated? I don't know. I am willing to go along and say SURE.
As I wrote before. As far as politcially motivated legislation "They don't get much better than this." This is good legislation. The zoning bills were window dressing for a huge comp-lite fiasco.
Tom: Thanks for your thoughts. A couple points:
1. Comp Lite was a legislative process, meaning the Council acting as the Council was in charge of the process, meaning that the Zoning Board had nothing to do with it. That Ulman was the Zoning Board chairman is irrelevant.
2. It is your belief that the process was illegal. Others agree with you. However, legality is not in the eye of the beholder. Until or unless someone charged with interpreting our laws -- i.e. a judge -- rules that the Comp Lite process was illegal, simply saying it was will not make it so. And I find it hard to believe that the county's Office of Law would really allow the council to proceed with something knowing that it wouldn't stand a legal test. I've read the charter and Keelan's take on the issue, and I'm not convinced that claims of illegality hold any weight. If Comp Lite was patently illegal, why did those opposed to it focus on a voter referendum to overturn the legislation rather than challenge the entire package in court?
Mary: Should I have said layperson rather than beholder? Regardless of your thoughts on judges, in our system of government they are the only ones charged with interpreting the law. You and I can call something illegal until we're blue in the face, but unless a judge with jurisdiction agrees with us, we'd be wrong.
Mary: Sheesh, I go a day without posting and you send out the search party. I'd say I was busy today, but that's not going to suffice, I know.
Anyway, I wrote something today (with pictures!) but pulled it on account of lameness. Maybe I'll put it up tomorrow. For now, though, I'm off to watch a couple episodes of The Wire.
Post a Comment