Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Unfair taxation

June 15, 2013

I have one question. I’m sure a lot of other retirees who own property want to know the same answer....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(46)

JustSomeGuy

Jun-15-13 4:22 AM

Quick simple answer for you. We all pay school taxes because we all benefit from living in an educated society, no matter what age we are.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jun-15-13 4:31 AM

"Reliefers". There's a term from the past I haven't heard in years.

But getting past the usual diatribe against welfare and who should pay to educate our children, I happen to agree with the writer.

I think the property tax system is an unfair way to fund schools. Seniors who bought their homes years ago for a few thousand dollars and have paid it off and maintained it for years are being unfairly burdened by a tax based on an arbitrary perceived value of the home today. The same house in a different town, or even a different neighborhood, can be assessed at greatly different values. I can live in an old run down shack and make $100k per year and my retired neighbor can live in a nicely maintained home and live on only his social security and he can be assessed at 3 or more times what I am assessed at. It should be based on income, not the perceived value of the home you live in.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Jun-15-13 6:20 AM

It is not just those without children that are unfairly impacted.

If two families live in homes that are valued the same, but one is a family with two children and the other is a family with six children, both are paying the same school tax.

In other words, the family with two is actually paying for four children and the family with six is only paying for four.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Jun-15-13 7:15 AM

Shouldn't people with more than 1 child be made to pay an "impact fee"?

O'boy, did I actually say that?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jun-15-13 7:19 AM

We all benefitted from education, well we are all suppose to but from reading this letter and some of the posts it apparently did not take.

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

Jun-15-13 7:29 AM

When you think about it, look what you pay for daycare before they are old enough for school. Going rate these days is what? $75-100 a week? Compare that to 40 weeks per year they are in school= $3000-$4000.Not such a bad deal, considering your kids are being educated and most peoples school taxes aren't quite that high.Parents are saving considerably at the expense of those who don't have kids.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jun-15-13 7:30 AM

This letter made me feel sad.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Garben78

Jun-15-13 7:47 AM

Lol we live in a educated society ? Really?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

Jun-15-13 8:19 AM

I don't mind paying school taxes as my grands are all school age. Their education is important to me.I would appreciate it if it were more affordable. I also think for what it costs us, the quality could improve.I have said before, there are alot of basic things that are not taught anymore.I don't think kids come out of school prepared for adulthood, jobs, life.I feel there's lots of room for improvement.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 8:31 AM

" Why do we have to pay school taxes when we don't have kids in school?"

I have to pay and don't have any kids in school. There are LOTS of people who are single, childless, or who have adult children that pay school tax.

A more important question might be why do I have to pay taxes for a federal Office of Faith Based Initiatives?

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-15-13 8:32 AM

"This letter made me feel sad." - JerryfromRI

*

I can only guess that long-term investing has become another o' those "evils" that Wall $treet has "sold" to the 'Baggers; via The Axis Of Ignorance (FAUX Noise, Porky Limbaugh, NY Post).

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-15-13 8:35 AM

"I don't think kids come out of school prepared for adulthood, jobs, life." - Tgrammiex4

*

...But, if there's a market where test-taking is the end-product, they should do REALLY-well!!!!!!

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Jun-15-13 8:53 AM

"Why do we have to pay school taxes when we don't have kids in school?"--Mrs. Betty Records

+++

Our society sees a value in education as being beneficial to an overall improvement to our lives and well being; therefore the burden of paying for it is not just put on those with children of school age. We all get to pay because we all receive benefits, directly or indirectly for the duration of our lives.

Maybe the bigger question is why do you elect to start receiving disbursements from the social security system when you turn 65. When SS was first started, the average age until death was ~67-68 yrs old. So people only took their entitlement for a couple of years. The death tables now show the average death age is 78 yrs old so why do you want to receive benefits for ~13 years when generations past only received them for 2-3 years?

When we point one finger at other people, we have three pointing back.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jun-15-13 9:05 AM

I hate it when people complain about government freebies in one sentence and then in the next complain that they aren't getting them. If you can't afford medical insurance then don't retire. If you can't afford food, then don't retire. I understand that people feel entitled to Social Security, but if it's not enough to live on, and you haven't saved anything else, then don't retire. I agree that people should not live off the government, but I also think that pertains to people who've "worked hard all my life." If you're retired, then you have quit working hard and you haven't worked hard all your life, just the forty-some years in the middle. All I'm saying is that if you don't think people should live off the government, then don't!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jun-15-13 9:07 AM

Why should we pay for the public system if we chose private school and paid tuition. Our "educated" group from High School is not the majority. Some kids do fine. These kids would do fine in a one room school house.I think everyone should pay something but using homeowners as the checkbook is ridiculous. Anyone know if any statistics exist on number of students at WAHS who live in a non-rental property?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jun-15-13 9:08 AM

Sham,"...But, if there's a market where test-taking is the end-product, they should do REALLY-well!!!!!!"

In real life, everything is a test. Unfortunately, we have taught people that you don't have to pass the test to get by.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jun-15-13 9:12 AM

I believe the author has conveniently forgotten that her kids benefitted from a public education paid for, in part, by those without children and by businesses who have no children in the school. Property taxes are an inherently unfair way to fund such things, but how do we move from a property tax system to another? And what type of taxation system would be best? Public education can be wonderful, and it can be bad and so how do you not only fund it but at the same time make it accountable (without throwing more and more money down a rabbit hole)?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jun-15-13 9:15 AM

spike2,"Anyone know if any statistics exist on number of students at WAHS who live in a non-rental property?"

Are you under the delusion that only homeowners pay property tax? Would it surprise you to learn that renters pay more property taxes than homeowners? They do, because homeowners can get reduced property taxes while landlords cannot. The property tax has to be covered by the rent and therefore, renters pay more property tax. Doesn't sound fair, does it? It isn't, but our politicians know that most people will never figure it out, so they go ahead and tax renters more, and then they take income taxes from renters and use them to help home buyers pay the interest on their mortgages. Another ploy that most people will never catch on to. THINK

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cheyenne

Jun-15-13 9:25 AM

While people who rent do not pay school property taxes directly, the owner of the property being rented does, and compensates for it in the rental fee. So, in a sense, renters are also contributing, just not directly. On a side note, what happened to the significant relief from this tax burden we were promised when the state-run casinos were opened? My relief only amounts to approx. 8%.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jun-15-13 11:34 AM

Why should I have to pay taxes to pay for prisons if I am not incarcerated.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 11:40 AM

" On a side note, what happened to the significant relief from this tax burden we were promised when the state-run casinos were opened?"

First, I'm pretty sure that was before the federal govt threw huge No Child Left Behind, and REAL ID Act costs on the states.

Second, I wasn't aware there were state run casinos.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 11:42 AM

" Why should I have to pay taxes to pay for prisons if I am not incarcerated."

Comment of the day.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cheyenne

Jun-15-13 12:49 PM

Excuse me, Hayes. That should have been state authorized, not state-run, by Act 71, whose major objective was to deliver a significant source of revenue for property tax relief. Obviously, the significant portion went elsewhere.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-15-13 1:28 PM

" Obviously, the significant portion went elsewhere."

Sure it did. As I pointed out, it went to cover NCLB, and what the state rightly felt at the time would be a significant outlay for the REAL ID Act, that was so ridiculous,that it was essentially just walked away from by the Feds.

I suppose it would be fair to assume that the gambling revenue prevented these other factors from increasing your taxes considerably. Is that a "tax cut"? Not really, but its not an increase either.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cheyenne

Jun-15-13 2:03 PM

Correct me if I'm mistaken(and I know you will), didn't someone propose broadening the sales tax a few years back as a means to possibly eliminate property taxes? I'm thinking it may have been State Rep. Cappelli, but I could be mistaken. Curious to know what other's thoughts are on that idea.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 46 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web