My comments last night re: Louisville ended up being off-base; the Louisville City Council tabled the idea of rescinding their property tax rebate for seniors until June. In the Daily Camera today, coverage of the meeting quotes Councilman Ron Sackett: "I'm sympathetic to the senior citizens, but I also think they reap the benefits of living in Louisville, and to operate a sound financial program here, we need to be fair to all people and share in the sacrifices."
Is that such as dramatic position? Is it poor policy to look at a strained budget and make choices? If I lived in Louisville I wouldn't be able to take advantage of the rebate. Since I don't, I'm just commenting as an observer. This rebate seems gratuitous, the kind of pork we all condemn on a national level as irresponsible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Is it any secret that government is used as a tool for the redistribution of wealth? That could be a lengthy topic indeed.
The real discernment process here is to sort out social policy from pure special interest legislation. As I noted last night, in my view, most benefits for retirees in this nation are justified, as a general proposition, by social policy.
So I don't agree that the $38,000 annual tab for Louisville's program is purely gratuitous. Is it so overwhelmingly needed that we should consider copying the program in all the East BoCo communities? I'm not convinced of that either.
Really, if a municipality has cause to be concerned about a $38,000 shortfall, it's probably time to look at the overall mill levy.
But, lest this become a blog on Western Hemisphere global politics, maybe it's best not to speculate what's going to happen when the upcoming retirement of the baby boom hits these entitlement programs. I hear your message, Dan, but do you really want to tackle the issue? It seems that we, as a nation, don't even know where to start.
It is going to cost a lot, though I reject the notion that any retirement benefit is "pork."
I question the property tax rebate as being a "retirement benefit". First I challenge it because this specific program does not base its handouts on the requirement that a person actually worked a job for 40 years and is therefore in a state of retirement deserving of society's gratitude. Secondly, even if it did, I would question the premise of providing a property tax break to anyone simply because they are of a certain age and worked a job. What if you don't own?
If I met a person who receives the break I'm sure I could sympathize with them personally and wouldn't want to take away their check. But I'm arguing public/budgetary policy here. I just don't see the correlation between the stated qualifications for the rebate, the amount of the rebate and any particular activity other than owning property. There doesn't appear to be any association with hardship, incenting a behavioral choice or requiring certain activity. That redistribution then appears to be "pork".
The quote in the article from a resident saying Louisville's program benefits renters confuses me. I don't know how a homestead mill levy exemption/rebate could be applied to rent. I'll check that out.
Giving a property tax break to seniors is worth it. Only the people who really find it helpful will probably apply for $100 anyway.
Giving a property tax break to seniors is worth it. Only the people who really find it helpful will probably apply for $100 anyway.
Louisville wants to save $30,000 by cutting the senior program but wants to spend $30,000 on starting a doomed for failure "Buy Louisville gift card" program!
Post a Comment