Generational warfare
My town is having an election in early May that has become quite the scandal. The hubbub is due to a ballot initiative to freeze property taxes on citizens over 65 years of age.
When I heard about this proposal, I was immediately opposed. Since then I have learned this is a trend all over the country and already in place for many taxes in our area. Furthermore, I have been shocked by the friends and family all for it despite their conservative desire for personal accountability.
I think this issue is a microcosm of endemic bad thinking in America right now. And, to prove this is not generational war and selfish greed, I will have a compromise proposal.
So here are the arguments I have heard to give this preferential tax treatment to the elderly:
1. Its not that much money (and we can afford it). Even if you believe this, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. If we don't need the taxes, let's drop them slightly for everyone. The key issue is how we allocate burdens and should we give preferential treatment to a class of citizens?
2. It allows older people to plan. Since their ability to work is diminished, older people do have a reasonable case when it comes to fluctuating burdens. The problem with this logic is the old slippery slope. Isn't this true with almost all costs? Utility prices change radically. Food prices change. Income tax rates change. Should we exempt older people from all these headwinds? Shouldn't planning for retirement include some contingency for cost of living changes?
3. We can't just kick people out of their homes. First off, this is rarely the issue and generally used for dramatic purposes. Second, are we as a country prepared to make living in the home you want a right? Not any home, but the one you want? Is stopping the move from a house to an apartment a public policy issue that really needs to be prioritized? I simply think this is a right that does not exist and as a society we simply can't afford.
4. They don't use the services as much as younger people. Well, this one is just not true. The only key service it can be applied to is schools, but that is such false thinking. Not only do they likely have grandkids in these schools, the purpose of education is not micro, it is macro. The safety of their community and the development of the economy, depends on strong education. Saying they don't benefit from it is simply insulting.
Those are the most pronounced arguments I have heard for this initiative. All pretty weak in my mind. So, let me tell you the main reasons I am opposed.
1. We are sending a signal not to plan. We are just leaving an era of the most pronounced irresponsibility in our history. And, here we are sending a message that if you plan poorly for retirement, we will make concessions to help out. We have to send my generation an edict that saving is critical if you want to maintain your lifestyle in retirement. This does the opposite.
2. Old people are no more deserving than others. What about families with handicapped children? Or families whose breadwinner just got laid off? Or families who have been hit with expensive health issues that are forcing them to leave the neighborhood? These are all everyday realities for people just as deserving of special treatment. My wife (the nice one in the family) says help them all. While that is nice, we simply can't afford to and it is not how our system works.
The truth is these measures keep passing because older people are organized and vote. While I say vote NO on all these measures, I have a compromise should they pass. Have them expire in 10 years. The truth is the current generation of older folks are being hit with an economic crisis and have not planned for it (as a generalization, I admit), so let's help them. But, let's not let bad policy become a right and expectation.
UPDATE: The initiative failed. No freeze for those over 65. Vote was within 1%.
