|
It takes a politician with boldness or someone very unwise to oppose a state constitutional amendment that was approved 87% to 13% by the voters; however, I oppose. This was about allowing spouses of soldiers killed in action to be exempt from property taxes. ‘Tug on the heart strings’ legislation usually leads to bad results.
My opposition is not that we should not give a benefit, my objection is that we should give the benefit in a better way. This amendment is structured poorly. |
Linked
|
|
|
First, no one has more sympathy for military families that lose a loved one than I do. However, there are significant problems in the structure of the proposed help.
|
|
If it is warranted, and I believe it is, that we, through government, pay for life insurance for those in the military to an appropriate level, then that is the proper way to benefit the spouse of those killed in action. Having extra life insurance for those killed while on duty is very appropriate.
|
|
|
The problem with the structure
First, this puts the burden mostly on city revenue because that is where the property tax is collected. Second, this is only for certain veterans, why not all? Is a spouse of a soldier killed in training any less deserving? It is almost always problematic for politicians to segregate who deserves the right to benefits.
|
|
Third, this complicates the tax code which is already overwhelmingly complicated. Forth, to receive a benefit, the spouse must own a home, thus discriminating against those that wish to rent. Some spouses that are financially struggling, need the help the most and cannot afford or it is unwise to own a home. This also gives more significant benefits to wealthier widows because on average, they own more expensive homes.
|
|
|
Fifth, exemptions must, to collect the same tax revenue, increase the tax rate. Sixth, this gives a much more significant benefit to those already wealthier, because more expensive homes have more substantial property taxes to be exempted.
|
|
Seventh and the most serious, the structure creates a major remarriage penalty. The last four words are ‘and has not remarried.’ Plainly, if someone has a $4,000 a year property tax that is exempted, the act of remarriage reinstates that tax. Marriage is a great institution, a bedrock of society, and the government should never disincentive it.
|
|
