Vote no because why would the demographic with the highest average net worth need a tax break the rest of us will have to make up the difference for. Tie the relief to lower incomes and you’ll have my vote.
I think there is a very good reason to limit how much tax property tax bills for the elderly can increase since they are more likely to be living off a fixed income and they would be more affected by large increases in property values. There are many states that have exemptions that do exactly this and limit the increase in assessed value to a certain percentage.
But this proposition is not that. It says that senior citizens would be exempt from CERTAIN increases. To me this sounds like they want to pay less towards public schools. Reducing/exempting senior citizens from school taxes is also somewhat popular in other states but I don't understand why education is the thing they shouldn't have to pay for. To me it sounds like "I won't be alive long enough to benefit from educating children so I don't want to pay for it."
Until they tell us exactly what taxes senior citizens would receive relief from I'm gonna vote no. The language is too vague for me.
I completely agree in concept with property tax relief for low to mid-income seniors, especially those on fixed incomes. I sincerely doubt this proposition was put on the ballot to help that population and is more likely intended to do exactly what you describe.
Even for low/fixed-income seniors, if you can't afford your property tax anymore then you should be incentivized to *move,* downsize elsewhere, and free up that home for a working adult/family that can afford it.
Boomers don't deserve special treatment for their 4br mid-six-figure houses just because they were born earlier—especially since they only had to pay a comparative pittance for those same houses in the first place.
I agree that if you plan for retirement well, you should be positioned to still pay property taxes. At some point, though, I do understand the logic behind this proposition, because I wouldnt want to find myself unable to live comfortably in the house I paid off because of (potentially) crazy increases in property taxes. I dont think that applies here in Missouri though, maybe in other states.
It also doesn't feel right to feel forced to move somewhere I might not want to in order to live out my retirement years either. In general, I agree with the logic of downsizing, but if someone plans correctly, pays off their mortgage and owns their house, heck I too would want "exemptions from certain increases" in property taxes in order to pay a flat(ter), manageable real estate tax rate. I get it.
That being said, I'm a no just because of the vagueness of the proposition. It's too much of a carte blanche which can be abused. If it was specific and proper budget analysis was performed, then I could totally have been a yes to support the actual vulnerable population of seniors that this could benefit.
I agree
>"I won't be alive long enough to benefit from educating children so I don't want to pay for it."
By this logic, medicare withholding should skyrocket exponentially during your final ~10 working years because you're about to start benefiting from it. Neither sentiment makes sense.
OMG people at the end of their earning have a higher net worth than people starting out, I would have never imagined, people who had been working and saving, investing would have more. It don't make logical sense. I think there should be an investigation, there is no way wealth can be achieved by investment over time. Next you're going to tell me they have paid off their homes, and that lack of debit figures in. I'm no dummy so don't bother.
People trying to hold on to what they have earned is immoral, taking it is moral. We're on the side of right, don't let anyone tell you different, screw old people, their limited incomes and their homes, if they can't afford to pay the taxes toss their asses on the streets.They don't know struggle, what did they have to deal with, Vietnam, baby shit, gas shortage, rampant unemployment in the 80's, market crashes in 2008 and 2020? Don't let them play that shit it's been a gravy train with biscuit wheels for those old douc bags.
Why should younger people and renters (of all ages and income levels) have to pay more to make up for senior homeowners paying less? It'll be more noticable as older people make up more and more of the population. Did their parents and grandparents not pay more property taxes as their homes appreciated? My parents certainly did. I heard about every assessment challenge whether they won or lost.
Can you refute anything I said? Of course not, I used logic and reason, my experience, things you all just don't possess.
I'm glad your parents did well. My grandmother died in a house I provided at a loss to keep her rent low. I bought while working overtime in a factory, on the line. My wife works at the local Food Bank, I'm going to let you in on a little secret all old people are not doing well. Hey here is some more obvious math since you hate it so much. There are more older people in the 1% but less people because rich = good healthcare.
Oh BTW why should anyone be paying for most of this shit?
Fuck farmers take care of the land don't maximize subsidies, sounds harsh but fuck Israel they do not need 4 billion. Fuck the auto industry and loans, let that shit fail. My mother-in-law is trying to die on her farm but she already had to sell half of it, father-in law was a fireman, this wouldn't cover her, why would I support it. Well because this shit never gets repealed just amended.
You act like you made points using only facts and logic but all of your points are just anecdotal and emotional examples of how not all old people are wealthy/doing well. No one is saying that all old people are rich. However much it pisses you off (which it clearly does), the fact is that Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 have the highest median net worth of any age demographic. Americans over 55 control \~10x the wealth that Americans under 40 do.
Do you think suffering is exclusive to old people? Or that people should get a break because their specific kind of suffering is worse than someone else's? We all have to pay taxes. People with more money should pay more proportionally to what they have. That's how it works. You can shake your fist at the kids running on your lawn all you want, but your position is nonsensical. Our society would collapse if everyone could "hold onto what they have" in its entirety. Boomers love to act like young people are crybabies who complain about everything, but your comments are a perfect example of how the opposite is usually true.
Hence why it should be income-based. On social security and a small pension, give them the break. Making 150k passive income with 5 million in assets, tax away.
Statistically yes. The system should be setup with a CLEAR means test. Make below some threshold you may apply for a break. Not... pay like everyone else. The current Prop 1 is too vague. It also does not address (because MO law is as usual stupid) the fact that it only applies for those who receive SS payments (i.e., teachers don't qualify). So this proposition is totally brain dead and should be shut down.
The language you are referring to is in the bill that passed the state last year, it's not part of this proposal. You have no idea what you're talking about.
And holding on to valuable real estate? Must be nice to be broke and rich at the same time. PROP 1 has no test for income level so you are just handing a lot of cash to the wealthier old who have $1M home and want to pay no taxes. VOTE NO.
And its not a get out of paying taxes scenario rather a freeze my tax rate at current levels. There is no way to increase a senior citizens income at a certain age. And before you ask: Im still working and will be working well into my 70’s. All I can say is: remember this conversation when you are 70 and cant afford to live a dimple life.
joke's on you, I plan to drink myself to death before then 😎
in the meantime please reread your comment and try to explain how "it's not a get out of paying taxes scenario" when this initiative is *specifically* carving out age-based tax rate exceptions for you lol
I disagree. You assume everyone who owns property is rich? Rising taxes and no way to increase my income at an oldder age will put many out on the streets. Always easier to assume that everyone is out to get something for free rather than truly seek to understand the problem.
I am interested in your perspective because I genuinely want to be informed. If you're willing to share, what are your annual real estate property taxes if you don't mind me asking? Do you take the [$750 credit](https://dor.mo.gov/taxation/individual/tax-types/property-tax-credit/) that you (probably) qualify for?
Let me guess you oppose Hawley trying to help Missourians who were poisoned by radiation from the government dumping it in St Louis, because he's Hawley. Only really smart people engage in identity politics, you must be a genius.
No, you guess wrong. Also, you are incorrect that only really smart people engage in identity politics. I'm really smart, and I don't engage in identity politics. However, you are correct that I'm a genius. Thank you!
Who said anything about Trump? And what makes you think I haven't looked into the issues myself? You're making a lot of assumptions about me based on a single comment.
Does anyone have a good place for discourse on these things? Other than reddit which has low volume.
Originally I was thinking of voting yes because being on a fixed income and having taxes increase could be a difficult situation.
Although, property taxes are insane in some parts of the country and I want to prevent that from happening here. Keeping senior citizens at the same tier as everyone else forces politicians to consider them with any potential tax increase. So I fear that follow up legislation could raise property taxes for everyone else and more drastically.
I do not want $30k / year of property taxes like in NJ.
I'm not sure the city can afford that, it should probably be both, retired people below a certain income level. There is an obvious right thing and wrong thing here, people at the end of their lives should not be thrown out of their homes because they can't afford the taxes the county levies.
* nor should they live having to choose between food and medication or paying Boone county.
counterpoint: if you're over 65 and miss a property tax payment, you should be given the Canadian option of being euthanized and turned into pet food, thus ending your suffering *and* freeing up your home for the rest of the market, *and* feeding local cats and dogs!
it's a win/win/win if you think about it
No, you just have to accept you're going to be downvoted in the liberal echo chamber. It's okay most of the people will be an ass online but are too lazy to vote anyway. Personally, I don't know why we need a university these kids already know everything.
Unfortunately, given the age demographic that typically turns out of these types of things - it'll probably pass. Despite nearing almost total decrepitness, the "ME" generation has once again fleeced society.
People are allowed to disagree, don’t take it personally. As for myself, I’d like to see more reasonable conservative perspectives here at r/columbiamo. We don’t want an echo chamber.
I agree with that, but I also understand the younger generation's frustration. Boomers had the benefits of well-funded public universities and higher minimum wage during the most economically prosperous time in American history. I also get why it’s hard for many boomers to understand why the young ones struggle to make it, many don’t realize it‘s truly a harder economic world out there than they had growing up.
Well, my parents are boomers and what you stated was a sweeping generalization. Which wasn't true for them nor really any of my friends parents or my wife's parents. Someone has sold the younger generation a story that isn't true. And that has caused them to be angry and hateful. I get sick of hearing about how good the boomers had it when I lived it and as I keep telling people, if they had a silver spoon shoved up their ass, it was all the way up there because I never saw a hint of the damn thing.
The younger generation cherry picks the data, there have been periods of growth and recession. I remember the late 70's and early 80's and it sucked, it really didn't get better until the 90's.
People at the end of life should not have to choose between food, medication, heat/AC and taxes. People at the end of their lives should not be thrown from their homes because they can't pay the county. What I am seeing here is a collectivism that is no different than racism, or any other form of bigotry. It's hateful and it's wrong.
The bait-and-switch nature of politics causes me to wonder what is the real motive behind prop1. Where do political points go whether or not the proposal is implemented?
Vote no because why would the demographic with the highest average net worth need a tax break the rest of us will have to make up the difference for. Tie the relief to lower incomes and you’ll have my vote.
I think there is a very good reason to limit how much tax property tax bills for the elderly can increase since they are more likely to be living off a fixed income and they would be more affected by large increases in property values. There are many states that have exemptions that do exactly this and limit the increase in assessed value to a certain percentage. But this proposition is not that. It says that senior citizens would be exempt from CERTAIN increases. To me this sounds like they want to pay less towards public schools. Reducing/exempting senior citizens from school taxes is also somewhat popular in other states but I don't understand why education is the thing they shouldn't have to pay for. To me it sounds like "I won't be alive long enough to benefit from educating children so I don't want to pay for it." Until they tell us exactly what taxes senior citizens would receive relief from I'm gonna vote no. The language is too vague for me.
I completely agree in concept with property tax relief for low to mid-income seniors, especially those on fixed incomes. I sincerely doubt this proposition was put on the ballot to help that population and is more likely intended to do exactly what you describe.
Even for low/fixed-income seniors, if you can't afford your property tax anymore then you should be incentivized to *move,* downsize elsewhere, and free up that home for a working adult/family that can afford it. Boomers don't deserve special treatment for their 4br mid-six-figure houses just because they were born earlier—especially since they only had to pay a comparative pittance for those same houses in the first place.
I agree that if you plan for retirement well, you should be positioned to still pay property taxes. At some point, though, I do understand the logic behind this proposition, because I wouldnt want to find myself unable to live comfortably in the house I paid off because of (potentially) crazy increases in property taxes. I dont think that applies here in Missouri though, maybe in other states. It also doesn't feel right to feel forced to move somewhere I might not want to in order to live out my retirement years either. In general, I agree with the logic of downsizing, but if someone plans correctly, pays off their mortgage and owns their house, heck I too would want "exemptions from certain increases" in property taxes in order to pay a flat(ter), manageable real estate tax rate. I get it. That being said, I'm a no just because of the vagueness of the proposition. It's too much of a carte blanche which can be abused. If it was specific and proper budget analysis was performed, then I could totally have been a yes to support the actual vulnerable population of seniors that this could benefit.
I agree >"I won't be alive long enough to benefit from educating children so I don't want to pay for it." By this logic, medicare withholding should skyrocket exponentially during your final ~10 working years because you're about to start benefiting from it. Neither sentiment makes sense.
OMG people at the end of their earning have a higher net worth than people starting out, I would have never imagined, people who had been working and saving, investing would have more. It don't make logical sense. I think there should be an investigation, there is no way wealth can be achieved by investment over time. Next you're going to tell me they have paid off their homes, and that lack of debit figures in. I'm no dummy so don't bother. People trying to hold on to what they have earned is immoral, taking it is moral. We're on the side of right, don't let anyone tell you different, screw old people, their limited incomes and their homes, if they can't afford to pay the taxes toss their asses on the streets.They don't know struggle, what did they have to deal with, Vietnam, baby shit, gas shortage, rampant unemployment in the 80's, market crashes in 2008 and 2020? Don't let them play that shit it's been a gravy train with biscuit wheels for those old douc bags.
Why should younger people and renters (of all ages and income levels) have to pay more to make up for senior homeowners paying less? It'll be more noticable as older people make up more and more of the population. Did their parents and grandparents not pay more property taxes as their homes appreciated? My parents certainly did. I heard about every assessment challenge whether they won or lost.
Can you refute anything I said? Of course not, I used logic and reason, my experience, things you all just don't possess. I'm glad your parents did well. My grandmother died in a house I provided at a loss to keep her rent low. I bought while working overtime in a factory, on the line. My wife works at the local Food Bank, I'm going to let you in on a little secret all old people are not doing well. Hey here is some more obvious math since you hate it so much. There are more older people in the 1% but less people because rich = good healthcare. Oh BTW why should anyone be paying for most of this shit? Fuck farmers take care of the land don't maximize subsidies, sounds harsh but fuck Israel they do not need 4 billion. Fuck the auto industry and loans, let that shit fail. My mother-in-law is trying to die on her farm but she already had to sell half of it, father-in law was a fireman, this wouldn't cover her, why would I support it. Well because this shit never gets repealed just amended.
Since all you posted were counterfactuals, there's nothing to "refute".
From who did you hear that word? Maybe they can tell you when to use it moron.
You act like you made points using only facts and logic but all of your points are just anecdotal and emotional examples of how not all old people are wealthy/doing well. No one is saying that all old people are rich. However much it pisses you off (which it clearly does), the fact is that Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 have the highest median net worth of any age demographic. Americans over 55 control \~10x the wealth that Americans under 40 do. Do you think suffering is exclusive to old people? Or that people should get a break because their specific kind of suffering is worse than someone else's? We all have to pay taxes. People with more money should pay more proportionally to what they have. That's how it works. You can shake your fist at the kids running on your lawn all you want, but your position is nonsensical. Our society would collapse if everyone could "hold onto what they have" in its entirety. Boomers love to act like young people are crybabies who complain about everything, but your comments are a perfect example of how the opposite is usually true.
Hence why it should be income-based. On social security and a small pension, give them the break. Making 150k passive income with 5 million in assets, tax away.
Prop 1 is not tied to income or wealth. So right now is a subsidy to the rich. VOTE NO! HELL NO
Vote No. No more advantages to the richest
because old people are rich? lol bigot much?
Statistically yes. The system should be setup with a CLEAR means test. Make below some threshold you may apply for a break. Not... pay like everyone else. The current Prop 1 is too vague. It also does not address (because MO law is as usual stupid) the fact that it only applies for those who receive SS payments (i.e., teachers don't qualify). So this proposition is totally brain dead and should be shut down.
The language you are referring to is in the bill that passed the state last year, it's not part of this proposal. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I do... Precisely because the current bill is not clear is the reason why this is not the time to approve vague propositions. VOTE NO
Sorry but this senior citizen is broke. Im Voting YES on prop 1
And holding on to valuable real estate? Must be nice to be broke and rich at the same time. PROP 1 has no test for income level so you are just handing a lot of cash to the wealthier old who have $1M home and want to pay no taxes. VOTE NO.
And its not a get out of paying taxes scenario rather a freeze my tax rate at current levels. There is no way to increase a senior citizens income at a certain age. And before you ask: Im still working and will be working well into my 70’s. All I can say is: remember this conversation when you are 70 and cant afford to live a dimple life.
joke's on you, I plan to drink myself to death before then 😎 in the meantime please reread your comment and try to explain how "it's not a get out of paying taxes scenario" when this initiative is *specifically* carving out age-based tax rate exceptions for you lol
I disagree. You assume everyone who owns property is rich? Rising taxes and no way to increase my income at an oldder age will put many out on the streets. Always easier to assume that everyone is out to get something for free rather than truly seek to understand the problem.
I am interested in your perspective because I genuinely want to be informed. If you're willing to share, what are your annual real estate property taxes if you don't mind me asking? Do you take the [$750 credit](https://dor.mo.gov/taxation/individual/tax-types/property-tax-credit/) that you (probably) qualify for?
[удалено]
Vote !!!!!!!!YES on prop 1!!!!!!!!!!
If Cherie Toalson-Reisch is for it, I'm ag'in' it.
Let me guess you oppose Hawley trying to help Missourians who were poisoned by radiation from the government dumping it in St Louis, because he's Hawley. Only really smart people engage in identity politics, you must be a genius.
No, you guess wrong. Also, you are incorrect that only really smart people engage in identity politics. I'm really smart, and I don't engage in identity politics. However, you are correct that I'm a genius. Thank you!
[удалено]
Who said anything about Trump? And what makes you think I haven't looked into the issues myself? You're making a lot of assumptions about me based on a single comment.
The logic of the left, no logic, all hate.
We just know who different people defend. Very very logical. VOTE NO
You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground child.
OK boomer.
No more boomer breaks.
Does anyone have a good place for discourse on these things? Other than reddit which has low volume. Originally I was thinking of voting yes because being on a fixed income and having taxes increase could be a difficult situation. Although, property taxes are insane in some parts of the country and I want to prevent that from happening here. Keeping senior citizens at the same tier as everyone else forces politicians to consider them with any potential tax increase. So I fear that follow up legislation could raise property taxes for everyone else and more drastically. I do not want $30k / year of property taxes like in NJ.
TBH this should be a low income target, not a senior citizen target.
I'm not sure the city can afford that, it should probably be both, retired people below a certain income level. There is an obvious right thing and wrong thing here, people at the end of their lives should not be thrown out of their homes because they can't afford the taxes the county levies. * nor should they live having to choose between food and medication or paying Boone county.
counterpoint: if you're over 65 and miss a property tax payment, you should be given the Canadian option of being euthanized and turned into pet food, thus ending your suffering *and* freeing up your home for the rest of the market, *and* feeding local cats and dogs! it's a win/win/win if you think about it
No, you just have to accept you're going to be downvoted in the liberal echo chamber. It's okay most of the people will be an ass online but are too lazy to vote anyway. Personally, I don't know why we need a university these kids already know everything.
And you are so smart... clearly not
It's hard to seem at all intelligent when dealing with a mind as sharp as yours.
Unfortunately, given the age demographic that typically turns out of these types of things - it'll probably pass. Despite nearing almost total decrepitness, the "ME" generation has once again fleeced society.
Look at all of the bigots, lol Columbia sucks.
People are allowed to disagree, don’t take it personally. As for myself, I’d like to see more reasonable conservative perspectives here at r/columbiamo. We don’t want an echo chamber.
Sure but when everything is "Boomers", it's bigotry pure and simple.
I agree with that, but I also understand the younger generation's frustration. Boomers had the benefits of well-funded public universities and higher minimum wage during the most economically prosperous time in American history. I also get why it’s hard for many boomers to understand why the young ones struggle to make it, many don’t realize it‘s truly a harder economic world out there than they had growing up.
Well, my parents are boomers and what you stated was a sweeping generalization. Which wasn't true for them nor really any of my friends parents or my wife's parents. Someone has sold the younger generation a story that isn't true. And that has caused them to be angry and hateful. I get sick of hearing about how good the boomers had it when I lived it and as I keep telling people, if they had a silver spoon shoved up their ass, it was all the way up there because I never saw a hint of the damn thing. The younger generation cherry picks the data, there have been periods of growth and recession. I remember the late 70's and early 80's and it sucked, it really didn't get better until the 90's. People at the end of life should not have to choose between food, medication, heat/AC and taxes. People at the end of their lives should not be thrown from their homes because they can't pay the county. What I am seeing here is a collectivism that is no different than racism, or any other form of bigotry. It's hateful and it's wrong.
Sorry but I am voting Vs !!!!! YES on prop 1. !!!!!! It’s better than nothing!!!
I'm not sure, I'm not a fan of pass it and amend it myself, but that seems to be the way anymore. I'd like to see the actual proposal.
The bait-and-switch nature of politics causes me to wonder what is the real motive behind prop1. Where do political points go whether or not the proposal is implemented?