Move over Prop 13, Arizona legislator has an even dumber idea

[brycejones]

It appears to be primarily aimed at older people. My new home state has pretty much the same setup, and now being a fellow without an income, I appreciate it.

That's a stupid policy.

 

[ivwshane]

That's a stupid policy.

The, “fuck you I got mine attitude”? Or only helping those who are likely less needy than those with a mortgage still who are also old?

 

[brycejones]

The, “fuck you I got mine attitude”? Or only helping those who are likely less needy than those with a mortgage still who are also old?

All the above. It's a policy that helps to starve schools of resources and the "assistance" isn't really effectively targeted anyway.

 

[dawp]

A newbie Rep trying to build street cred with her party. Asinine tax cuts with no thought to consequence are a tradition here.

isn't that a requirement to be a republican?

 

[pcgeek11]

I think if we want to subsidize senior citizens we should just give them money as opposed to making tax breaks on property. If our concern is helping the elderly with their needs let’s just do that.

Six of one a half dozen of another...

 

[pcgeek11]

yeah but you're now surrounded by not-your-children, no longer being in schools because you don't want to support the community where you live.

What do you think those newly-minted street hoodlums are going to be getting up to when they have nothing else to do? Leaving the old people alone? lol.

Giving a break on property taxes is not the same as not paying property taxes. For example here only the first 50K of home value is not taxed. The remaining value is taxed.

 

[pcgeek11]

Well that’s stupid

Well that is an opinion.

 

[brycejones]

Well that is an opinion.

Look at the brain on you.

 

[pcgeek11]

I hate this one. Everyone needs to contribute to education. We have enough idiots as it is.

If you noticed I was advocating for reduced property taxes not total exemption...

 

[fskimospy]

Six of one a half dozen of another...

But it's not!

I think most people would agree that if we're going to subsidize the elderly we should either:

1) make it universal so everyone over X years old gets the same benefit or,
2) means test it in some way so only people making under $X qualify. (or some combination of the two)

What I don't get is why we would want a law where only those who own their house outright benefit as they will generally be wealthier than average and would need the money less.

 

[Ajay]

If you noticed I was advocating for reduced property taxes not total exemption...

Okay, missed that. I suppose I could support something like that under certain situations given that means testing be done as @fskimospy pointed out.

We had a situation in NH where many retired folks, who had homes in our lakes region were in a real bind. As the area built up and became more popular, real estate valuations kept going up and up - and thus so did the taxes owed. Folks on fixed incomes who had lived in their homes for 30+ years were forced to sell. They were part of the community, raised their kids there, etc. It was sad. But, this is the 'Live Free or Die' state.

 

[hal2kilo]

Okay, missed that. I suppose I could support something like that under certain situations given that means testing be done as @fskimospy pointed out.

We had a situation in NH where many retired folks, who had homes in our lakes region were in a real bind. As the area built up and became more popular, real estate valuations kept going up and up - and thus so did the taxes owed. Folks on fixed incomes who had lived in their homes for 30+ years were forced to sell. They were part of the community, raised their kids there, etc. It was sad. But, this is the 'Live Free or Die' state.

In my state, if you are over 65, or disabled, you can defer paying your property taxes.
The state then obtains a lien against the property in question for the taxes and assessments deferred. The amount deferred, along with interest, “shall become a lien in favor of the state upon his or her property and shall have priority as provided in chapters 35.50 and 84.60 RCW[.]” RCW 84.38.100. The lien may be subject to the interest of a mortgage or purchase contract holder who is required to cosign a declaration of deferral under RCW 84.38.090. RCW 84.38.100.

 

[theeedude]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612931558662365184

National GOP is pushing 23% (and up) sales tax instead of income and estate tax that the wealthy don't like. And apparently they'd get rid of IRS, because no one would ever cheat on paying sales tax, amirite?

 

[ch33zw1z]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612931558662365184

National GOP is pushing 23% (and up) sales tax instead of income and estate tax that the wealthy don't like. And apparently they'd get rid of IRS, because no one would ever cheat on paying sales tax, amirite?

weird hill to climb for them, lol. seems like another facet of the culture war where IRS == bad, taxes == bad ...except the ones they don't mind of course.

 

[fskimospy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612931558662365184

National GOP is pushing 23% (and up) sales tax instead of income and estate tax that the wealthy don't like. And apparently they'd get rid of IRS, because no one would ever cheat on paying sales tax, amirite?

We should be clear that the 23% figure is tax inclusive, which is not how sales taxes are normally calculated.

For example, if you buy something for $100 and with sales tax you pay $120, in a tax exclusive situation like how we always think of sales tax your rate is 20%. If you calculate it like Republicans are here the tax rate is more like 16.5%. So, when republicans say 23% what they mean is closer to 30% if you want to talk about it like we normally talk sales tax. Also while I haven’t checked this bill specifically all previous flat tax bills taxed EVERYTHING, including things like your rent or mortgage payments that are not currently subject to sales tax. So add on state and local sales taxes and most Americans are looking at 35%+. Needless to say, this tax structure would cause massive losses for the average American and massive gains for the super rich.

This is a clown bill that has no chance of passing but I think it would be valuable for Democrats to highlight the plans Republicans have for the average American.

 

[Zorba]

Six of one a half dozen of another...

Not really. Homestead exemption does nothing to help seniors that are renting, living with family, etc. At least the way it is done in Oklahoma and the law you posted, it helps everyone with a house about equally. The AZ proposal would help people with more expensive houses the most.

 

[Zorba]

weird hill to climb for them, lol. seems like another facet of the culture war where IRS == bad, taxes == bad ...except the ones they don't mind of course.

Republicans LOVE regressive taxes and sales tax is as regressive as they come. They are also dump so they like taxing consumption (you use it, you pay for it!). The problem is taxing consumption directly hurts demand, easy example are the paid express lanes popping up all over Texas. The cost destroys the demand, the free lanes will be packed and the express lanes empty. Taxing income though does not destroy demand for more income, no one has ever asked for a pay cut so they could pay less in taxes.

 

[pmv]

It appears to be primarily aimed at older people. My new home state has pretty much the same setup, and now being a fellow without an income, I appreciate it.

Why is it that Conservatives everywhere are fixated on pandering to the elderly? It's the same here, every policy the Conservatives come up with seems to be based first-and-foremost on whether it benefits those over pension age.

This seems particularly backwards, in that the last thing you want to do when there's a housing crisis is to encourage elderly people who no longer have children at home to continue living in homes that are larger than they now need, rather than downsizing. If you want to help elderly people on low incomes, target the low-income not the age bracket.

 

[brycejones]

We should be clear that the 23% figure is tax inclusive, which is not how sales taxes are normally calculated.

For example, if you buy something for $100 and with sales tax you pay $120, in a tax exclusive situation like how we always think of sales tax your rate is 20%. If you calculate it like Republicans are here the tax rate is more like 16.5%. So, when republicans say 23% what they mean is closer to 30% if you want to talk about it like we normally talk sales tax. Also while I haven’t checked this bill specifically all previous flat tax bills taxed EVERYTHING, including things like your rent or mortgage payments that are not currently subject to sales tax. So add on state and local sales taxes and most Americans are looking at 35%+. Needless to say, this tax structure would cause massive losses for the average American and massive gains for the super rich.

This is a clown bill that has no chance of passing but I think it would be valuable for Democrats to highlight the plans Republicans have for the average American.

If somehow it passed at any point in the future the GOP would immediately blame Democrats for "prices increases".

 

[brycejones]

Why is it that Conservatives everywhere are fixated on pandering to the elderly? It's the same here, every policy the Conservatives come up with seems to be based first-and-foremost on whether it benefits those over pension age.

This seems particularly backwards, in that the last thing you want to do when there's a housing crisis is to encourage elderly people who no longer have children at home to continue living in homes that are larger than they now need, rather than downsizing. If you want to help elderly people on low incomes, target the low-income not the age bracket.

Old fuckers are easily bought.

 

[IronWing]

Old fuckers are easily bought.

And they are reliable voters. If young people would vote in every election, politics would be very different.

 

[pmv]

We should be clear that the 23% figure is tax inclusive, which is not how sales taxes are normally calculated.

For example, if you buy something for $100 and with sales tax you pay $120, in a tax exclusive situation like how we always think of sales tax your rate is 20%. If you calculate it like Republicans are here the tax rate is more like 16.5%. So, when republicans say 23% what they mean is closer to 30% if you want to talk about it like we normally talk sales tax. Also while I haven’t checked this bill specifically all previous flat tax bills taxed EVERYTHING, including things like your rent or mortgage payments that are not currently subject to sales tax. So add on state and local sales taxes and most Americans are looking at 35%+. Needless to say, this tax structure would cause massive losses for the average American and massive gains for the super rich.

This is a clown bill that has no chance of passing but I think it would be valuable for Democrats to highlight the plans Republicans have for the average American.

That's a weird way to present a tax percentage. I'm not sure if it's deliberate sneakiness or if it's just that the bill writer is innumerate and doesn't understand how percentages work.

I would imagine that such an emphasis on sales taxes would lead to a lot more shopping trips to Mexico and Canada for those within reach of the border.

Also my understanding is that the EU has a general policy of trying to shift taxation to sales taxes (hence the ratchet effect whereby they forbid member states from lowering such taxes once raised), so I don't think it's solely a trait of the US right (or rather, the EU is more right-wing than is made out).

Though when I google it, it suggests that may be changing...not sure if it's actually happened, though.

EU expected to give states more leeway to cut sales tax rates

European Union states will get more leeway to set lower sales tax rates or even scrap them on some goods, under a draft law seen by Reuters that would reform the EU's centralised rate-setting mechanism for value-added tax (VAT). The proposal by the European Commission would allow EU states to...

sg.news.yahoo.com

 

[Greenman]

Why is it that Conservatives everywhere are fixated on pandering to the elderly? It's the same here, every policy the Conservatives come up with seems to be based first-and-foremost on whether it benefits those over pension age.

This seems particularly backwards, in that the last thing you want to do when there's a housing crisis is to encourage elderly people who no longer have children at home to continue living in homes that are larger than they now need, rather than downsizing. If you want to help elderly people on low incomes, target the low-income not the age bracket.

A lot of elderly people live on a fixed income that's just enough to get by on, I know several in that category, they're not asking for a hand out, just to have less taken from them. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it appears the majority of voters agree.

 

[brycejones]

A lot of elderly people live on a fixed income that's just enough to get by on, I know several in that category, they're not asking for a hand out, just to have less taken from them. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it appears the majority of voters agree.

A policy that only benefits people on a fixed income who own homes is dumb. If you really want to help people who need help don't do it through property taxes because that will exclude large numbers of people.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a weird way to present a tax percentage. I'm not sure if it's deliberate sneakiness or if it's just that the bill writer is innumerate and doesn't understand how percentages work.

I would imagine that such an emphasis on sales taxes would lead to a lot more shopping trips to Mexico and Canada for those within reach of the border.

Also my understanding is that the EU has a general policy of trying to shift taxation to sales taxes (hence the ratchet effect whereby they forbid member states from lowering such taxes once raised), so I don't think it's solely a trait of the US right (or rather, the EU is more right-wing than is made out).

Though when I google it, it suggests that may be changing...not sure if it's actually happened, though.

EU expected to give states more leeway to cut sales tax rates

European Union states will get more leeway to set lower sales tax rates or even scrap them on some goods, under a draft law seen by Reuters that would reform the EU's centralised rate-setting mechanism for value-added tax (VAT). The proposal by the European Commission would allow EU states to...

sg.news.yahoo.com

It’s deliberate sneakiness that’s happened with every flat tax proposal I’ve seen. The reason is easy to understand - a lower rate makes it easier to sell to the public.

Switching entirely to a consumption based tax is more economically efficient and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it - you could easily craft a plan that maintains the current progressive nature of our federal system. (federal only, state taxes are highly regressive) Improving tax efficiency is not the goal though, cutting taxes on rich people is.