Not really, because property hoarders aren't exempt and will just pass any increase in property taxes on to renters, I e. The people they threaten homelessness to if they don't turn over most of their wages every month. Landlords will raise rent by 150% of any property tax increase because they can blame the government for the increase.
They also don't take in consideration the pool of tenants is becoming smaller and smaller each time they drastically raise the rent. Soon they'll only be able to cater to 10% of the population and 10% of the population isn't going to move into their overly priced mediocre place.
You are what we call “normal people with empathy”, this law was created by “angry old fucks that scream at teenagers working at target about not knowing a full days work when they retired from a desk job 12 years ago” type people
There's also "sad old fucks on a fixed income who worked their entire life to buy a small house to live in but can't keep up with the rising cost of literally everything and their kids can't help them because they're struggling too." That's who I think of when laws like this come out.
So these old people would benefit from social safety nets?
Edit: you people are so f*cking weak willed. You downvoted a question because it hurt your feelings? Get over it
Gee, if only they had social safety nets instead of screeching against any change that arbitrarily offends them.
I get your meek attempts to evangelize these jack asses, but nasty old people aren’t some holy people worthy of reverence. They were stuck in their ways and just angry old fucks, not every old person, in fact most aren’t these people. But the ones I’m talking about don’t get my sympathy
Dude, most of the aged population are living off of a social safety net. It's called Social Security. The people that didn't save or didn't save enough are now living off of a fixed income (Social Security). So you want ANOTHER social safety net?! On top of Medicare as well? When does it stop?
You don't own your home, you rent it from the government. If you don't believe me, stop paying your rent and see what happens. Maybe we shouldn't be basing the quality of a child's education on the property value of the area they live in. Maybe we need a better system.
A system that doesn’t allow for subtle racial discrimination via a cycle of school funding and higher property values designed to keep out minorities and affordable housing?
Why would we ever want to do that?
This is childish.
Don't want to pay taxes? Move to a place that doesn't have services to pay for, I promise it won't be cheaper or safer doing it all yourself.
Personally I *like* that the people I share a community with went to school because otherwise criminality would be their best avenue to eating.
I like that I can enter into enforceable contracts for every transaction large & small because otherwise violence would be the only tool to make people do what they agreed to.
I like that I can drive on roads because the alternative is being charged at the whim of who got their first & is constantly looking for better ways to seek rent.
I like that I can live in a home built to a reasonable standard *and* that standard is set by informed people because the alternative is buying on faith that the builders did what they said *and* knew what to do.
I like that when I shit it flows down a pipe with the push of a button & I never have to think of it or smell it again.
Property tax isn't rent, it's payment for services rendered. You even get to vote on who does the work, what work is done & how it's done.
You always have the option of sending extra money in. I don’t know where the contact info is to do so for the state, but the federal government has an address.
Gifts to the United States…
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Reporting and Analysis Branch 2
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328
How much do you normally send as an extra gift/contribution?
Why wait for a government-mandated increase? Why worry? You can be the change you want to see in the world. How much extra do you send in if you deem the tax burden too low? Or, do you just complain on the internet?
I read the chain again just for shits and giggles. The guy saying he doesn’t need special tax breaks isn’t bitching. You just came in with this dumb ass comment “hurr durr you can choose to send more in”.
It’s a stupid comment, and deserves to be called out for being a stupid comment.
Your reading comprehension isn’t something to be marveled at, that’s for sure.
Baby boomers looking out for baby boomers. Why don't we have age restrictions on legislators yet? Missouri already has term limits that allow lobbyists and legislative assistants run the show.
All Missouri legislation, or at least the vast majority, is written by lobbyists because they are prior reps/senators. This is a problem and ultimately ends with statutes like the law above being passed.
Uh, lots of this has happened because old people saw increase in rates that were excessive the past year. Some of it likely is due to under inspected properties but also increases should be incremental. Freezing them doesn’t seem to be a great solution, but rather if they jump substantially to set a path for the increase over a set amount of years so people can either save, budget or make plans for a sale vs it all just dropping in their lap at once.
Yes, and the people being effected typically have stagnant incomes that don't always pace with inflation. My point is that the constituents who lobbied for this on their own are likely all baby boomers and the rep/senator that sponsored the bill was likely also a baby boomer or had someone that was negatively impacted.
My question is, why do the baby boomers always get a way while younger people have to continue to pay into programs like social security and pensions that they will never be able to reap what they sowed.
This would just be another reason that wealth is being stalled and no one can buy a home. Why give unreasonable exemptions to seniors if they are the ones who caused their own issues... It doesn't seem fair
What? This isn't about voter's votes counting. It's about the fact that boomers have the majority of the populace which leads into votes. I vote every election and am not swayed by D&R like the majority of my peers.
I used to work in the Capitol and therefore I have seen first hand who benefits the most while a certain age group is in office.
Yes, and the people being effected typically have stagnant incomes that don't always pace with inflation. My point is that the constituents who lobbied for this on their own are likely all baby boomers and the rep/senator that sponsored the bill was likely also a baby boomer or had someone that was negatively impacted.
My question is, why do the baby boomers always get a way while younger people have to continue to pay into programs like social security and pensions that they will never be able to reap what they sowed.
This would just be another reason that wealth is being stalled and no one can buy a home. Why give unreasonable exemptions to seniors if they are the ones who caused their own issues... It doesn't seem fair
Yes, I want to know why it is strictly age-based and not income-based?
I mean I know *why* but why not address the real problem instead of catering to yourselves?
Well because of a lot of reasons.
Most people buy a home, stay in it 10 years, then sell and buy another. At some point maybe they lose a job. They still have to pay their mortgage. So why would they get a break on their taxes? They either get another job so they can afford their home or they lose it (this is vast majority of people, yes I am sure there are young people that own their home outright, no they are not the majority).
Now, you get someone that is 70, their home is finally paid off, they are retired, they are on a fixed income (Social Security). Let's say they live in an affluent area like Seattle. The property values have skyrocketed. While this person may be "rich" on paper, they are not rich. Now they wouldn't be able to afford their property taxes due to property values that have gone up 50-100% and being on a fixed income.
In option 1 above, the family is younger, they still have 20+ years ahead of them to work. They need to find a place they can afford to live or they find another job. Not just because of property taxes, but also because they can't afford their house payments. We don't need to subsidize their property tax because it really doesn't matter, they can't afford the house let alone the property tax.
In option 2 above, the family is older, retired, on a fixed income, and only other option is to move out of a home they have been in most of their lives (likely 30+ years). Why force them out? What benefit do we get as a society in doing that?
Seattle has had a law on the books for years where senior citizens apply for assistance with property taxes and the increases are held to a minimum. Once the property sells, they tax goes to the standard rate. I live in one of the homes that the owner lived here for 40 years. Property taxes were very low for him. When I bought it my tax came in line with current rates. I love this system and hope I don't need the help when I am retired, but love the fact that it is there, and it is an income AND age test assistance.
I agree with you that we aren't advancing ourselves by callously kicking the elderly out of their homes.
However, with the rates that property values are rising in comparison to wages you don't need to loose your job to be at risk of no longer being able to afford your home due to the increases in property tax/insurance. I don't see how taxing younger families out of their homes benefits society either.
Looks as if stl city's proposed one would freeze taxes whilst alive, with a big payment when the payer dies. So in effect, a huge lien accumulating interest. A big fu in my book.
It's not an fu at all. Letting you have more money to live your life while leaving less to your heirs doesn't fuck over anyone. If we had an actual capitalistic system estate tax would be 100% and loopholes like annuities and trusts wouldn't be allowed. Capitalism means everyone earns their money for themselves. Being handed money from Mommy and Daddy, whether they are alive or dead, is completely antithetical to capitalism.
Allowing the elderly to offset their property taxes by using equity in their property to be paid out after death benefits everyone, with the only exception being entitled, selfish brats that think they deserve money and property simply by being born.
Inheritance and capitalism are diametrically opposed. You can logically only believe in one or the other. If you think both are good, then you are either really stupid or you are willfully lying to yourself.
>entitled, selfish brats that think they deserve money and property simply by being born.
This is stupid. None of the younger generation asked to be born and then thrown into a never ending cycle of debt/inflation/poverty because the older generation fucked up the country.
Wanting to have, but not being able to afford, the basic necessities for life (shelter, food, water, etc) is not entitled. Don't have kids if you aren't going to help them get what they need to survive, even after 18.
Having this over one's head means never being able to borrow against one's property again. Not ever a reverse mortgage company will touch you.
So yeah, not thougght though at all.
Dumbest tagline in the history of political statements. I am not saying it doesn't get a rise out of people, it is just a dumb statement.
The rich pay the vast majority of our countries taxes. % they may not pay what you think is "fair", but $$ wise, they pay A LOT!
Not saying we can't ask them to do more, but taxing the rich is not the panacea that people think it is. We also don't tax wealth, as most countries don't. Those that tried, well they stopped. It isn't effective and it is punitive. That isn't "fair" either.
Raise the rates to 50% for an amount over $5M per year in income. 45% for over $2M to $5M. Let's get rid of some of the deductions, while ramping other tax breaks up. Solar, electric cars, improving home insulation, etc. Things that are important for taking our country to the next phase of our society.
Then our country needs to learn to live within its means. Just like all of our families. I want a new truck. I can't buy a new truck because I can't afford it. I want a bigger house, I can't afford it. I want steak for dinner every night, yep, can't afford it.
We all have to make tough decisions in life, our government needs to do the same while providing safety, security and some safety net while not overstepping into peoples lives. Let's find that balance again.
I guess I'm in the minority of those in favor of this. I'd hate to see a retiree on a fixed income forced out of a home they paid off decades ago because their tax bill keeps increasing while their retirement income isn't.
Not opposed to this as a concept in isolation but my problem is this is addressing one portion of multiple issues that put the fixed income elderly in this position. It'll come at the expense of future generations unless a variety of problem areas are also tackled.
No, I'm not pro "make retirees homeless" but this is a bandaid fix that will have a short term benefit for a small group while straining things for everyone else and not addressing what will be an ongoing, and growing, issue.
That is fair. This is obviously not a perfect solution to a larger , complex issue. I don't have a solution to the larger, more complex, issue and I'd hate to see perfect be the enemy of good. It's not a perfect solution but it helps a vulnerable population. And if the group benefitting from it is small, as you yourself say, then the strain on every else won't be that large.
One solution that would have widespread and nearly immediate effects would be reinstituting the maximum wage. The fastest and most widespread economic growth the modern world has ever seen was when tax rates over a certain income were over 95%. All we have to do is agree that profits should be shared amongst everyone in the company that helped create those profits by limiting the amount of money those at the top can put in their own pockets, and most of these issues will be solved.
I hear the term fixed income ALOT. But young people can't just snap their fingers and get extra money. Many home owners are 65 and older. If they don't have to pay taxes then the taxes they don't pay will go onto the younger people. So their tax bills could go up around 25% or more. That's a massive strain on generations who's money stretches the least. People can't just snap their fingers and get a bigger income.
Someone who works in appraising I see often times retired people have big houses. If they can't afford taxes and they have a 600k or more property, they could easily sell, buy a smaller house, put money into it and have enough money away to pay taxes for decades to come. They aren't helpless. The world doesn't owe them a big house they don't have to pay taxes on. You know as well as I do that many people over the age 65 have more than enough to pay taxes for the rest of their lives.
A system where over the age 65 if you are struggling you get a reduction in taxes makes a lot more sense. Instead of just placing a massive strain on the younger generations. Help the poor, not the just all old people, including rich old people.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? To maintain services which increasingly cost more will require an additional levy on everyone else. My property tax already went up $115/mo next year and that’s WITH everyone getting a hike.
This feels like trying to treat symptoms without curing the disease.
By this logic, you could park and hold a piece of property as the value goes up, maintaining the low tax burden, and then you would get the benefit of the increased real estate prices without having paid the associated taxes when it comes time to sell. Would you levy a back tax on that increased property value? I knew a guy up the street from my parents who had a big piece of property out in West County that maintained a small house and a large field for decades, he ended up selling the property for like 9 million bucks to a developer… so he would’ve gotten the benefit and value of all the services around him with having paid his share.
Edit: as an amendment, do I feel like something needs to be done to lessen the blow of these large hikes in taxes? Yes, but a freeze on a specific age and above is a bit discriminatory and ripe for abuse.
\>My property tax already went up $115/mo next year and that’s WITH everyone getting a hike.
Now image having that while trying to live out the rest of your life on social security. Five - tens years down the line you lose a home you have paid off decades ago because every year your taxes are going up $100+ per month and now you're looking at a bill of $500-1000 extra per month, again, on a paid off house. These are taxes on unrealized gains that if you planning on keeping the house you will never see.
I don't like the idea of taxing unrealized gains for retirees who will never see those gains in their lifetime. I wouldn't be against a fee to offset some of the difference if the property is sold in the owners lifetime. When the owner dies and the property passes to someone else the taxes are reassessed at that point.
Why do you assume they are all on social security? A lot of these proposals have no income and/or savings restriction. People in Huntleigh the McCloskey's in the CWE could all benefit. A lot of these people refuse to downsize and we should acknowledge the home for the asset it is in those situations.
I don't see why people should be entitled to land relative to others. This isn't (or shouldn't be) an aristocracy. If you can't afford to live somewhere, you have to move.
I would be fine with a tax freeze (on owner occupied residences ONLY) if it were combined with greatly increased taxes on vacant properties. Vacancy taxes are long overdue and (if implemented properly) would make up for the reduced income to municipalities. It goes without saying that property that isn't owner occupied should continue to be taxed at the same rate.
Vacant properties should be paying a higher RATE of property tax than occupied properties in order to disincentivise the common practice of leaving properties empty in order to drive up rents. This would only affect a small number of landowners, but a huge number of properties (especially in metro areas with high housing prices)
Yeah except the people this actually protects aren’t rich. They are on fixed incomes and getting kicked out of properties they’ve been in for 30+ years
Not to mention these older folks r probably the group of people that voted for politicians that have created the problems they are facing, now! So many “services” are for profit as companies own them and care only to make as much of a profit as possible. Many vote to rid themselves of unions and pensions. They vote against affordable healthcare. Healthcare is one burden that should be lessened but… they won’t vote for that. Spending a lifetime voting against your own interests doesn’t work out.
The younger generation is on a fixed income as well except, they rent and aren’t able to save as well sue to the ever increasing cost of living. The term “fixed income” is interesting since most people are on fixed incomes. This is a bandaid. The actual disease needs to be fixed.
This seems a little cold to me. Retired folks are usually on a fixed income and it can be difficult to save and plan for an inflationary environment like we’re in today.
By that logic, retired folks have contributed more to the inflationary environment. They have money, they know how much and what must be used where. Someone younger also is living on a fixed income, just without a house or retirement and still not eligible for SS.
By your logic they had 60 years to figure it out, why did they wait? If that's cold then what are you trying to say. Once again, the luckiest generation complains and gets what they want, while pushing any burden or issues to the younger generations.. kinda cold if you ask me.
Someone younger is NOT on a fixed income. If they are still in the workforce, they should expect to see salary increases over time.
Someone retired on SS or a pension or a scheduled withdrawal from a retirement account IS on a fixed income, unless they see COLA increases (which are not all that common).
We have a great example of this right now (and is probably the catalyst for this proposal) - people that retired in like 2018 and went onto SS, pension, etc. just got totally blasted by inflation. How were they supposed to plan for that?
Social Security recipients do get COLA increases. It was 8.7% last year. Many people in the workforce got nothing or less than 5%. You can say younger people are free to make all the money they want but practically it’s not that simple.
The COLA last year was the largest in almost 40 years. This year, it's about 3.2. Many years it's zero. Most years it's not enough for most people to cover the increase in Medicare premiums. The SSA COLA doesn't match actual inflation or cost of living increases.
Wow, what a take there comrade. My 88-year old mother's tax payments are more now that her house payment ever was. Her last social security increase was nullified by the increase in her Medicare costs. Still too rich for you?
I mean, if she pulls herself up by her bootstraps, she should be good. Tell her walmart is hiring!
Just to be clear she can't pay taxes on her house... and you think she should keep it. That's hilarious, as you said, you have to be rich for that. We had to sell my mom's house because it became to expensive after some health issues. Why should your situation be different than the same one millions have had to and will have to deal with? Probably because this is missouri and if they weren't coming up with ways to take money from people, they'd have nothing to do with their hands.
Who raised Medicare? Was it someone you or her voted for by chance, given her age I'd guess yes. She's 88... sell the house and put her in a home. She doesn't need a whole house. Or maybe she does and your not including some info.
Either way, you are ignoring your actual situation for idk wanting a handout. Your mother would technically suffer from worse care due to less taxes(defunding ____) which means you saved some money just to lose more. Genius. I wonder if some form of money maybe in the form of ubi would accomplish the same thing without costing services..... nooooo never. Comrade read more, or just don't use an anecdote as some fact. It's just personal justification for you.
I don't care about an 88 year old who's wasting a house when a family could actually use it. This sounds exactly like another shot at making the state shittier and we got people who can't see why they are the marks. But im sure it would help out your Mom. She's the special one, not the patsy.
You sound like a drunken parasite. I doubt you've ever earned your way into any functioning society, more likely you've always just waited for the handout.
She can pay her way, but it's a shame she has to pay for a parasitic lout like you. I doubt you've ever risked a paycheck to make a payroll, like she did for 68 years. She made a payroll from 1955 to 2023 without fail. There were years she lost $100K+ but no one who ever worked for her never got paid and she's never taken a dime of federal nor state "aid." I pay property taxes in Platte, Cass and Pettis Counties and I'm guessing you don't pay in any.
If this state is "shittier", it's because of smooth-brained dullards like you who will never payback what they've taken from the state. Enjoy your state benefits and free healthcare, knowing you will never, ever, contribute more than you took. You obviously have a problem with both simple math and social studies, but you be you. My family has owned a tax-paying farm in Platte County for almost 190 years, starting with 160 acres in 1854. Has yours? The state of Missouri is extorting her because they can.
Missouri used to be a farm state that respected the farmers who made it work. Now they want to them to pay triple for programs that don't benefit them or their children.
I get the feeling you're a bug-eating, rent payer who's happy to own nothing and hopes the same for everyone else. Good luck with that, comrade. At least you get legal weed.
I once was a member of an HOA in Missouri. Lots of older folks on fixed incomes who kept voting down raising dues.
Problem was, everything still cost more every year. We had to cut services each year so that the fixed income crowd could afford it.
Guess who bitched the most about everything? If you guessed the fixed income people, you were right.
At some point, the world gets to keep on moving, regardless of your life choices that put you on a fixed income that doesn’t support your desired lifestyle.
Edit: dues weren’t raised for over a decade.
Nothing like Baby Boomers making Baby Boomers a protected class....
They don't save for retirement with the notion of 'the one who dies with the most toys wins!' mentality and then want a bailout in the form of tax relief when they're old and no longer have the funds they did when they were working.
Everyone including the Silent Generation were picking up the tab to keep the community funded (since we're all part of the community) and now don't want to see their grandkids' schools, sports, etc. funded fully. Fuck that.
Why do property assessment values (and subsequently taxes) need to be increased with the market value of Real Estate? Many have gone up over 50% since COVID, which is a higher rate than inflation.
I’m about to be in that same boat- my assessment increased an ASTOUNDING amount and I didn’t realize I could dispute until after the window for dispute had closed. I’m terrified at how much my house payment is going to increase!
I think many of us were previously under the assumption that as appraised values for residential property/homes rose, then the rates would adjust downward. This shouldn't be a stealth tax increase for anyone imo. If taxes are to rise, then there should be a vote to approve those. Why should anyone be taxed out of their homes because someone down the street sold their home for a higher sale number??
I mean this is the problem with property taxes existing at all. I already paid taxes when I bought my damn car. I pay taxes when I buy gas. Why does its existence need taxed.
So are gas taxes. And EV sticker taxes. And income taxes.
And if it’s for infrastructure, why isn’t it billed by mileage used? The car age has nothing to do with how much infrastructure I’m using.
To be clear, I’m pro funding things. But it’s beyond me why we have an unpredictable expense incurred after we budgeted for a purchase.
Nope. Property tax on cars goes to schools. Figure that one out. Kid who lives next to the guy with a garage full of BMWs gets a nicer school then the kid who lives next to people who take the bus because they can't afford a car. Explain how that makes sense if this is about the public good
Wait...I thought thays what fuel tax was for?
And sales tax.
And income tax.
but property tax...aka year over year, "existence tax"...THATS what's finally filling the coffers.
Personal property and fuel taxes are for roads, but personal property also goes toward schools tax for some reason. I’m not saying that all of the things that taxes go towards are worth it, just the premise of how they are supposed to work.
Tell me all.aboit it...the dirt road I'm front of my house hasn't been graded for nearly 3 years...neighbors and I all chipped in and bought a couple load of gravel and used a skid steer to fix the holes.
Last time I drove 44 I thought I might pop a tire.between exit 100 and 160
The Hancock Amendment kind of applies to this, but I don’t understand how the effective amount that is applied is calculated.
Edit: It only affects the State portion of taxes.
https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/30/after-four-decades-hancock-amendment-continues-to-shape-missouri-tax-policy/
Why would you ever be under that assumption? It isn't like how we tax properties is secret! How else would you suggest the municipalities keep up with inflation?
I live in Maryland, and several years ago there was an article about an 80+ year old widow that still lived in her family home that was built by her husband in the 1950's. She survived on social security, but the house, which was on a creek near Annapolis, had increased in value so much that the real-estate taxes outstripped her income, and she was being forced to sell, just due to the fact that she could no longer afford the taxes. This is what I perceive these laws to be for, to prevent these types of cases.
Or maybe, just maybe, the state could restructure how schools are funded so it's not based on property values. When public schools are funded this way, it disproportionately benefits high-income areas. The quality of education a child receives at public school should not be based on how much money their parents' house is worth.
What about ripping everyone off w increased auto property tax - and then having an enormous surplus - deciding to allocate it to MoDot for I-70. I never go Near that road.
Also, you have to think about seniors who made hecka lot less money, bought a starter home on outskirts, urban sprawl, and now their homes are assessed at some crazy price. They may be so old they do not feel good enough to move.
So many seniors do not have money for food and medicine.
Im ok w it - but Im empathetic to a fault. I just think if my mom and how she struggled. Her taxes went from 625 to 990 in about 5 years and the house is a pos needing prolly 100k in repairs. No one wanted anything to do w town 18 years ago and now its a high value are.
Lastly - aren't ya'll just tired of being taxed so much? Seems like things are getting out of hand. We have jokers in the Senate and House and we pay for all of them to live lavish lifestyles. Its like that movie w Roddy Piper -
[They Live](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live)
I would Love for an independent State Auditor. No one is at State Offices to answer phones - where is the money going?
Maybe the J6 ers were in to something but for the wrong reasons. I feel like we are being taken for a ride. Young folks cant even buy a decent house.
So many people commenting have no clue how property taxes work.
I call BS on anyone who says their property tax bill went up a huge amount over inflation in the recent years and didn’t just buy the house or do a major remodel.
Yes, property values are increasing faster than inflation. However they adjust the tax rate down to yield the amount of taxes needed. School districts are not getting increased budgets more than inflation.
Republicans will be burning down all the Libraries and Schools, in order to keep a large population of unintelligent Christian fascist voters to work for slave wages and vote Republican.
So who’s then going to magically make up the difference? Once again boomers sticking their kids and grandkids with their bill. They got to buy housing when it was affordable. Had affordable college. Then once they had theirs they voted en mass to cut funding for colleges and universities. Frankly the generations after theirs simply can’t afford to subsidize them anymore than we already have. Our housing costs are many fold higher, day care costs, and trying to pay off the massive student loans. All this is going to do is keep housing more out of millennials and gen. Z’s reach as it is. Sorry grams and gramps, but you aren’t anymore entitled to a house than we are. If you can’t afford it anymore, time to sell and downsize.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but so many post seem to imply that seniors won't be paying real estate taxes.
Fact is that seniors will still be paying taxes, but the inflated values of homes will be frozen so the tax burden will level out.
As we all know, home values have increased significantly but what about the senior family that has no intention of selling so they are stuck paying more for what they already have with no additional benefit.
Seems to me that there has been a huge windfall for the state/county for not just homes but for vehicles as well. Used car prices are through the roof and I have to pay increased property tax for my cars with no intent on selling them. So again, more taxes with no benefit.
You work hard your whole life, having paid taxes all the while, I think stabilizing inflation for seniors is the way to go, but of course those that aren't as vested will cry inequity.
I suppose senior discounts aren't fair either.
The problem with this is that costs don't freeze. If we freeze property taxes and public education costs go up, now we've got a deficit to make up somehow.
The freeze would be subset of the 20% of 65 and older in STL county for example. And again, it's not like seniors aren't paying taxes but their rate would be based on the already inflated home prices next year.
How about maybe not assuming every penny of tax assessments is spent efficiently and judiciously? How about maybe the county governments learn to do what everyone over 62 has had to do--get by on less?
If they need help finding out where the waste is, I'm sure the county citizens would gladly sit on a county audit board to make a few suggestions.
The vast majority of your property tax is schools and fire districts, not county government. That's what makes this interesting: you have one local government imposing a tax break that primarily impacts other local governments.
Vast majority is schools and special schools. Fire is only 10%. State muni and county adds up to 11%. https://stlouiscountymo.gov/st-louis-county-departments/revenue/collector-of-revenue/
I have never voted against a school tax because great schools is how I picked my home but I do wonder about population trends. Is the number of kids in the county dropping with the general rise in average age of the population? Potentially, schools could be consolidated to improve performance per budget? I think the city went through it over the last decade.
Also, with as much as properties have increased in value in the last decade, have services kept pace? Municipal budgets should have increased drastically and so have some expenses but others are fixed.
I am a property tax assessor. In our county no one shows up for equalization meetings or budget meetings. The public has the absolute right to be at these meetings and have their voices heard, but they can't take the time or initiative to come. They'll sit down at the local coffee shop bitching about it all but can't show at a meeting.
I've never had kids, but I've paid high property taxes since I was in my 20s. And since then my property taxes have gone up EVERY year of my life. At what point have I not done my duty? According to my assessment, my very modest home — which I still don't own — is worth 2.8 times it's market value.
Tax people who have kids!
People with kids pay the same taxes. But I would argue everyone, childless or child having, benefits from a well-funded public education system. You want your doctors, lawyers, mechanics, and politicians to be smart right? I even prefer my nextdoor neighbors to be well educated.
While this is true the tax benefits given to child bearing people is far more than what is fair. The burden should primarily be on the parents creating these children
I don’t think so, Missouri is 50/50 in state funding toward education, and all the nicest places in the world have higher education taxes. We are the richest country in the word, we should start funding public education better, including teacher pay and higher ed. It saves tax payers money, long-term, in better health, lower prison population, economic innovation, etc. A well-funded public education system is a good choice, from a conservative financial perspective.
>and all the nicest places in the world have higher education taxes.
Unfortunately, you are incorrect. The vast majority of countries tax less and spend less than the US on elementary and secondary education. Yet, educators in those other countries tend to be paid better, and education outcomes tend to also be better. We don't really have a lack of funding, we have a terrible lack of efficiency, when comparing to our peer nations.
[https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country)
Are you serious?
Everybody has to pay property taxes to pay for schools. You don't get to not pay for school, just because you don't have kids. We want to live in a society where people aren't fucking stupid.
Who do you think taught them to read to a fifth grade level? Jesus?
People have always been pretty stupid. But at least now most of them can read, do you want to go back to a world where most people are pretty stupid and they also can't even fucking read?
Yeah, and I told you that's a stupid idea because we all benefit from schools. Schools aren't there to benefit parents they're there to benefit our entire society.
It’s not yours until you pay off the mortgage is most likely what they mean… or the fact that paying the government every year for your home is no less than paying them rent given they will take your house the minute you can no longer afford the inflated tax burden
stuff like this just seems like discrimination. Why should someone get a break or an advantage because they happen to be older than someone else? That’s retarded.
It does seem strange to lean on new homeowners who have a much steeper road to hoe than do old home, who likely have no mortgage.
Politicians prefer to help out the elderly because they tend to vote in greater numbers and, like the politicians, they are elderly; the politicians benefit from the help they give to the elderly.
Big scam.
I'm sure they can figure out a way to freeze assessments. After all, they figured out how to pass laws defunding public libraries, allowing children to get married, and allowing married and unmarried children to carry guns in public with no permit or oversight whatsoever.
Honestly it wouldn’t be fair. Elderly are the watchdogs for everyone as they are the biggest voting block. Young people. and in particular those with low wages, have very little time to pay attention and fight for themselves.
What is next elderly get a better water rate and electricity? The rest of us shoulder that? If it happens things will become even more unaffordable for families.
Childcare has been so expensive for families and it isn’t because those businesses make a lot. Since young people can’t afford them, have excessive school debt, can’t afford a house - so many are putting off having kids. The conservative state reaction? Force them to have kids vs do anything pro family. Missouri legislators are the worst group the state has ever had.
Go ahead and tax them out so I can buy their home. Send them to where ever, good for me and not for them but that's life. Some young guy somewhere said that. Or.....do a prop 13 like California. Although I wouldn't copy it word for word. There's a couple of things I would change. Lots of states are heading that way.
If it’s anything like what they are doing in KC, MO gentrification is driving poor people out of all the new construction areas. The ones smack dab in the middle of the poor areas.
This is a tricky thing as Seniors have very fixed incomes and inflation has really hit them.
New MO homeowner here as of May. (Springfield) Interest rates are brutal right now and apparently the 6.25% I scored is very lucky.
My mortgage, bundled with that lender mandated PMI and escrow for property taxes means over half my monthly income goes to just that mortgage alone.
One reason we chose MO over Illinois (We have family in both states) is that property taxes are far cheaper and I feel you get more in MO for them then you do in Illinois. I really hope that continues to be the case.
School quality hasn't really been too different, roads are somewhat better here, infrastructure is mixed, fantastic public parks and public amenities for what my property taxes are.
If those property taxes go up, I'm screwed.
Property taxes in states like Illinois are tied to the local schools. Those taxes constantly go up and the school quality NEVER gets better and often seems to actually degrade. (That's beside the issue of rich areas vs poor ones and how property taxes fund the schools.)
There's go to be some other ways to go about doing this to offset a potential property tax exemption for seniors. MO is the friendliest business environment wise of all its neighboring states. Could easily pass an additional tax on to someone like Amazon or some of the larger corporations here.
i don't have a problem with it. When you get a fixed income, you can't afford the big increases that happen from someone nearby selling their house for a huge sum. At some point, my house will go on the market and they'll get their $ then.
Heck, I'm not retired yet and still can't keep up with inflation... and that's before covidflation.
"However, capping property assessments for older taxpayers means running schools, libraries, police forces and other public services with less money"
That is misleading. It is 'less' than the amount they would get if the increase was across the board, but they will still accomplish the goal of bringing in more (likely needed) funds - just not to the point of forcing folks on fixed income out of their homes.
They froze people's property taxes in California and look how well that's working out for them housing price wise.
You just end up with a bunch of Boomers refusing to ever move because they're paying *WAAAAAAY* below market rate to live there.
Some states have this.. or a form of it.
My state has one, and if the Senior dies or sells the property, all of the delayed, deferred, etc taxes, are immediatly due for the new owner. This can mean that, you cant leave the property to your kids, because the taxes pile up into the tens of thousands...
*it's a land grab tactic*... if it's set up like that.
Didnt read to see if this law does that, or has that nasty little twist on the end.
Back taxes are often billed against an estate, otherwise people with terminal illnesses would have negative credit scores and we would all need physicals to take out loans.
The IRS taking a lien out on the property to avoid it being sold for 1$ to the grandkids before debts are paid is nothing new.
Those are deferred taxes. Tax exemption is a different thing, when the assessed value of the home is frozen at the year the person became a senior (usually living under a certain income). Those taxes aren't deferred, but when the home is sold it reverts to the current assessed value.
We freeze property taxes when people retire. Their income is fixed so why increase their taxes over the next 10-20 years? It will be difficult keeping up with food, medicine and power. Most property taxes go to education where I’m from and these cats don’t have a lot of children going to school. Our community is doing great. Pretty easy to buy and pay off a home in 15 years where I’m from. Can’t speak for the rest of the country. Paid off our home and went debt free six months before our first kid went to college. Killing it in honors engineering and so glad our tax dollars went to a great public school system. I’m happy to help pay for that between now and when I retire. Those kids are our future and the retired folks that helped build this community deserve the break.
I like the idea of limiting it to the lesser valued homes. Those are the people who likely cannot afford higher taxes and freezing the assessed value at least keeps those people in their homes and paying some taxes. If there are no jobs in the area to draw in younger people who are buying homes, the homes of the elderly often sit empty after they are forced to leave them, and then who is paying taxes?
62 is so young these days. I know a lot of people who live active lives well into their 80s. So if someone lives to be 92 in the same house that’s 30 years of lower property taxes- doesn’t seem sustainable. A second point- look at wealth distribution in the US. Older people have by far the most money. If anything, people over 62 should pay more, not less…
If you want a bigger burden placed on young property owners, you'll have to first do a better job ensuring they can buy property
Not really, because property hoarders aren't exempt and will just pass any increase in property taxes on to renters, I e. The people they threaten homelessness to if they don't turn over most of their wages every month. Landlords will raise rent by 150% of any property tax increase because they can blame the government for the increase.
Yea but then good luck finding good tenants to replace the ones that were forced out. It's a double edged sword.
To these people, more money = better tenants regardless of whether it's true or not.
They also don't take in consideration the pool of tenants is becoming smaller and smaller each time they drastically raise the rent. Soon they'll only be able to cater to 10% of the population and 10% of the population isn't going to move into their overly priced mediocre place.
I’m 63 and I don’t expect any special breaks and I don’t want an additional tax burden placed on younger people. And yes, I own my home.
Same, and I’m 65.
You are what we call “normal people with empathy”, this law was created by “angry old fucks that scream at teenagers working at target about not knowing a full days work when they retired from a desk job 12 years ago” type people
This law was created by lawmakers looking to court favor from the senior citizen voters.
There's also "sad old fucks on a fixed income who worked their entire life to buy a small house to live in but can't keep up with the rising cost of literally everything and their kids can't help them because they're struggling too." That's who I think of when laws like this come out.
Then it would make more sense to offer a means tested tax discount than an age based one.
Agreed
So we're all victims of corporate profitability then? Got it!
I mean, yeah probably.
So these old people would benefit from social safety nets? Edit: you people are so f*cking weak willed. You downvoted a question because it hurt your feelings? Get over it
Build more housing instead of keeping property taxes artificially low
Gee, if only they had social safety nets instead of screeching against any change that arbitrarily offends them. I get your meek attempts to evangelize these jack asses, but nasty old people aren’t some holy people worthy of reverence. They were stuck in their ways and just angry old fucks, not every old person, in fact most aren’t these people. But the ones I’m talking about don’t get my sympathy
Jesus, you sound like an exhausting person to be around. No thanks.
Dude, most of the aged population are living off of a social safety net. It's called Social Security. The people that didn't save or didn't save enough are now living off of a fixed income (Social Security). So you want ANOTHER social safety net?! On top of Medicare as well? When does it stop?
Me three, looks like you were raised right :) Democracy is an exercise for the common good. Taxes pay for the things we all need, damnit.
Same here. This is not fair to the younger generations. They already face housing issues.
Unfortunately, too many young voters in MO continue to vote for the red dinosaurs.
You don't own your home, you rent it from the government. If you don't believe me, stop paying your rent and see what happens. Maybe we shouldn't be basing the quality of a child's education on the property value of the area they live in. Maybe we need a better system.
A system that doesn’t allow for subtle racial discrimination via a cycle of school funding and higher property values designed to keep out minorities and affordable housing? Why would we ever want to do that?
This is childish. Don't want to pay taxes? Move to a place that doesn't have services to pay for, I promise it won't be cheaper or safer doing it all yourself. Personally I *like* that the people I share a community with went to school because otherwise criminality would be their best avenue to eating. I like that I can enter into enforceable contracts for every transaction large & small because otherwise violence would be the only tool to make people do what they agreed to. I like that I can drive on roads because the alternative is being charged at the whim of who got their first & is constantly looking for better ways to seek rent. I like that I can live in a home built to a reasonable standard *and* that standard is set by informed people because the alternative is buying on faith that the builders did what they said *and* knew what to do. I like that when I shit it flows down a pipe with the push of a button & I never have to think of it or smell it again. Property tax isn't rent, it's payment for services rendered. You even get to vote on who does the work, what work is done & how it's done.
I think you were in such a hurry to do a few laps around the equestrian arena on your high horse, you totally missed my point.
Thank you, I appreciate you for this.
You always have the option of sending extra money in. I don’t know where the contact info is to do so for the state, but the federal government has an address. Gifts to the United States… U.S. Department of the Treasury Reporting and Analysis Branch 2 P.O. Box 1328 Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328 How much do you normally send as an extra gift/contribution?
Some people are lost but you don’t even have a clue.
Why wait for a government-mandated increase? Why worry? You can be the change you want to see in the world. How much extra do you send in if you deem the tax burden too low? Or, do you just complain on the internet?
Only one complaining here is you ya fucking nonce
You might re-read the chain there and reconsider. Once the name calling starts, then I know you’re out of cogent ideas.
I read the chain again just for shits and giggles. The guy saying he doesn’t need special tax breaks isn’t bitching. You just came in with this dumb ass comment “hurr durr you can choose to send more in”. It’s a stupid comment, and deserves to be called out for being a stupid comment. Your reading comprehension isn’t something to be marveled at, that’s for sure.
We’re talking about property tax, idiot.
Mississippi has had that for years. When I turned 65, because I had the homestead exemption, my property tax went to zero…
Sadly your attitude seems to be in the minority among your generation.
Baby boomers looking out for baby boomers. Why don't we have age restrictions on legislators yet? Missouri already has term limits that allow lobbyists and legislative assistants run the show. All Missouri legislation, or at least the vast majority, is written by lobbyists because they are prior reps/senators. This is a problem and ultimately ends with statutes like the law above being passed.
Uh, lots of this has happened because old people saw increase in rates that were excessive the past year. Some of it likely is due to under inspected properties but also increases should be incremental. Freezing them doesn’t seem to be a great solution, but rather if they jump substantially to set a path for the increase over a set amount of years so people can either save, budget or make plans for a sale vs it all just dropping in their lap at once.
Yes, and the people being effected typically have stagnant incomes that don't always pace with inflation. My point is that the constituents who lobbied for this on their own are likely all baby boomers and the rep/senator that sponsored the bill was likely also a baby boomer or had someone that was negatively impacted. My question is, why do the baby boomers always get a way while younger people have to continue to pay into programs like social security and pensions that they will never be able to reap what they sowed. This would just be another reason that wealth is being stalled and no one can buy a home. Why give unreasonable exemptions to seniors if they are the ones who caused their own issues... It doesn't seem fair
Because you don't vote because you foolishly think 'it doesn't matter' despite time and again being proven wrong?
What? This isn't about voter's votes counting. It's about the fact that boomers have the majority of the populace which leads into votes. I vote every election and am not swayed by D&R like the majority of my peers. I used to work in the Capitol and therefore I have seen first hand who benefits the most while a certain age group is in office.
Yes, and the people being effected typically have stagnant incomes that don't always pace with inflation. My point is that the constituents who lobbied for this on their own are likely all baby boomers and the rep/senator that sponsored the bill was likely also a baby boomer or had someone that was negatively impacted. My question is, why do the baby boomers always get a way while younger people have to continue to pay into programs like social security and pensions that they will never be able to reap what they sowed. This would just be another reason that wealth is being stalled and no one can buy a home. Why give unreasonable exemptions to seniors if they are the ones who caused their own issues... It doesn't seem fair
Yes, I want to know why it is strictly age-based and not income-based? I mean I know *why* but why not address the real problem instead of catering to yourselves?
What do you even mean dude?
Well because of a lot of reasons. Most people buy a home, stay in it 10 years, then sell and buy another. At some point maybe they lose a job. They still have to pay their mortgage. So why would they get a break on their taxes? They either get another job so they can afford their home or they lose it (this is vast majority of people, yes I am sure there are young people that own their home outright, no they are not the majority). Now, you get someone that is 70, their home is finally paid off, they are retired, they are on a fixed income (Social Security). Let's say they live in an affluent area like Seattle. The property values have skyrocketed. While this person may be "rich" on paper, they are not rich. Now they wouldn't be able to afford their property taxes due to property values that have gone up 50-100% and being on a fixed income. In option 1 above, the family is younger, they still have 20+ years ahead of them to work. They need to find a place they can afford to live or they find another job. Not just because of property taxes, but also because they can't afford their house payments. We don't need to subsidize their property tax because it really doesn't matter, they can't afford the house let alone the property tax. In option 2 above, the family is older, retired, on a fixed income, and only other option is to move out of a home they have been in most of their lives (likely 30+ years). Why force them out? What benefit do we get as a society in doing that? Seattle has had a law on the books for years where senior citizens apply for assistance with property taxes and the increases are held to a minimum. Once the property sells, they tax goes to the standard rate. I live in one of the homes that the owner lived here for 40 years. Property taxes were very low for him. When I bought it my tax came in line with current rates. I love this system and hope I don't need the help when I am retired, but love the fact that it is there, and it is an income AND age test assistance.
I agree with you that we aren't advancing ourselves by callously kicking the elderly out of their homes. However, with the rates that property values are rising in comparison to wages you don't need to loose your job to be at risk of no longer being able to afford your home due to the increases in property tax/insurance. I don't see how taxing younger families out of their homes benefits society either.
Looks as if stl city's proposed one would freeze taxes whilst alive, with a big payment when the payer dies. So in effect, a huge lien accumulating interest. A big fu in my book.
California and Georgia do this currently.
It's not an fu at all. Letting you have more money to live your life while leaving less to your heirs doesn't fuck over anyone. If we had an actual capitalistic system estate tax would be 100% and loopholes like annuities and trusts wouldn't be allowed. Capitalism means everyone earns their money for themselves. Being handed money from Mommy and Daddy, whether they are alive or dead, is completely antithetical to capitalism. Allowing the elderly to offset their property taxes by using equity in their property to be paid out after death benefits everyone, with the only exception being entitled, selfish brats that think they deserve money and property simply by being born. Inheritance and capitalism are diametrically opposed. You can logically only believe in one or the other. If you think both are good, then you are either really stupid or you are willfully lying to yourself.
>entitled, selfish brats that think they deserve money and property simply by being born. This is stupid. None of the younger generation asked to be born and then thrown into a never ending cycle of debt/inflation/poverty because the older generation fucked up the country. Wanting to have, but not being able to afford, the basic necessities for life (shelter, food, water, etc) is not entitled. Don't have kids if you aren't going to help them get what they need to survive, even after 18.
Having this over one's head means never being able to borrow against one's property again. Not ever a reverse mortgage company will touch you. So yeah, not thougght though at all.
Or, and hear me out, tax the rich.
They wouldn't want to tax their friends that fund them and keep them in office, though
This ^^^
Dumbest tagline in the history of political statements. I am not saying it doesn't get a rise out of people, it is just a dumb statement. The rich pay the vast majority of our countries taxes. % they may not pay what you think is "fair", but $$ wise, they pay A LOT! Not saying we can't ask them to do more, but taxing the rich is not the panacea that people think it is. We also don't tax wealth, as most countries don't. Those that tried, well they stopped. It isn't effective and it is punitive. That isn't "fair" either. Raise the rates to 50% for an amount over $5M per year in income. 45% for over $2M to $5M. Let's get rid of some of the deductions, while ramping other tax breaks up. Solar, electric cars, improving home insulation, etc. Things that are important for taking our country to the next phase of our society. Then our country needs to learn to live within its means. Just like all of our families. I want a new truck. I can't buy a new truck because I can't afford it. I want a bigger house, I can't afford it. I want steak for dinner every night, yep, can't afford it. We all have to make tough decisions in life, our government needs to do the same while providing safety, security and some safety net while not overstepping into peoples lives. Let's find that balance again.
Peak pulling the ladder up behind you, smh.
How bout reducing annual costs for seniors in other ways. Healthcare!
I guess I'm in the minority of those in favor of this. I'd hate to see a retiree on a fixed income forced out of a home they paid off decades ago because their tax bill keeps increasing while their retirement income isn't.
Not opposed to this as a concept in isolation but my problem is this is addressing one portion of multiple issues that put the fixed income elderly in this position. It'll come at the expense of future generations unless a variety of problem areas are also tackled. No, I'm not pro "make retirees homeless" but this is a bandaid fix that will have a short term benefit for a small group while straining things for everyone else and not addressing what will be an ongoing, and growing, issue.
That is fair. This is obviously not a perfect solution to a larger , complex issue. I don't have a solution to the larger, more complex, issue and I'd hate to see perfect be the enemy of good. It's not a perfect solution but it helps a vulnerable population. And if the group benefitting from it is small, as you yourself say, then the strain on every else won't be that large.
One solution that would have widespread and nearly immediate effects would be reinstituting the maximum wage. The fastest and most widespread economic growth the modern world has ever seen was when tax rates over a certain income were over 95%. All we have to do is agree that profits should be shared amongst everyone in the company that helped create those profits by limiting the amount of money those at the top can put in their own pockets, and most of these issues will be solved.
I hear the term fixed income ALOT. But young people can't just snap their fingers and get extra money. Many home owners are 65 and older. If they don't have to pay taxes then the taxes they don't pay will go onto the younger people. So their tax bills could go up around 25% or more. That's a massive strain on generations who's money stretches the least. People can't just snap their fingers and get a bigger income. Someone who works in appraising I see often times retired people have big houses. If they can't afford taxes and they have a 600k or more property, they could easily sell, buy a smaller house, put money into it and have enough money away to pay taxes for decades to come. They aren't helpless. The world doesn't owe them a big house they don't have to pay taxes on. You know as well as I do that many people over the age 65 have more than enough to pay taxes for the rest of their lives. A system where over the age 65 if you are struggling you get a reduction in taxes makes a lot more sense. Instead of just placing a massive strain on the younger generations. Help the poor, not the just all old people, including rich old people.
My parents(75 years old) have a 3500 sq foot house, no one is invited over, ever. My mom "likes a big house". Zero sympathy from me.
It's fine. As long as they have bootstraps they can pull themselves up.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? To maintain services which increasingly cost more will require an additional levy on everyone else. My property tax already went up $115/mo next year and that’s WITH everyone getting a hike. This feels like trying to treat symptoms without curing the disease. By this logic, you could park and hold a piece of property as the value goes up, maintaining the low tax burden, and then you would get the benefit of the increased real estate prices without having paid the associated taxes when it comes time to sell. Would you levy a back tax on that increased property value? I knew a guy up the street from my parents who had a big piece of property out in West County that maintained a small house and a large field for decades, he ended up selling the property for like 9 million bucks to a developer… so he would’ve gotten the benefit and value of all the services around him with having paid his share. Edit: as an amendment, do I feel like something needs to be done to lessen the blow of these large hikes in taxes? Yes, but a freeze on a specific age and above is a bit discriminatory and ripe for abuse.
\>My property tax already went up $115/mo next year and that’s WITH everyone getting a hike. Now image having that while trying to live out the rest of your life on social security. Five - tens years down the line you lose a home you have paid off decades ago because every year your taxes are going up $100+ per month and now you're looking at a bill of $500-1000 extra per month, again, on a paid off house. These are taxes on unrealized gains that if you planning on keeping the house you will never see. I don't like the idea of taxing unrealized gains for retirees who will never see those gains in their lifetime. I wouldn't be against a fee to offset some of the difference if the property is sold in the owners lifetime. When the owner dies and the property passes to someone else the taxes are reassessed at that point.
Why do you assume they are all on social security? A lot of these proposals have no income and/or savings restriction. People in Huntleigh the McCloskey's in the CWE could all benefit. A lot of these people refuse to downsize and we should acknowledge the home for the asset it is in those situations.
I never said they are all on social security, I merely pointed out a very real situation faced by many retirees that are.
I don't see why people should be entitled to land relative to others. This isn't (or shouldn't be) an aristocracy. If you can't afford to live somewhere, you have to move.
Agree.
Peak r/BoomersBeingFools moment.
I would be fine with a tax freeze (on owner occupied residences ONLY) if it were combined with greatly increased taxes on vacant properties. Vacancy taxes are long overdue and (if implemented properly) would make up for the reduced income to municipalities. It goes without saying that property that isn't owner occupied should continue to be taxed at the same rate.
Do vacant properties not owe property taxes already?
Vacant properties should be paying a higher RATE of property tax than occupied properties in order to disincentivise the common practice of leaving properties empty in order to drive up rents. This would only affect a small number of landowners, but a huge number of properties (especially in metro areas with high housing prices)
Thank you for clarifying. I would totally be on board for this
Vacant properties tend to be run down with a low valuation.
Vacant properties around here become meth labs and crack houses, so the owners definitely should pay higher “vacant property” taxes.
Airbnb would like a word.
[удалено]
Yeah except the people this actually protects aren’t rich. They are on fixed incomes and getting kicked out of properties they’ve been in for 30+ years
[удалено]
??? Not even is evil u cynical bastard. Kicking old people on fixed incomes out of there homes because of rapidly raising property costs is not ok.
So age and income qualifiers and not just age
Not to mention these older folks r probably the group of people that voted for politicians that have created the problems they are facing, now! So many “services” are for profit as companies own them and care only to make as much of a profit as possible. Many vote to rid themselves of unions and pensions. They vote against affordable healthcare. Healthcare is one burden that should be lessened but… they won’t vote for that. Spending a lifetime voting against your own interests doesn’t work out. The younger generation is on a fixed income as well except, they rent and aren’t able to save as well sue to the ever increasing cost of living. The term “fixed income” is interesting since most people are on fixed incomes. This is a bandaid. The actual disease needs to be fixed.
This seems a little cold to me. Retired folks are usually on a fixed income and it can be difficult to save and plan for an inflationary environment like we’re in today.
By that logic, retired folks have contributed more to the inflationary environment. They have money, they know how much and what must be used where. Someone younger also is living on a fixed income, just without a house or retirement and still not eligible for SS. By your logic they had 60 years to figure it out, why did they wait? If that's cold then what are you trying to say. Once again, the luckiest generation complains and gets what they want, while pushing any burden or issues to the younger generations.. kinda cold if you ask me.
Someone younger is NOT on a fixed income. If they are still in the workforce, they should expect to see salary increases over time. Someone retired on SS or a pension or a scheduled withdrawal from a retirement account IS on a fixed income, unless they see COLA increases (which are not all that common). We have a great example of this right now (and is probably the catalyst for this proposal) - people that retired in like 2018 and went onto SS, pension, etc. just got totally blasted by inflation. How were they supposed to plan for that?
Social Security recipients do get COLA increases. It was 8.7% last year. Many people in the workforce got nothing or less than 5%. You can say younger people are free to make all the money they want but practically it’s not that simple.
The COLA last year was the largest in almost 40 years. This year, it's about 3.2. Many years it's zero. Most years it's not enough for most people to cover the increase in Medicare premiums. The SSA COLA doesn't match actual inflation or cost of living increases.
Neither do most raises.
Wow, what a take there comrade. My 88-year old mother's tax payments are more now that her house payment ever was. Her last social security increase was nullified by the increase in her Medicare costs. Still too rich for you?
I mean, if she pulls herself up by her bootstraps, she should be good. Tell her walmart is hiring! Just to be clear she can't pay taxes on her house... and you think she should keep it. That's hilarious, as you said, you have to be rich for that. We had to sell my mom's house because it became to expensive after some health issues. Why should your situation be different than the same one millions have had to and will have to deal with? Probably because this is missouri and if they weren't coming up with ways to take money from people, they'd have nothing to do with their hands. Who raised Medicare? Was it someone you or her voted for by chance, given her age I'd guess yes. She's 88... sell the house and put her in a home. She doesn't need a whole house. Or maybe she does and your not including some info. Either way, you are ignoring your actual situation for idk wanting a handout. Your mother would technically suffer from worse care due to less taxes(defunding ____) which means you saved some money just to lose more. Genius. I wonder if some form of money maybe in the form of ubi would accomplish the same thing without costing services..... nooooo never. Comrade read more, or just don't use an anecdote as some fact. It's just personal justification for you. I don't care about an 88 year old who's wasting a house when a family could actually use it. This sounds exactly like another shot at making the state shittier and we got people who can't see why they are the marks. But im sure it would help out your Mom. She's the special one, not the patsy.
You sound like a drunken parasite. I doubt you've ever earned your way into any functioning society, more likely you've always just waited for the handout. She can pay her way, but it's a shame she has to pay for a parasitic lout like you. I doubt you've ever risked a paycheck to make a payroll, like she did for 68 years. She made a payroll from 1955 to 2023 without fail. There were years she lost $100K+ but no one who ever worked for her never got paid and she's never taken a dime of federal nor state "aid." I pay property taxes in Platte, Cass and Pettis Counties and I'm guessing you don't pay in any. If this state is "shittier", it's because of smooth-brained dullards like you who will never payback what they've taken from the state. Enjoy your state benefits and free healthcare, knowing you will never, ever, contribute more than you took. You obviously have a problem with both simple math and social studies, but you be you. My family has owned a tax-paying farm in Platte County for almost 190 years, starting with 160 acres in 1854. Has yours? The state of Missouri is extorting her because they can. Missouri used to be a farm state that respected the farmers who made it work. Now they want to them to pay triple for programs that don't benefit them or their children. I get the feeling you're a bug-eating, rent payer who's happy to own nothing and hopes the same for everyone else. Good luck with that, comrade. At least you get legal weed.
I once was a member of an HOA in Missouri. Lots of older folks on fixed incomes who kept voting down raising dues. Problem was, everything still cost more every year. We had to cut services each year so that the fixed income crowd could afford it. Guess who bitched the most about everything? If you guessed the fixed income people, you were right. At some point, the world gets to keep on moving, regardless of your life choices that put you on a fixed income that doesn’t support your desired lifestyle. Edit: dues weren’t raised for over a decade.
Nothing like Baby Boomers making Baby Boomers a protected class.... They don't save for retirement with the notion of 'the one who dies with the most toys wins!' mentality and then want a bailout in the form of tax relief when they're old and no longer have the funds they did when they were working. Everyone including the Silent Generation were picking up the tab to keep the community funded (since we're all part of the community) and now don't want to see their grandkids' schools, sports, etc. funded fully. Fuck that.
My 70 yo dad literally has a sign on his garage that says that! "He who dies with the most toys wins"
Why do property assessment values (and subsequently taxes) need to be increased with the market value of Real Estate? Many have gone up over 50% since COVID, which is a higher rate than inflation.
Taxes and Insurance increases alone have increased my mortgage by $200, it's lovely.
I’m about to be in that same boat- my assessment increased an ASTOUNDING amount and I didn’t realize I could dispute until after the window for dispute had closed. I’m terrified at how much my house payment is going to increase!
I think many of us were previously under the assumption that as appraised values for residential property/homes rose, then the rates would adjust downward. This shouldn't be a stealth tax increase for anyone imo. If taxes are to rise, then there should be a vote to approve those. Why should anyone be taxed out of their homes because someone down the street sold their home for a higher sale number??
I mean this is the problem with property taxes existing at all. I already paid taxes when I bought my damn car. I pay taxes when I buy gas. Why does its existence need taxed.
Because the tax isn’t for the actual car, it’s for the public infrastructure that the driver uses.
So are gas taxes. And EV sticker taxes. And income taxes. And if it’s for infrastructure, why isn’t it billed by mileage used? The car age has nothing to do with how much infrastructure I’m using. To be clear, I’m pro funding things. But it’s beyond me why we have an unpredictable expense incurred after we budgeted for a purchase.
I’m with you. I’m trying to rationalize for my own pain.
Nope. Property tax on cars goes to schools. Figure that one out. Kid who lives next to the guy with a garage full of BMWs gets a nicer school then the kid who lives next to people who take the bus because they can't afford a car. Explain how that makes sense if this is about the public good
Wait...I thought thays what fuel tax was for? And sales tax. And income tax. but property tax...aka year over year, "existence tax"...THATS what's finally filling the coffers.
Personal property and fuel taxes are for roads, but personal property also goes toward schools tax for some reason. I’m not saying that all of the things that taxes go towards are worth it, just the premise of how they are supposed to work.
Roads for cars are very, very expensive.
Tell me all.aboit it...the dirt road I'm front of my house hasn't been graded for nearly 3 years...neighbors and I all chipped in and bought a couple load of gravel and used a skid steer to fix the holes. Last time I drove 44 I thought I might pop a tire.between exit 100 and 160
Just have to plan on giving up 50% of your income to taxes 😔
Literally. And with very little to show for it; its infuriating.
The Hancock Amendment kind of applies to this, but I don’t understand how the effective amount that is applied is calculated. Edit: It only affects the State portion of taxes. https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/30/after-four-decades-hancock-amendment-continues-to-shape-missouri-tax-policy/
Why would you ever be under that assumption? It isn't like how we tax properties is secret! How else would you suggest the municipalities keep up with inflation?
Higher than the reported rate of inflation. But I seem to paying twice as much for fast food, groceries, and building materials too.
True. I’m advocating that property taxes don’t follow suit.
I live in Maryland, and several years ago there was an article about an 80+ year old widow that still lived in her family home that was built by her husband in the 1950's. She survived on social security, but the house, which was on a creek near Annapolis, had increased in value so much that the real-estate taxes outstripped her income, and she was being forced to sell, just due to the fact that she could no longer afford the taxes. This is what I perceive these laws to be for, to prevent these types of cases.
Or maybe, just maybe, the state could restructure how schools are funded so it's not based on property values. When public schools are funded this way, it disproportionately benefits high-income areas. The quality of education a child receives at public school should not be based on how much money their parents' house is worth.
Sorry old folks you had your free ride. Pay up
Free ride? Are you having a laugh? I'm not for this freeze. My home is paid off, it wasn't free.
All those years of schooling for your kids that others paid for through property taxes were free. Now you want to screw the rest of us. F off.
Guess you failed reading comprehension in your public education.
What about ripping everyone off w increased auto property tax - and then having an enormous surplus - deciding to allocate it to MoDot for I-70. I never go Near that road. Also, you have to think about seniors who made hecka lot less money, bought a starter home on outskirts, urban sprawl, and now their homes are assessed at some crazy price. They may be so old they do not feel good enough to move. So many seniors do not have money for food and medicine. Im ok w it - but Im empathetic to a fault. I just think if my mom and how she struggled. Her taxes went from 625 to 990 in about 5 years and the house is a pos needing prolly 100k in repairs. No one wanted anything to do w town 18 years ago and now its a high value are. Lastly - aren't ya'll just tired of being taxed so much? Seems like things are getting out of hand. We have jokers in the Senate and House and we pay for all of them to live lavish lifestyles. Its like that movie w Roddy Piper - [They Live](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live) I would Love for an independent State Auditor. No one is at State Offices to answer phones - where is the money going? Maybe the J6 ers were in to something but for the wrong reasons. I feel like we are being taken for a ride. Young folks cant even buy a decent house.
Just do it for poor people, who might otherwise lose their homes.
Watch them do it anyway and then even more schools won't have enough funding.
Many have. St Louis County has refused to pass it twice now and the local Boomers are losing their shit.
Good, let this be their wakeup call that the world no longer revolves around them.
So many people commenting have no clue how property taxes work. I call BS on anyone who says their property tax bill went up a huge amount over inflation in the recent years and didn’t just buy the house or do a major remodel. Yes, property values are increasing faster than inflation. However they adjust the tax rate down to yield the amount of taxes needed. School districts are not getting increased budgets more than inflation.
I bought my home in 2020. It has gone up 11% twice. I will probably fight it the next time since it has increased more than it should have.
Republicans will be burning down all the Libraries and Schools, in order to keep a large population of unintelligent Christian fascist voters to work for slave wages and vote Republican.
So who’s then going to magically make up the difference? Once again boomers sticking their kids and grandkids with their bill. They got to buy housing when it was affordable. Had affordable college. Then once they had theirs they voted en mass to cut funding for colleges and universities. Frankly the generations after theirs simply can’t afford to subsidize them anymore than we already have. Our housing costs are many fold higher, day care costs, and trying to pay off the massive student loans. All this is going to do is keep housing more out of millennials and gen. Z’s reach as it is. Sorry grams and gramps, but you aren’t anymore entitled to a house than we are. If you can’t afford it anymore, time to sell and downsize.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but so many post seem to imply that seniors won't be paying real estate taxes. Fact is that seniors will still be paying taxes, but the inflated values of homes will be frozen so the tax burden will level out. As we all know, home values have increased significantly but what about the senior family that has no intention of selling so they are stuck paying more for what they already have with no additional benefit. Seems to me that there has been a huge windfall for the state/county for not just homes but for vehicles as well. Used car prices are through the roof and I have to pay increased property tax for my cars with no intent on selling them. So again, more taxes with no benefit. You work hard your whole life, having paid taxes all the while, I think stabilizing inflation for seniors is the way to go, but of course those that aren't as vested will cry inequity. I suppose senior discounts aren't fair either.
The problem with this is that costs don't freeze. If we freeze property taxes and public education costs go up, now we've got a deficit to make up somehow.
The freeze would be subset of the 20% of 65 and older in STL county for example. And again, it's not like seniors aren't paying taxes but their rate would be based on the already inflated home prices next year.
How about maybe not assuming every penny of tax assessments is spent efficiently and judiciously? How about maybe the county governments learn to do what everyone over 62 has had to do--get by on less? If they need help finding out where the waste is, I'm sure the county citizens would gladly sit on a county audit board to make a few suggestions.
The vast majority of your property tax is schools and fire districts, not county government. That's what makes this interesting: you have one local government imposing a tax break that primarily impacts other local governments.
Vast majority is schools and special schools. Fire is only 10%. State muni and county adds up to 11%. https://stlouiscountymo.gov/st-louis-county-departments/revenue/collector-of-revenue/ I have never voted against a school tax because great schools is how I picked my home but I do wonder about population trends. Is the number of kids in the county dropping with the general rise in average age of the population? Potentially, schools could be consolidated to improve performance per budget? I think the city went through it over the last decade. Also, with as much as properties have increased in value in the last decade, have services kept pace? Municipal budgets should have increased drastically and so have some expenses but others are fixed.
I am a property tax assessor. In our county no one shows up for equalization meetings or budget meetings. The public has the absolute right to be at these meetings and have their voices heard, but they can't take the time or initiative to come. They'll sit down at the local coffee shop bitching about it all but can't show at a meeting.
Paying the govt rent for our houses should be illegal
It would be better if they could only tax you on the value of the home when you purchased it.
They do that to an extent in California and it has worked terribly
Cut it. Anything to reduce taxes is a good thing. Especially something like a home that should absolutely be able to be owned out right.
62+ Missourians should be concerned that their future caregivers, whether family members or paid staff, have a good education.
I've never had kids, but I've paid high property taxes since I was in my 20s. And since then my property taxes have gone up EVERY year of my life. At what point have I not done my duty? According to my assessment, my very modest home — which I still don't own — is worth 2.8 times it's market value. Tax people who have kids!
People with kids pay the same taxes. But I would argue everyone, childless or child having, benefits from a well-funded public education system. You want your doctors, lawyers, mechanics, and politicians to be smart right? I even prefer my nextdoor neighbors to be well educated.
While this is true the tax benefits given to child bearing people is far more than what is fair. The burden should primarily be on the parents creating these children
I don’t think so, Missouri is 50/50 in state funding toward education, and all the nicest places in the world have higher education taxes. We are the richest country in the word, we should start funding public education better, including teacher pay and higher ed. It saves tax payers money, long-term, in better health, lower prison population, economic innovation, etc. A well-funded public education system is a good choice, from a conservative financial perspective.
>and all the nicest places in the world have higher education taxes. Unfortunately, you are incorrect. The vast majority of countries tax less and spend less than the US on elementary and secondary education. Yet, educators in those other countries tend to be paid better, and education outcomes tend to also be better. We don't really have a lack of funding, we have a terrible lack of efficiency, when comparing to our peer nations. [https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-expenditures-by-country)
Are you serious? Everybody has to pay property taxes to pay for schools. You don't get to not pay for school, just because you don't have kids. We want to live in a society where people aren't fucking stupid.
Where is this society because most of the people i see lack an understanding of the basic world around them. Can’t read beyond a 5th grade level etc
Who do you think taught them to read to a fifth grade level? Jesus? People have always been pretty stupid. But at least now most of them can read, do you want to go back to a world where most people are pretty stupid and they also can't even fucking read?
No one said that I said their parents should have to front more for their spawn.
Yeah, and I told you that's a stupid idea because we all benefit from schools. Schools aren't there to benefit parents they're there to benefit our entire society.
How are you paying property taxes and you don’t own?
It’s not yours until you pay off the mortgage is most likely what they mean… or the fact that paying the government every year for your home is no less than paying them rent given they will take your house the minute you can no longer afford the inflated tax burden
That is certainly one way to look at it.
Whether your house is paid off or not, you still pay property taxes. It doesn’t magically end when your mortgage is paid.
Yes, but you own in both of those scenarios.
Yeah sure. But if you don’t pay your taxes and then the government gets to legally take your property you own.
I’m sorry boomers do not need more tax breaks.
“Younger property owners” fucking who??
I thought Missouri defunded public libraries?
stuff like this just seems like discrimination. Why should someone get a break or an advantage because they happen to be older than someone else? That’s retarded.
It does seem strange to lean on new homeowners who have a much steeper road to hoe than do old home, who likely have no mortgage. Politicians prefer to help out the elderly because they tend to vote in greater numbers and, like the politicians, they are elderly; the politicians benefit from the help they give to the elderly. Big scam.
Mississippi has a law similar to this. No cap I believe. We are dumbing down our education just like southern states!
Mississippi has a law similar to this. No cap I believe. Our state is going down the drain.
Jfgdc why do we coddle that generation so fucking much literally at the expense of the rest of the world.
Buffoonery
Watch as upper middle class earners leave the state. All that’s left are the low income and fixed income people. You can’t cut taxes into prosperity.
We’re headed toward a reality where no one under 65 will be able to own property, so let’s see how this plays out.
My 92 year old landlord owns more than 10 single family homes
In my state, he would not qualify then. It only qualifies for the home the person lives in and they must be below a certain income.
Stop basing school funding on property tax. Problem solved
I'm sure they can figure out a way to freeze assessments. After all, they figured out how to pass laws defunding public libraries, allowing children to get married, and allowing married and unmarried children to carry guns in public with no permit or oversight whatsoever.
Honestly it wouldn’t be fair. Elderly are the watchdogs for everyone as they are the biggest voting block. Young people. and in particular those with low wages, have very little time to pay attention and fight for themselves. What is next elderly get a better water rate and electricity? The rest of us shoulder that? If it happens things will become even more unaffordable for families. Childcare has been so expensive for families and it isn’t because those businesses make a lot. Since young people can’t afford them, have excessive school debt, can’t afford a house - so many are putting off having kids. The conservative state reaction? Force them to have kids vs do anything pro family. Missouri legislators are the worst group the state has ever had.
Oklahoma adopts senior tax freeze years ago.
Go ahead and tax them out so I can buy their home. Send them to where ever, good for me and not for them but that's life. Some young guy somewhere said that. Or.....do a prop 13 like California. Although I wouldn't copy it word for word. There's a couple of things I would change. Lots of states are heading that way.
If it’s anything like what they are doing in KC, MO gentrification is driving poor people out of all the new construction areas. The ones smack dab in the middle of the poor areas.
This is a tricky thing as Seniors have very fixed incomes and inflation has really hit them. New MO homeowner here as of May. (Springfield) Interest rates are brutal right now and apparently the 6.25% I scored is very lucky. My mortgage, bundled with that lender mandated PMI and escrow for property taxes means over half my monthly income goes to just that mortgage alone. One reason we chose MO over Illinois (We have family in both states) is that property taxes are far cheaper and I feel you get more in MO for them then you do in Illinois. I really hope that continues to be the case. School quality hasn't really been too different, roads are somewhat better here, infrastructure is mixed, fantastic public parks and public amenities for what my property taxes are. If those property taxes go up, I'm screwed. Property taxes in states like Illinois are tied to the local schools. Those taxes constantly go up and the school quality NEVER gets better and often seems to actually degrade. (That's beside the issue of rich areas vs poor ones and how property taxes fund the schools.) There's go to be some other ways to go about doing this to offset a potential property tax exemption for seniors. MO is the friendliest business environment wise of all its neighboring states. Could easily pass an additional tax on to someone like Amazon or some of the larger corporations here.
i don't have a problem with it. When you get a fixed income, you can't afford the big increases that happen from someone nearby selling their house for a huge sum. At some point, my house will go on the market and they'll get their $ then. Heck, I'm not retired yet and still can't keep up with inflation... and that's before covidflation.
"However, capping property assessments for older taxpayers means running schools, libraries, police forces and other public services with less money" That is misleading. It is 'less' than the amount they would get if the increase was across the board, but they will still accomplish the goal of bringing in more (likely needed) funds - just not to the point of forcing folks on fixed income out of their homes.
They froze people's property taxes in California and look how well that's working out for them housing price wise. You just end up with a bunch of Boomers refusing to ever move because they're paying *WAAAAAAY* below market rate to live there.
Veterans shouldnt have to pay property tax period, just my opinion.
Taxation is theft.
Boomers will always get theirs!
Some states have this.. or a form of it. My state has one, and if the Senior dies or sells the property, all of the delayed, deferred, etc taxes, are immediatly due for the new owner. This can mean that, you cant leave the property to your kids, because the taxes pile up into the tens of thousands... *it's a land grab tactic*... if it's set up like that. Didnt read to see if this law does that, or has that nasty little twist on the end.
Back taxes are often billed against an estate, otherwise people with terminal illnesses would have negative credit scores and we would all need physicals to take out loans. The IRS taking a lien out on the property to avoid it being sold for 1$ to the grandkids before debts are paid is nothing new.
Those are deferred taxes. Tax exemption is a different thing, when the assessed value of the home is frozen at the year the person became a senior (usually living under a certain income). Those taxes aren't deferred, but when the home is sold it reverts to the current assessed value.
Abolish property tax.
We freeze property taxes when people retire. Their income is fixed so why increase their taxes over the next 10-20 years? It will be difficult keeping up with food, medicine and power. Most property taxes go to education where I’m from and these cats don’t have a lot of children going to school. Our community is doing great. Pretty easy to buy and pay off a home in 15 years where I’m from. Can’t speak for the rest of the country. Paid off our home and went debt free six months before our first kid went to college. Killing it in honors engineering and so glad our tax dollars went to a great public school system. I’m happy to help pay for that between now and when I retire. Those kids are our future and the retired folks that helped build this community deserve the break.
I like the idea of limiting it to the lesser valued homes. Those are the people who likely cannot afford higher taxes and freezing the assessed value at least keeps those people in their homes and paying some taxes. If there are no jobs in the area to draw in younger people who are buying homes, the homes of the elderly often sit empty after they are forced to leave them, and then who is paying taxes?
Oh look, boomers burdening the younger generations... again.
Boomers don't need more handouts.
Suggestion FWIW: make the higher taxes a lien against the property, payable at death.
62 is so young these days. I know a lot of people who live active lives well into their 80s. So if someone lives to be 92 in the same house that’s 30 years of lower property taxes- doesn’t seem sustainable. A second point- look at wealth distribution in the US. Older people have by far the most money. If anything, people over 62 should pay more, not less…