Yipee Lower Taxes (luxury, school districts, income)

[dcisive]

I love it when our beloved state decides to do what other states have gone in the opposite direction of. Lowering the burden of property tax to us owners. Bless their hearts. One thing that the governor apparently resisted on was some alteration of some dates in which those annoying school bonds keep getting foisted on us as they do like a bleeding open wound that never heals. A never-ending leak, and it got old.

https://www.idahopress.com/news/loca...efe45533d.html

[Syringaloid]

There are so many issues with this bill and it was slammed through at the last moment because the legislators wasted too much time focusing on stupid, self serving issues.

Very few in Idaho's government deserve to have their hearts blessed.

Schools, and the bond voting dates are important, but were not the only issues the Governor had originally.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

I know that schools need money, but it would be nice if they would do a longer levy. Perhaps 5 years so that the elections don't come so frequently. Those voting days cost a lot of money and it is annoying to have a school levy every other year.

It would also help if the school district were more forthcoming about what money would be used for and what programs. We passed a local levy where I live because the school district is very careful with funds and was clear about what the money would be used for. All the proposed uses were things that the voters were willing to pay for.

On the flip side, Spokane was floating a levy and wanted to pay for all sorts of special luxury programs. I don't know if their voters passed the levy or not, but that sort of levy would not pass where I am locate.

[dcisive]

There are a number of areas around the country that allow the seniors to be exempt from such levies in their taxes on their property. Understanding many are on a fixed income to begin with. Then there are places like Washington, Oregon, California and Utah that take seniors to the cleaners having NO considerations or pity on their financial situations. They of course have NO children in the system. In my case I never have. So the concept of senior exclusions from these never-ending sucking processes of exclusions makes perfect sense to ME. I hear (and will now probably see) some come out of the woodwork barking about we're ALL responsible for it no matter what so stop your crying. To me, taxes of any kind on any level should have accountability which frankly, like our government at large, they don't.

[NORTY FLATZ]

Originally Posted by dcisive

There are a number of areas around the country that allow the seniors to be exempt from such levies in their taxes on their property. Understanding many are on a fixed income to begin with. Then there are places like Washington, Oregon, California and Utah that take seniors to the cleaners having NO considerations or pity on their financial situations. They of course have NO children in the system. In my case I never have. So the concept of senior exclusions from these never-ending sucking processes of exclusions makes perfect sense to ME. I hear (and will now probably see) some come out of the woodwork barking about we're ALL responsible for it no matter what so stop your crying. To me, taxes of any kind on any level should have accountability which frankly, like our government at large, they don't.

Totally agree. Why should a person with no kids, subsidize a person with a litter?

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by NORTY FLATZ

Totally agree. Why should a person with no kids, subsidize a person with a litter?

Because everyone depends on future generations to keep society functioning. Nurses, doctors, police, firefighters, service workers, engineers. Even if you don't have kids it's in your best interest to educate kids and teach them skills.

[dcisive]

Yeah I get it. But there should be a cutoff for older folks being exempt from having to scrape up those funds. I think 65 would be a decent cutoff. It's fair and equitable and at least allows for seniors on a fixed income to have a spec better life that they deserve. They already paid their dues.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by NORTY FLATZ

Totally agree. Why should a person with no kids, subsidize a person with a litter?

Here's what you get out of it immediately: if the kids are not in school, they are running around wild and getting into trouble. They form up into gangs, they spray graffiti, they shoplift. Schools keep them confined and, in Idaho at least, teach them to be organized and disciplined and to get along with other humans..

Less immediately, if they are uneducated, they end up on welfare and you pay for them that way.

The families with kids are helping to pay for your senior center and meals on wheels and medicare. They aren't getting away tax free. All of us are paying for something or another we don't want to pay for.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by dcisive

Yeah I get it. But there should be a cutoff for older folks being exempt from having to scrape up those funds. I think 65 would be a decent cutoff. It's fair and equitable and at least allows for seniors on a fixed income to have a spec better life that they deserve. They already paid their dues.

What does it mean for one to have "paid their dues?" People don't stop needing services once they hit 65. In fact, folks are likely to need more services and skilled labor as they age. Like roads and infrastructure that must be continuously maintained, the next generation must always be educated to keep society humming. I get that school districts are relentless with bonds and that the money isn't always well spent. But that's why we need seniors to help keep the districts honest. Exempting those over 65 means that those most likely to vote don't care if the money is wasted because they aren't paying for it anyways.

[banjomike]

Personally speaking, I know I'm going to need more help some more next year than I need it now, and that's the way it will go for me to the end.
I'm 78, will be 79 in June, and age isn't sneaking up on me now, it's coming at me at a dead run. I hope at least some of the young folks will be well-enough educated they'll be able to help me when I need something complicated done.
Done for me or to me. Some of either is bound to be needed, and some of both has already happened.

And when smart kids are educated well, they tend to get higher paying jobs. Higher pay means higher taxes for them more than higher taxes for me, as mine aren't ever going to raise or lower very much unless I scratch off a ticket that delivers some very ridiculous sum to my bank account.

But mostly, I always vote yes for every school bond because I believe good education floats all boats in Idaho.

Yes. It's tough to fork out a little more out of my fixed income when a bond passes, especially in these hard times. But unless we educate our kids well, those hard times won't ever be fixed by people who don't have a good education. And old folks can't do it themselves.
I also like the idea of keeping our smartest kids here for the rest of their lives, instead of having to move out due to nothing but better job opportunity elsewhere. The smart kids are Idaho's best asset.

Good schools, from the bottom to the top of our education system, is Idaho's best bet in our future prosperity as a state.