Property taxes and schools

[Mr. P]

For the most part, school taxes are the largest part of property tax bills.

Should there be and age or circumstance that one is exempt from school tax?

Should an 80, 70, 65 year old still pay school tax?
Should an empty nester still pay school tax?
Should property owners without children be taxed? If so, to what age?

We must fund schools but how?
What are the options?

Opinions, comments, solutions…..

 

[Mr.Conley]

I've heard that several rich, suburban publics are starting endowments so that they don't have to share the money with other, poorer districts and can hopefully reduce the tax burden on residents.

 

[Mr.Conley]

As for your other questions:

No, If you're over the age of 65 or 70, and are retired, then I don't think you should have to pay school taxes.

In theory it'd be great if only parents had to pay school tax, but that isn't sustainable, so this group would definitely have to pay.

Same thing for people without children as empty nesters. Besides, it's in societies interests to have our children educated to the greatest extent possible.

 

[theHawk]

I think we should all have to pay a little bit of tax, but elderly and single folks should get at least a tax break on it. Charge parents the full amount.

 

[Mr. P]

I think we should all have to pay a little bit of tax, but elderly and single folks should get at least a tax break on it. Charge parents the full amount.

If parents did have to pay the full amount I think vouchers would be an immediate reality. Imagine demanding a return on your investment.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You never hear a parent say "man I wish less people would help pay for public schools" but you hear a lot of grandparents say "I don't have anyone in the school system why should I pay!?!?!?"

Just another example of someone trying to skirt out of social responsibility that they once benefitted from.

Besides, I can only imagine what would happen to graduation rates if parents with children enrolled had to pay substantially more than if they weren't enrolled.

 

[GotZoom]

You can't limit it to just people who have school-aged children.

What if their kids go to private school? Should the parents be exempt from the educational funding portion of their taxes since the kids don't go to public schools?

 

[Mr. P]

You never hear a parent say "man I wish less people would help pay for public schools" but you hear a lot of grandparents say "I don't have anyone in the school system why should I pay!?!?!?"

Just another example of someone trying to skirt out of social responsibility that they once benefitted from.

Besides, I can only imagine what would happen to graduation rates if parents with children enrolled had to pay substantially more than if they weren't enrolled.

Social responsibility? Define that for me please. And when does it end?

Zoom asked...

What if their kids go to private school? Should the parents be exempt from the educational funding portion of their taxes since the kids don't go to public schools?

I did the private stuff with my child and continued to pay the public school tax.
When can I stop? Have I meant my Social responsibility, yet?

 

[GotZoom]

Social responsibility? Define that for me please. And when does it end?

Zoom asked...


I did the private stuff with my child and continued to pay the public school tax.
When can I stop? Have I meant my Social responsibility, yet?

My parents did the same. I went to private school but they continued to pay 100% of their city and county property tax.

If you start allowing people to "not pay" portions because that portion doesn't apply to them, you are opening up a can of worms.

I do agree about senior citizens...but only because of the fixed income situation many of them have trouble with.

 

[Gunny]

For the most part, school taxes are the largest part of property tax bills.

Should there be and age or circumstance that one is exempt from school tax?

Should an 80, 70, 65 year old still pay school tax?
Should an empty nester still pay school tax?
Should property owners without children be taxed? If so, to what age?

We must fund schools but how?
What are the options?

Opinions, comments, solutions…..

That's a GOOD question. Where I live, you taxes are paid according to the district you live in, and your taxes go only to that particular district. There is a bigtime inequity in education around here, to say the least.

I live in one of the highest taxed districts so my daughter could go to one of if not the best high school here. She's done with high school, I'm STILL paying!!!

For the purpose of public education, I think there should be a flat tax spread equally among the school districts and I think one should pay until they are whatever the ever-increasing age of social security eligibility is. I think those whose children are in private school should be tax exempt so long as they are footing the bill for their children.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Social responsibility? Define that for me please. And when does it end?

It ends when a generation finally figures out a way to get out of it. They win the lottery because they didnt' have to shoulder the entire cost of their own generation's kids' education but then don't have to pay for anyone's after theirs.

I suppose you'd advocate that the entire education system should be privatized, yes? Privatization is the key to everything, right?

 

[Mr. P]

My parents did the same. I went to private school but they continued to pay 100% of their city and county property tax.

If you start allowing people to "not pay" portions because that portion doesn't apply to them, you are opening up a can of worms.

I do agree about senior citizens...but only because of the fixed income situation many of them have trouble with.

This is my intention…..

As I said in the first post, we must fund education. The question is who is “we” and how long do “we” fund?

Of course the education of our youth is in the best interest of the entire society, but isn’t there a point that the benefit outweighs the individual cost?

In other words, does an 65 year old benefit as mush as a 35 year old?
I don’t think so, and chances are good the 65 year old owns more property, thus more taxes.

Maybe an age cutoff would work. Say one based on life expectancy. If it’s say 70 (population wise) knock of 10 years or so. Then at 60 you’re exempt from the tax.
Or even a diminishing tax; say a 10% reduction every year after age 60.

Whadda say?

 

[Mr. P]

It ends when a generation finally figures out a way to get out of it. They win the lottery because they didnt' have to shoulder the entire cost of their own generation's kids' education but then don't have to pay for anyone's after theirs.

I suppose you'd advocate that the entire education system should be privatized, yes? Privatization is the key to everything, right?

No not at first. Give vouchers, and let the parents and market decide, works for me. Are you afraid of being on your own to make choices?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No not at first. Give vouchers, and let the parents and market decide, works for me. Are you afraid of being on your own to make choices?

No. But I am slightly afraid of other people being on their own to make the same choices responsibly, and their failure to do so adversely affecting me later on.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Personally, I can see letting seniors on a fixed income off the hook, but if you move beyond that, I think we'll end up in a world of bureaucratic hurt. People will be bend the laws to find a way out of paying the tax if they can, even if they should. The system we have now might not be perfect, but I can't imagine any other system that would be better.

 

[Annie]

Personally, I can see letting seniors on a fixed income off the hook, but if you move beyond that, I think we'll end up in a world of bureaucratic hurt. People will be bend the laws to find a way out of paying the tax if they can, even if they should. The system we have now might not be perfect, but I can't imagine any other system that would be better.

I have nothing against seniors per se, my dad is one. However, the assumption that all seniors, by age alone should be exempted from any tax, seems absurd from the get go. IF such an exemption were to become law, means testing certainly should be required. BUT, if we're 'means testing' what about low income folks in general? What if they ARE low income, because of how many children they have?

Seems a slippery slope and more taxes on the working middle class.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Personally, I can see letting seniors on a fixed income off the hook, but if you move beyond that, I think we'll end up in a world of bureaucratic hurt. People will be bend the laws to find a way out of paying the tax if they can, even if they should. The system we have now might not be perfect, but I can't imagine any other system that would be better.

Not just age, also income. If your only source of income is SS and/or a pension, then I think they probably should be left off.

 

[Annie]

Not just age, also income. If your only source of income is SS and/or a pension, then I think they probably should be left off.

Again, what about 'working' in poverty? Let's say with 5 children?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Again, what about 'working' in poverty? Let's say with 5 children?

In a perfect world, it'd be nice to do that, but too many school districts are populated almost soley by the working poor, and if those people were exempted, then what little remains of those school systems would collapse.

 

[Annie]

In a perfect world, it'd be nice to do that, but too many school districts are populated almost soley by the working poor, and if those people were exempted, then what little remains of those school systems would collapse.

So how do we justify 'exempting' one group, by age and means testing? How is that fair/constitutional?