Would You Support a Tax for Seniors?
Decatur Metro | October 4, 2010 | 3:07 pmAs the Federal debt grows and the U.S. economy stagnates, an increasing number of Michigan communities are taking on old (no pun intended) responsibilities.
In 63 of Michigan’s 83 counties, dwindling federal and state dollars have been supplemented with countywide senior-dedicated millages.
The taxes bring in millions of dollars that help senior citizens stay in their homes and access health care and legal help.
…Despite a shattered state economy, every millage across the state dedicated to senior funding passed, including a quarter-mill levy in three communities along the western edge of Oakland County.
In counties without a millage, senior centers and social service agencies rely on dwindling state and federal money, unpredictable funding from the general fund of local governments, private donations, grants and even bake sales.
Incidentally, Georgia has the fifth youngest median age in the country at 34.9 years. Still, it’s an interesting question for anyone effected by an overextended federal government.
h/t: Otis White
Depends…
How much are ya gonna tax em?
The article answers this. It starts with a tiny amount — only $70 per 100 grand of appraised value, or something along those lines. So only ogres would oppose it, right? Then it grows incrementally over time, and, before anyone realizes it, it becomes real money. Of course, by then the tax has a group of beneficiaries who are essentially “vested” in the money, and it can’t possibly be taken away.
Let me think about this . . . . NO.
To begin with, government programs for “legal help?” Uh, no. If you need a lawyer, dip into your own pocket.
As for staying in your own home: stay as long as you like. Just pay for it yourself. While I might agree to pay more taxes to keep seniors from eating out of garbage cans, I feel no compunction to pay for their lifestyle of choice. My own lifestyle is limited by what I can afford. Why should that be different if/when I turn 65?
Here’s another reason. Many current and soon-to-be seniors saved nothing throughout their lifetimes, especially rapidly aging baby boomers. They spent every dime, and, having done so, now claim poverty and want to dip even further into my pocket (in addition to the massive federal dollars they already consume). I for one don’t care to retroactively subsidize their decades of over consumption. I realize this does not apply to everyone, but for many, it does.
When I become a senior citizen, I won’t need to tap my kids’ bank accounts. That’s because I saved my money when I was working, avoided foolish purchases, and lived within my means. Amazing how that works.
I hope your confidence in your own means and savings is not exaggerated. IMHO, the world is changing so rapidly and unpredictably, that it is hard to count on anything with confidence.
IMHO, the world is changing so rapidly and unpredictably, that it is hard to count on anything with confidence.
_________________
It has always been thus.
Sorta weird how that the very over-consumption you cite helps out your 401k’s bottom line, isn’t it?
Past over consumption doesn’t help the market, which is chiefly concered with future earnings. I’m not too big on the 401(k) anyway. Not a big fan of “guess your future tax rate” investing.
I’m saying that future earnings and the demand for endless growth is tied to over consumption. The market encourages it.
A Roth man, eh?
I’m fully vested in lotto tickets.
Nice enough you have an income that allows you to do that. And you have no idea what you are talking about when you say people should dip into “their own pocket” for a lawyer. You really don’t.
How do you know what my income is? I forgot — you don’t. You really don’t, as you might say. Interesting how you post from total ignorance of the facts and then conclude by claiming I’ve committed the same mistake.
When you proclaim that you are saving for retirement, one must assume you have an income that allows to you save for retirement. Otherwise, you are lying.
I think it is fair to presume I have an income. I think it is also fair to read my post, which related to living within my means and avoiding foolish purchases. Read — spending habits, as opposed to income. But go ahead and assume I am lying, I don’t care.
Those things are still tied together – your income is sufficient enough that you can make choices. People on limited or low income simply can’t make choices the same way. I work with poverty populations and have for a decade. Trust me, at certain level, your choices are among toilet paper, paying the rent on time and scrounging $5 so your kid has reduced hot meals at school, not choosing to avoid restaurants so you can save little bit more, for example, or downsizing your house to save money. At certain levels, you are living in the only dump you can afford.
Congratulations on discovering a fool-proof method of avoiding catastrophic illness and disabling accidents in your lifetime!
It is a “seniors tax” not a tax solely for “victims of disabling accidents or catastrophic illnesses.” In other words, it’s one thing to offer help to those who truly need it through no fault of their own. Simply being old doesn’t qualify. Or is it your position that Bernie Marcus should get a government check because he is 80 years old?
Of course all of us but the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts of the world might have horrible circumstances that exhaust even well-funded savings accounts. That is beside my point, which is that many, many seniors didn’t bother to save at all (and many non-senior boomers continue to save nothing).
I think others in this thread have expressed it better, but my point was simply that sometimes living within one’s means and being responsible throughout one’s life does not always equal a livable retirement.
DEM, consider the economic basis for supporting aging in place. The average cost of nursing home care in Georgia is over $62,000 per year. (See http://www.longtermcare.gov.) Services provided in people’s homes and neighborhoods cost a fraction of that amount, even for the frailest elders. Helping people age in place saves taxpayers considerable money.
Frankly, I’m not thrilled about paying high Decatur taxes to fund schools that my childless family doesn’t use, but I accept that contributing to the greater public good is the right thing to do. It’s a responsibility of living in a compassionate, progressive society.
Yes, and we all benefit from living in a Decatur that is considered a great community for families, even if only some of us still have children in school, because it keeps home values up, crime down, and smiles on faces. So many in this thread have expressed things I feel so well. I’m getting a little heartened. The greater public good has value for everyone, the ostensible givers as well the takers. We are all takers to some degree. Even my libertarian brother who ran for an office so he could abolish it. (He lost). He has yet to figure out how to drive to visit me without going on a public road. Where the conversation gets dicey is how much give and take is appropriate and all the who, where, when, and why.
We already give senior citizens a property tax break.
In theory, I do support the notion of helping our senior citizens. But, frankly, some of them are in homes that are a lot nicer than mine, and some of them have a lot more money than I do.
But every time a senior citizen measure gets on the ballot, it passes.
I think, DEM, that it’s possible to be frugal and work hard and end up bankrupt at the end of life because of unfortunate circumstances.
Of course it is possible. But it isn’t particularly likely that a frugal person who has saved and invested for lifetime will be destitute at age 70. In any event, my point is that there are many people who “need” the money simply because they saved nothing, not because they saved assiduously only to be bankrupted by unforseen events.
“But it isn’t particularly likely that a frugal person who has saved and invested for lifetime will be destitute at age 70.”
Because the 7-12 bucks an hour people made in the 70s and 80′s will take you through the rest of your life. They probably have way more than they know what to do with!
I ran an inflation calculator just for the fun of it. $12/hour in 1973 — a random example from your date range — was equivalent to $57/hour in 2009.
That’s pretty interesting actually. Did it provide any calculations for the “life happens” variables and what would be left after that?
DEM- I have family from an extremely rural place and I have seen first hand that poverty amongst seniors is real, and it’s actually very very sad. .
It’s quite easy to ignore when you’re in the city or a metro neighborhood because people don’t see it everyday. I get that. I just don’t happen to agree with your view of these people or how they got that way. I would support a tax, and you would not. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree. It’s nothing too personal on either side I’m sure.
With each passing day I find the idea increasingly attractive.
The title can be can be read more than one way: Is this a tax tax on seniors or a tax for serving seniors?
“For serving seniors” — it’s a cookbook! A cookbook!
We need to do everything we can to save our seniors.
I’m thinking canning in mason jars.
A tax that supports seniors, not a tax on seniors.
Considering the looming explosion of baby boomers, I think we’d be better off placing a tax ON seniors.
Given that my kids will inherit trillions upon trillions of government debt, I would support a tax ON seniors.
So anybody who voted for the administration that actually created a budget surplus would be exempt?
No. Anyone who was a peacetime taxpayer since the budget deficit exploded (circa mid 70s) owes our future generations a lot of dough.
Thee partisan game is a large part of why this has happened. TeeRuss don’t play that.
To assume that poor planning has led seniors into poverty is unfair.
Being bankrupted by a medical condition is not uncommon, and if you are not, it can certainly eat up every penny they may have. Medicare DOES NOT cover all medicines and all treatments. It is not uncommon for seniors to pay hundreds a month on medications, or go without.
If there is anything I have learned from Clark Howard it’s that seniors are the easiest targets of scam artists and victims of con-artist contractors. If you give someone your savings of 5k to get a new roof, you may not have money for a lawyer. I could understand where that may be a useful and needed service.
As far as their house is worth more than mine, perhaps it is. But if they bought it 40 years ago and some loan shark convinced them to refinance, would it really be a benefit to the neighborhood to have these people removed?
The examples I gave were very specific but I’m just trying to point out that there are many many reasons someone may find themselves in need of assistance in their later years.
I feel like someone in my position would have no excuse. But I imagine if you retired 25 years ago thinking you were set, it would have been absolutely unbelievable back then to imagine where things would be today.
Maybe some people retire and are still able to live on a windfall of cash, but I don’t think that is the norm.
Of all the garbage the government taxes people on, this isn’t the absolute most atrocious in my opinion. And perhaps it’s needed. But that’s just my opinion of course
Sometimes it is not a problem of poor planning, but can also be the refusal to face facts as they emerge during a long life. Before I retired, I downsized from a 3-br home to a 2-br apartment and have remained in an apartment since retirement. I also have maintained 1/2 time employment, which not everyone can do. My “retirement fund” to which I and my employer contributed for over 30 years has decreased in value by ~ 30%. What if I were still in my car-centric 3-br home at this point? I would feel up-against-the-wall. Being in an apartment with no maintenance expenses has saved my sanity, for sure. And it has forced me to dispossess lots of “things” that I find I didn’t need anyway. Now, what is the next step for me? I can’t assume I’ll be able to work 1/2 time forever, so obvious budget cuts will be needed. So maybe I’ll find a 1-br apartment and shed more “things” and thus be able to lower my rent expenses. I think health issues will be the only thing that can actually force me out of my own home at this point, and there are only so many options once that monster strikes. Aging-in-place is a popular concept for elderly people, and it would be nice to think I can do that, but life does not come with guarantees of any kind, no matter how wise/unwise one is. If I am to pay a tax to enable seniors to stay in their homes, I would expect to see them make some decisions to facilitate that, because if I can downsize and dispossess, so can they.
Great points and beautifully written – thanks Chira.
I’m depending on my children to marry wealthy. I forgot to.
Now that was funny.
Absolutley not! Like everyone else seniors need to pay their your own way. The were not always seniors… they had every opportunity to do what they needed to do for themselves to prepare for their old age.
This is just like Medicaid, TANF, foodstamps, WIC etc… enabling many people to live off of the work and taxes of others…. delaying or preventing the recipeint from ever really experiencing the true impact of their poor choices and bad decisions.
Some of these comments are so disheartening.
People’s absolute inability to realize that there is REAL suffering amongst seniors is a little surprising.
Some people live hand to mouth and have their whole lives. Not everyone has ever been a homeowner, had a pension, or some other sort of retirement plan.
Poverty amongst seniors is real and people’s contempt towards those in need is honestly scary.
I agree. It’s so discouraging that all I can think to do is post jokes. I can’t counter a life view so different from my mine with facts or assertions.
Well, you’re free to send these poor, needy seniors all the money/services/help you want. No one is stopping you. So why be “honestly scared” for their plight? Just go ahead and send them all the money you want.
What scares me isn’t that anyone has a different life view than I do. It’s that they want to impose their life view on me by force of law. It’s not that YOU want to help seniors. It’s that you want ME to help seniors or go to jail if I don’t remit the additional tax.
And keep in mind the senior tax we’re talking about is in addition to the substantial federal money already shipped off to AARP members. It’s not exactly like they’re being left in the streets to starve. All of us 30-somethings are already paying into a government-run pension system that is funding current seniors’ benefits but will be bankrupt when we retire.
What scares me is that people like you don’t understand that a civil society is based on creating opportunity and safety nets for ALL citizens. I don’t necessarily agree with this type of tax, but I do believe in using tax revenue to create equal opportunity for people. Which our current system tries and fails wonderfully to do.
Wow, you seem really angry at seniors. Life is a bit more nuanced than the way you are depicting it.
DEM- My comment was actually that the contempt shown for those in need was “honestly scary.”
But thanks for twisting my words to fit your beliefs. And as I said previously, we will have to agree to disagree. I also said I didn’t believe it was personal, but I can clearly see that’s where you’re intent on taking it.
Did not mean to twist your words, and if I did, I stand corrected.
Apparently, it’s preferable to let multitudes suffer rather than risk a few getting help they don’t deserve.
This is going to sound bitter, but I honestly believe that some of the most smug and self-righteous folks will eventually encounter truly catastrophic circumstances and be forced to learn–the hard, hard way–that much ill fortune is NOT self-inflicted and that a truly civilized society takes the opposite view: better to let some undeserving receive help than risk a few suffering needlessly.
On this issue, I share your world view completely: “….better to let some undeserving receive help than risk a few suffering needlessly.” I really like it the way you put this. (It probably comes from some famous text like the Bible or Churchill and I’m showing my ignorance!). Others see the world differently. We are all free to go vote as we see fit and let our representatives know how we stand.
It’s mine, actually, but I’m flattered.
Rebecca,
I don’t believe that anyone posting here is insensitive to needy seniors. I believe that anyone here would gladly choose to help out most anyone in need. The issue for many of us is whether we want to be told that we MUST support this endeavor through additional taxes and if so how does the govenment ensure that only those who are in need through no fault of their own receive the benfit.
Just because you and I might agree that providing support to a particular individual is worthy does not give you the right to take my wallet from my pocket to offer that support.
Couldn’t of said it better. Having read every post people are confusing the emotional issue of helping seniors vs. being forced to via a tax. I believe in helping the less fortunate but to a point that gets them to be “less fortunate”. Also, if there circumstances have been brought on by their actions or they have refused to downsize or live within their means (all the points Chira mentioned) than I am against it..
Agree.
Some of these comments are so disheartening.
People’s absolute inability to realize that there is going to be REAL suffering amongst future generations is a little surprising.
Some people will live hand to mouth their whole lives. Not everyone will be a homeowner, have an education, or some sort of job with a future.
Poverty amongst future generations is real and people’s contempt towards those in need is honestly scary
But thoughtful people must examine what helps lift people out of poverty. I see well-meaning federal programs that aim to lift people out of poverty that just have locked in generations after generation to poverty. Shouldn’t there be an incentive for people to save, be frugal and support themselves?
I’m not against helping people who need it. I’m against broadscale offering help and services to people because of their age. Some older folks aren’t poor.
I looked at the article again after all these comments and I think we’re having a discussion about our own personal philosophies, not about the article. I don’t see where it’s offering something “free” to wealthy seniors. It talks about helping those having trouble with utility bills–obviously that’s not wealthy seniors. It talks about multiple sources of funding, not just public, including donations, fund-raising, and fees. It talks about senior centers–well, us “young” folk have things like Decatur Rec. Nowhere does it say that there’s no fees at all for these services. My guess is that there’s sliding scale fees like everywhere else and the wealthy pay full price. It’s making services available that wouldn’t otherwise be available at any cost. And these services save money. They also help out the younger family members who, wealthy or not, are going to have the emotional and physical toll of caring for their elderly if they aren’t kept healthy.
I’m sure some still are not in favor of this. But it’s not as extreme a proposal as some of the comments, pro and con, are making it out to be.
Here’s some quotes:
–”Voters “realize the value of it,” she said. “The seniors get out to vote, but their kids — seeing their moms and dads being out and being active — they support it, too. “Tell me, why fund people only after they get sick and need a nursing home? Why not help fund [us] to keep people healthy?”
– Things are tight, but she said she wouldn’t blink at a supporting a tax for senior citizens. The reasoning, she said, is simple: “They built up the country the way it is, and they deserve to be taken care of.” A model for the country.
– For example, helping them stay in their homes through occasional home-based medical care, light housekeeping and cash assistance for utility bills or wheelchair ramps keeps them out of nursing homes and hospitals. And all of this eases the burdens on caregivers, too.
– “Taking care of seniors is taking care of (the rest of) us; it’s that simple,” Bridgewater said.
Oh, and I should have added that the tone of the article is that it’s talking about the WWII generation more than those selfish, lazy, spendthrift baby boomers.
So what if they are paying some of the cost? They are still taking money by force to pay for some of the cost. As you noted, this includes not just life-saving medical care or the like, but things like “light housekeeping.” Ah yes, the root of modern civilization right there — taxing folks so granda doesn’t have to dust her own furniture. And let’s see, there are some other things you left out:
“In 2008, Monroe County voters were asked to renew a 0.5-mill levy that supports things such as a medical van to help senior citizens and others get to doctors’ appointments, activities like Tai Chi and Zumba, and senior volunteer programs.”
I too would like to take Tai Chi and Zumba. Where do I apply for my local grant? Oh wait, you want ME to pay for it myself? Doesn’t sound very compassionate. Civil society kind of requires others to pay for some of my Tai Chi lessons, no?
“Since 1982, residents in Rochester, Rochester Hills and Oakland Township have paid a quarter-mill tax that supports the Older Persons’ Commission and the OPC Center, one of the premier senior centers in the country — a facility featuring lap and therapeutic pools, a walking track, sparkling fountains and an atrium, not to mention countless rec activities and even international trips.”
Services not available at any cost, you say? Pools, walking tracks, fountains and an atrium? Really? These folks can’t manage to find a YMCA? Oh, and “international trips.” Thank goodness those are subsidized by a quarter mil tax. Hey, I want to go to Austria when I am 65. So you folks — or at least your kids — had better get ready to pony up. No way am I paying for that myself.
“At the center in Rochester, there’s a coffee shop and a health clinic, as well as courts for basketball, badminton and other sports. Senior Olympians train there; senior citizens also can book international trips organized by staff.”
More services that wouldn’t be available at any cost — coffee shops. basketball courts. badminton. Yes, coffee shops. Nowhere to get coffee if you don’t tax the young folks for it.
Seriously, there are very likely some senior services that we would all agree need to be provided from tax revenues. No one is claiming seniors should be left to rot, cut off from medical care, etc. But some of this stuff is ridiculous.
Again, some of you folks want to provide it — congratulations. Go ahead and mail your checks. I personally feel I am paying far more than my fair share already, even before the coming feeral tax hike, and don’t want to fly your grandma to Paris, pay for her Tai Chi, ensure she has access to a pool, and can walk on a track as opposed to a sidewalk.
If 80% of the voters wanted it, then they aren’t taking it by force. If the 20% who didn’t want it don’t like it and feel forced, they have options like moving to areas that do not have the tax or working to have the initiative overturned on the next ballot. I don’t understand how this is force when the majority- the wide majority- chooses it.
“I too would like to take Tai Chi and Zumba. Where do I apply for my local grant?”
To answer your question, DEM, the YMCA offers a sliding scale of fees for the poor and indigent. It is quite easy to apply for, simply ask at the membership desk and they will be happy to help you.
I’m unsure why Dem is so riled up about this. In the article 80 percent of the taxpayers voted for it. They obviously wanted it, whether for compassionate reasons or other. Democracy in action!
Anyway, a lot of these programs seem to stress socialization and health, which are incredibly important for seniors. My family relied on hospice care back home in North Carolina for my grandmother and great-uncle, because they were so poor and had always been so (we were too). I think that if we’d had access to something like this, even before they were ill, my elder family’s quality of life would have been much improved. I hope something like this exists when I grow old.
Oh, and if you actually look up the senior center mentioned in the article (http://www.opcseniorcenter.org/homepage.html) you’ll see that nobody is going on international trips for free. I don’t have first hand experience with this Senior Center, but after perusing their website they seem to offer a lot to the community.
What gets us riled up in Decatur: Children and dogs in restaurants, school issues, Dollar General, zombies, parking, farm to table, and…..greedy seniors. There are times that I wish I had still had the myopic view I had of Decatur before I started reading this blog.
As you’ve often said to me on CSD issues where we’ve disagreed, don’t confuse the opinions of DM posters with the larger opinions of an entire community.