Taylor Armerding
It's always touching to hear about public officials and big-government advocates who are filled with compassion for the plight of certain favored people struggling to pay their property taxes.
But it is not authentic compassion that is coming out of Hamilton, the high-end, North Shore enclave. The faux compassion on display for the elderly is simply a cloak to justify the endless expansion of already profligate spending. The bill for this "compassion" will, of course, be dumped on everybody else in town, many of whom are also struggling to pay their property taxes but who don't qualify for compassion because they aren't old enough.
Apparently, enough people in town want it this way — at least those who took the time to vote. Town Meeting approved an article last year to give property tax breaks to certain seniors who, according to backers of the article, are having trouble paying their taxes. To qualify, they would have to be 65 or older and live within certain income limits. They would have to own the home and live there at least six months of the year. They would have to have lived in Hamilton for at least 10 years.
The article has now become a home-rule petition to the Legislature, submitted on the town's behalf by state Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich. And it looks like it will be approved.
If people in a town want to do something like that, they have the right. But that does not make it a good idea. It is a spectacularly awful idea that will set a terrible precedent.
Since when does it make sense for others to be forced to pay more property taxes so others can stay in their homes simply because they're older than 65 — especially when there are other options?
The argument that grandma is about to get thrown out on the street without this shifting of the tax burden is bogus. The ways for seniors to stay in their homes are multiple and generous. There are tax breaks available to them whether they are having financial trouble or not. The town can grant a yearly abatement and place a lien for that amount to be paid by the estate or when the house is sold. Or, owners can take out reverse mortgages.
Yes, their heirs may not inherit the property free of debt. But again, why is it the responsibility of other taxpayers to protect the kids' inheritance?
It ought to be a matter of basic personal responsibility to spend your own money before demanding that others spend money on you.
And what about younger couples who are equally or more deserving of compassion? Plenty of them are struggling to raise their children, supply them with food and clothes, and save for the astronomical costs of college education. Why shouldn't they get a tax break, courtesy of everybody else, to stay in Hamilton if they're having trouble?
The truth is this is much more about politics than it is about compassion. Elders tend to be more fiscally conservative. They tend to vote. So many times the elderly vote can sink a proposed override.
But why not vote for an override if you don't have to pay for it?
It goes against the core principles of democracy — that everyone should be invested in the community and that people should be encouraged to vote, not given bribes to stay home.
We already have class warfare. This is another step toward generational warfare.
¢¢¢
Taylor Armerding of Ipswich is associate editorial page editor of The Eagle-Tribune in North Andover and a regular columnist.
