(1) I think that there are better forms of tax than the property tax. I would prefer to gradually abolish it entirely in favor of generating revenues from other sources (consumption taxes).

(2) I can see LaVar’s point in a way, because the elderly are on a fixed income. In principle, though, I don’t agree with it. The way to solve the overall problem is not to favor the elderly, (although I went against the principle by voting for freezing their water bills when I was on a city council). It is, rather, to get rid of inflation, and the most sure way to do that is to return to the Gold Standard. (How’s that for coming out of left field!)

You rightly point out that singling out the elderly to protect them against ever increasing tax assessments at a stage in life when their fixed income levels cannot sustain it could result in a tax shift to other taxpayers. This only occurs if government insists on maintaining its current level of spending and, thus, refuses to accept any reduction in revenue.

Even if overall spending is reduced to the point where younger property owners don’t have to see an increase in their property taxes, you still have a relative increase in taxes since they won’t be seeing the tax cut (at least not now, I assume they would when they get older).

Thus Jeremy is right, this plan would divert taxes from elderly individuals who can easily afford to pay their property taxes, to younger people, raising families, with lower incomes.

The ability to pay has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with income and dependents. Why would we want to give a tax cut to someone who can easily pay the tax by pushing the burden on to someone who can’t.

If you’re overall goal is to reduce government size and budget, giving a cut to all property tax payers, or, better yet, expanding the relief to low income property owners would still achieve your goal, without unjustifiably burdening the younger and middle aged taxpayers who are working to raise their families.

Especially in your mockery of those who keep a “bail of hay, or a horse” on their land. Jeremy’s criticism has led to an exchange in the comments here than your original post offers to the debate.

Many would make the same assumption Jeremy did if they were to read only your post, and not what Jeremy has written here. I did.

Thanks Jeremy.

Cheers.

I’m not sure what you wanted done in the last two comments…would you like me to remove them?

I’ve already linked to Mr. Christensen’s original blog post…are you requesting that I link again to inform readers that he has commented here on my blog and on his?

was taken down off this site

Thank you for your comment. I am sorry that you falsely assumed that my views are directed at “reliable voters” as some sort of “political pandering”. Perhaps you were just expressing a healthy concern about politics, which I share. You may not have read my other posts – “A Call to Good Citizens Everywhere” (which explains the website’s goal and objective to provide a forum wherein we can identify and discuss the principles that should guide and control government action) and “Keeping a Lid on It” (the constant need to control the size and scope of our government).

You have raised a very important principle that must be considered to make any property tax relief fair and comprehensive. You rightly point out that singling out the elderly to protect them against ever increasing tax assessments at a stage in life when their fixed income levels cannot sustain it could result in a tax shift to other taxpayers. This only occurs if government insists on maintaining its current level of spending and, thus, refuses to accept any reduction in revenue. I assure you that my only motivation is a sincere desire to meet a real need in a fair, balanced and equitable way. The point that you raise is part of those considerations.

As a general proposition, “uniform and equal” property taxes work well. However, there must always be sufficient flexibility to handle individual applications on a case by case basis and not through a “one size fits all” because it doesn’t. A fair and balanced tax break for the elderly could be uniform and equal because everyone will, in their own time, reap that same benefit. Please do not mistake my proposal as a blanket “freeze” on current tax rates. Principled discussion, dialogue and debate involves exploring a wide range of options. For example, a deferral rather than an outright abatement may be the way to go. I sited the current “greenbelt taxes” that give relief to agriculture property (even what isn’t really agricultural anymore) as precedent for how a limited residential “greenbelt” deferral could work. The back and forth discussions that we are able to have through this blog exchange are what happens in Legislative Committees. That is where elected representatives go back and forth and beat up on ideas and Bills until they arrive at a point that adequately takes into account competing views and priorities.

I believe there are inefficiencies in government and that it should not continually grow each year without close scrutiny and periodic reductions where circumstances will allow. Over the past ten years in Utah, our state budget has nearly doubled from approximately $6 billion per year to nearly $12 billion as projected for 2008. (This includes a heavy dependence on receipt of Federal funds, which further adds to the taxpayer’s overall tax burden). Utah state government growth was among the fastest of all states in the 1990s. At the local level (and I agree that the government closest to us is best understood and managed), each city, county, school district, etc has its own corresponding accountability to the taxpayers. In every case, every penny that government takes is a hard earned penny that required toil by citizens. As you so nobly acknowledged, we support reasonable taxation for the good of all. However, we have a right and a duty to speak up and do all we can to make sure tax levels and methods are strictly necessary and equitable. Regarding property taxes, that discussion will continue in the coming Legislative session.

Thank you for adding to an open exchange regarding the principles that should guide this and all similar debates about public policy, taxation and government spending.

Christensen is Utah’s version of Mike Huckabee: very conservative on social issues and moderate at best on fiscal issues. To cover up his fiscal moderation, Christensen plays up to elderly home owners.