their city property tax assessment.Not an unusual topic, particularly in times of economic difficulty, Dallas, Texas, is being pushed by a segment of its residents to look at increasing the property tax cut for senior and disabled residents, but is benching such taxing discussion for two weeks. Living in Richardson, Texas, I know it's coming on, again. The talk of freezing seniors' taxes (city property tax assessment or bill ). The idea comes around like clockwork here in Richardson. I hear the rumbling growing. There have been some politicians who were for it, spurred it on, because they knew it would get them some votes, before they ran the numbers and determined that they did not support it. (They were for it before they were against it, as the old saying goes). Unfortunately, at least two new councilmen are promoting the notion these days.
I say don’t do it. Really don’t do it for Richardson. Richardson has a higher percentage of its population falling into the "senior" category, the oldest population among area cities. There is a $50,000 senior homestead exemption already currently applied.
Freezing? It is certainly not equitable to cap city taxes for some (more than is already done) and shove more of the city funding needs onto others who in an estimated equal number of cases can no better pay for it. It is an old general pit game. Disability, poverty and need are one thing. The "isms" like ageism (age discrimination) and favortism are another.
I suspect sooner or later such a measure could be passed because those voting who benefit from the $50,000 protection comprise the bulk of muni voters. What is to stop them from voting themselves a greater tax reduction and shifting the costs of city services, projects and debt (even more) onto others who are already shouldering the higher amount of taxes (whose school taxes are not frozen and who are paying to feed and clothe the doctors, nurses and other workers of the future that everyone of us needs). Common sense of fairness if such exists coupled with the desire on some peoples' part to collect as much revenue as possible under their control at the city are two stops, but will those hold out? Will the 12% of Richardson's population who votes, who are more likely to be over age sixty-five, pass a measure if these councilmen are successful in bringing it to a vote, or residents put it on the ballot?
I could offer that because I may become the age of sixty-five it does not mean I stop flushing the toilet and driving on the roads and needing city services. If I am older, I am more likely than a younger person with a growing family to have my mortgage paid off or down. Fixed income? Whose is not? There are a thousand general comparison of who has what going on financially or who is inheriting what or who has capital and equity amassed. And there is nothing that stops vote hungry politicians from making loopy or pandering promises.
If taxes are to be legitimately reduced, spending must be cut or other sources of revenue found. When someone claims to have cut taxes, I rarely see that he has. I actually see government just shifting taxes or postponing them onto our children and grandchildren. Or, conveniently growing taxes to fit the increased revenue (brought on by increased appraisals). It is difficult to get a government to truly cut taxes on all of us legitimately (other than rhetorically) because there is an entrenched system and society built into place to protect what amounts to earmarks and shuttling of money (sometimes for unspecified uses), beyond basic services. Often times those responsible for raising taxes are those who want to vote only themselves a tax cut.
I hope the two councilmen who support the freezing, Omar and Macy, are listening. It is a bad policy idea, sirs. It is especially bad since you along with the leaders pushing and fixing the idea to raise our taxes in the way that it has unfolded promised the exact opposite. Mr. Omar, you specifically promised to cap spending and freeze taxes. You say you will work for a senior tax freeze this summer. Mr. Macy, you point a negative finger at people claiming they do not care about costs when the opposite is true, you fail to notice you have your own three fingers pointing back at you, you are in favor of cutting your own taxes but shifting them upon others.
Their conflicted positions do not make sense. I am questioning them both on this issue and not necessarily the other councilmen because the others make more sense on it (this one particular issue), or in Mr. Solomon's case, won't publicly state a position.
(Y’all's idea to shift taxes is about as bad an idea as Mr. Omar and Mr. Laska’s idea to put a moratorium on redevelopment on West Spring Valley. Of course anyone in their right mind would be for redevelopment. But not for your way. There is a real bad way to go about it and a moratorium is it. I could ask what you would do next, use eminent domain? That is something four of the others on council, Slagel, Townsend, Murphy, Mitchell, agreed to support in another redevelopment case.)
The senior city tax freeze idea is bad policy for Richardson. It won't pan out well for Richardson now or in the future if put into place.
