Skip to main content

How far will statists go to collect taxes? Making senior citizens "work it off"

This in thanks to Will Fox at the Libertarian Party of Delaware listserv:

Towns all over the country have a new idea for collecting property taxes from senior citizens on fixed incomes: put them to work for the town government at low wages to pay off their debts to society.

According to CNN such programs now exist in Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, and South Carolina.

What's truly bizarre is that this is presented as some kind of boon to seniors:

Scott Parkin, spokesman for the National Council on Aging, said the program sounded interesting, as long as it wasn't limited to menial work. "It's certainly in line with what we stand for, keeping seniors involved in work or volunteering as a part of healthy aging," he said.

Boulder County, Colorado, pioneered a tax workoff program in 1986 for residents over 60 and now has about 250 applicants for the fewer than 100 openings, said spokeswoman Barbara Halpin. The work done by the seniors includes landscaping, gathering climate data, clipping newspapers and staffing the courthouse information booth.

"Taxes aren't that high out here, so even at $7 an hour people can burn off their county taxes pretty quickly," Halpin said. She added that many stay in the program as volunteers after paying off their taxes.


These towns are collecting their property taxes from senior citizens through municipal jobs paying roughly $7.00-$8.50/hour.

What I'm wondering is where are all the people who complain that senior citizens having to go take low-paying jobs at McDonalds to make ends meet represents a failure of the "social safety net," but the government paying them the same rate (just to re-collect it as property taxes) somehow becomes a humanitarian initiative.

Comments

Paul Smith Jr. said…
I'd been meaning to post on that as well.

By this logic, taxes can be raised as high as the government wishes, and we can all work second jobs for the government. Retirees shouldn't be forced out of retirement due to government greed. If retires are forced to take out jobs due to taxes, that's an obvious sign taxes are just too high.
Well, at least the US is keeping queers in their place.
Brian Shields said…
Just to play devil's advocate...

If the senior was more responsible during her working lifetime, and built up enough of a nest egg to afford her lifestyle, this wouldn't be an issue.
Brian
Under some circumstances I'd agree with that, but in some parts of the country property values and property tax assessments have been rising so rapidly that there's no real way anybody could have planned to keep up.

Take an example from Maine, about a couple I know personally, who purchased a house 30 years ago for $80K. The assessed value of that house topped $600K around 2004, and the property tax rates there have gone up nine times in the past 20 years.

Of course you could argue that by liquidating their house these people could get out from under their tax debt, but think about the propriety of forcing you to sell property that you've already paid for because the government can continually raise both the taxes and the valuation (even if you have no plans to sell the property).

Something is haywire here.
Paul Smith Jr. said…
The issue Steve raises is apparently a very real on in areas like San Francisco which saw property values (and taxes) explode in the first part of this decade. Seniors who had owned their homes for decades were all of a sudden in a position where their homes had increased in value so much (and taxes had been raised so high) that they couldn't afford the taxes on their homes anymore.
Brian Shields said…
So, if I observe this right, if the tax percentage is going up, they get more in fax funds, then if the valuation goes up, that percentage is worth more, they are receiving even more taxes.

So these taxes are being squandered, rates rising to recover, and the lesson of budgeting is never learned.

Therefore a society exists where seniors are forced into slavery to pay the government because they can't get their act together.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...